More On Save Enterprise Donations

Malfourmed writes "TrekUnited.com today announced that three anonymous contributors from the commercial spaceflight industry have stepped forward with a $3 million pledge toward the campaign to ensure a fifth season for the recently cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise. The benefactors explained why they believe this campaign deserves such a substantial contribution: 'We think Star Trek and especially its latest incarnation, Enterprise is the kind of TV that should be aired more often. The people responsible at Paramount think this is just a show and we want to tell them, it is not. We are in the commercial space flight industry and would like to testify that at least one out of two of all the actual entrepreneurs involved in this industry has been inspired by Star Trek; and we are not only good at watching TV sci-fi , we are also good at writing checks, big checks. The people airing this kind of TV have a responsibility; inspiration.' " We reported on this a few days ago, but this is more info about the largest donors.

Comments

Well

[elid]

Does anyone know how much a season of production costs? Even 3 million may not be enough....

Did this happen...

[kunwon1]

...when TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager were cancelled? I mean, I know that the fans have almost always been unanimous in their objections when one of the Treks have been cancelled, but are these huge monetary donations precedented?

My point is this:

Are people concerned about the series being cancelled, or are they concerned about the series being cancelled without another Trek incarnation on the horizon?

Re:Did this happen...

[snooo53]

I think people are more concerned that the series is being cancelled just as it is starting to get good. All the other series, except for TOS, had a good run and were then gracefully let go rather than cancelled. For a perfect example of what happens when you let a series go too long just look at X-Files. After the 7th season, the two main actors hardly wanted to be in it anymore, and the producers start adding gimmicks like throwing a baby into the mix; the one thing guaranteed to kill a show.

I think that people aren't so concerned about the lack of another Trek series on the horizon, but the fact that this one is being cancelled just as we are getting good plots and good characterization. Yes, B&B made some tremendous mistakes the first 3 seasons, but the show should be judged on the merits of *this* season, not the mistakes of the past.

Enterprise cancellation did not deter Berman

[Xpilot]

They're making yet another Star Trek movie!

I am a Trek Fan

[drewzhrodague]

Yes, I have been inspired by Star Trek, but I do not work on space vehicles, or even pieces of them -- I wish I did.

Star Trek, and other Sci-Fi shows have influenced me since I was a small kid, with images of Captain Kirk and the Gorn duking it out. My Pop and I would watch, and have discussions of the future all throughout my childhood, adolescense, and (whatever excuse for) adulthood.

Trek is Trek, and I appreciate even Captain janeway and her personal issues to shows depicting people less interesting than I with their goofy friends.

Because of Star Trek (in any format), my goal is to help build the future.

True. Very True

[eno2001]

Star Trek the Original series is where I first learned the word "computer" when I was a three year old (c. 1973). The next week I tried to build one using all my wind up toys, string and the legs of the kitchen table. My mom asked what I was doing and I said, "building a computer". It was an obsession that continues to this day. At that age, Star Trek posed the concept to me of a machine that could figure anything out and answer all my questions. What child wouldnt' be inspired by that?

Brings up a good question

[Anonymous Coward]

If fans raise the money to get the show made, who gets the ad money, future royalties, etc? If they made a DVD set, would any money be paid back to the people donating?

Re:Um... no.

[FireBug]

Have they watched it? If so, have they ever seen things like ST:TNG, Babylon 5, Firefly, or even Battlestar Galactica?
If they had, they'd realise there's better things to do with their money, no matter how much "better" this last season was.

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have always felt the Star Trek franchise is more oriented towards "exploration" and general scientific curiosity. Don't get me wrong here, Enterprise and TNG had (have?) plenty of soap-opera-ish drama , but there's just something about them that appeals more to the curiosity than the rest.

Battlestar Galactica is a great show, but the premise is "run like hell and save our asses". I loved Firefly and Babylon 5 just as much, but only Babylon 5 ever really explored the interactions between cultures/species. Star Trek generally always explores "strange new worlds" and "new life and new civilizations" in some way or another. That's what appeals to me, and I believe those who donated money think along the same lines. Star Trek stimulates the mind and brings out the curiosity in us --- that's why it's "needed".

Re:Um... no.

[Kombat]

I do wonder if this money would be better spent alleviating the human misery in Sudanese refugee camps instead of making sure we get one more TV season of actors with forehead bumps.

I am so sick of this red herring fallacy. There is always something more worthwhile to spend our money on. How can the government give money to the military when our schools and hospitals are so desperately in need of cash? How can they fund public television? Why don't they just raise taxes, and give every last cent to foreign aid, completely eliminating all funding for all other programs? I mean, how can anyone cash their unemployment/social security check with a clear conscience, knowing that there are people starving somewhere?

We should balance our funding. Yes, of course we should provide money to other causes, but your argument is the top of a slippery slope that ends with the conclusion that we should devote ALL our money to the most worthy cause, with NO money for any other cause. This is clearly silly. Other programs are important too. Just because they're not as important as other programs doesn't mean they should forfeit their funding, it merely means it should be balanced and justified.

Plus, it's THEIR MONEY. They can spend it however they want. Would you want someone coming to your house and criticising you like that? "Do you really need a TV, an internet connection, and name-brand groceries? Why don't you take the bus instead of owning a car, and give the difference to charity? Do you really need a house? Couldn't you get by just fine in a small apartment, and instead donate that money to charity? Why are you buying new clothes instead of just borrowing from others? Why are you drinking beer, when that $5 would innoculate an African child against several life-threatening diseases? How can you not hate yourself for not feeling the guilt you should over your outrageously self indulgent lifestyle, with your 'groceries' and '50 channels of TV'?"

Sounds great!!!!!!

[UES]

Now, how much are they going to pay me to watch it?

I watch Stargate-SG1 for free. So do a lot of other people. Some of them buy DVD sets. So many people watch Stargate-SG1 relative to its cost that they have a spinoff show, Stargate Atlantis. The fine folks at Stargate-SG1 are also going into Season Nine (a feat no Star Trek has ever achieved), with no cancellation in sight, despite having switched networks and being on a cable channel rather than broadcast (which AUTOMATICALLY means a smaller potential audience).

Enterprise does not need deep-pocketed donors to be a success. It needed more viewers. UPN/Paramount will not run a "subsidized" show not only because of the myriad rights issues, but because they can put something that could be more successful in the timeslot. They ALREADY KNOW Enterprise cannot draw an audience. It's worth the risk if they can get the next 'American Idol' or 'Desperate Housewives' in the slot instead.

The now-revived Family Guy had extremely robust DVD sales and a good syndication deal with TBS and Cartoon Network. Let's see how many people buy the Enterprise DVDs. If it's only the usual gang of sad anoraks(which it likely will be due to pricing alone*), Star Trek will be dead for a long long time.

For those of you arguing that Enterprise was 'screwed' by the network, I would ask why is it that a show with the #1 genre franchise name (Star Trek), starring a good actor with a fan following (Scott Bakula), on broadcast TV with a wide audience, failed? The short answer is: crap show.

Battlestar Galactica is based on a laughable cheesefest from 1978, is on cable, is a 'downer' show (mostly sad endings), and lacks a strong franchise fan following. Yet, is is very successful. Why? It's a good show with interesting scripts and good acting. No one EVER reverses polarities, engages in Temporal Cold War (whatever the fsck that is), or deals with spacial or temporal anomalies. Star Trek is giving its hardcore fans exactly what they want. Too bad everyone else is bored with it.

* If you want to buy the Original Series, Next Generation, or DS9 on DVD it's US$100 per season. Compare with Buffy/Angel at US$50 per season, and The Simpsons at US$40 per season.

better quote- "not just a TV show"

[SuperBanana]

You missed the better quote:

The people responsible at Paramount think this is just a show and we want to tell them, it is not.

Somebody's forgetting that television shows were developed not to entertain, but to keep people around for the ads. That has not changed for half a century, except in its sophistication.

These people exemplify the worst trait of science fiction TV show fans- they don't realize that it is JUST A TV SHOW. It's not a religion, or a philosophy. It's a TV show. Made by a business. Played out by actors.