Slashdot Mirror
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.
Even on the long shot that they DO manage to squeeze another season out of paramount, I doubt that they'll be able to juice it for a full 7-season run like every other trek series (save the original series)
Does anyone know how much a season of production costs? Even 3 million may not be enough....
What's a doner?
I think it's nice sentiment but ultimately ineffective. You're trying to tell arrogant people with enormous egos that they're wrong. They don't want to hear that. Unless their board is energized by powerful stockholders, they don't have to hear that. Good try, though.
Rb
...but I can't bring myself to pay to keep hearing that horrible opening theme. If they would promise to get a new theme, I would cough up some duckets.
Why not give the money on the condition that they're gone? That'd be better for the future of Trek than anything else.
"We think Star Trek and especially its latest incarnation, Enterprise is the kind of TV that should be aired more often."
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.
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
...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?
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
Ahhhh....It's a dupe! I thought I stuck in a spatial distortion cause by a port lacelle malfunction that caused a rift in the space time continuum.
to keep the show, and not enough to keep the title song
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
They're making yet another Star Trek movie!
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
What TV shows did Neil Armstrong and Gene Kranz get inspired by to ACTUALLY GET TO THE MOON!?
If this is true, Star Trek should sit on the bench for a good 15 years or so.
(Found this on a random messageboard)
Oh Fuck it...Trip dies at the end and the episode is a holographic program on the holodeck of the Enterprise-D (yes...D as in how DUMB can you get!)which Riker and Troi are observing. The series itself is not a hologram program, but the likelihood of bringing it back after this bullshit is practically zero. You may now commense your saber rattling. Q
-carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Figure between one and two million per episode, so a ballpark number for a season would be thirty million.
I wonder if three million is enough to buy out Berman's contract and get him to retire, which would really save Star Trek.
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.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Later in the thread that the above post appears in it's explained that although the funds were not actually transferred to the campaign (can you imagine the Paypal fee on three million bucks?!), a contract was signed formalising the pledge, hence the reason for the delay in announcing the donation.
a world in progress...
.. a fool and his money are soon parted.
The difference between "news" and "entertainment" stories is that news stories are ongoing, while entertainment ends with the punchline. Because news is just messages about the real world, where events have consequences and interrelationships. I know it's hard to recognize news, now that all the TV, radio, newspaper and other media that call themselves "news" are really just killing time, giving the weatherman a straightline, or spinning something politically damaging. But real news requires updates and context, and often has wild tangents that tell compelling details about something important, without any celebrity gossip. We now return you to your regularly scheduled infotainvert.
--
make install -not war
If the fans manage to cough up enough to pay for another season of Enterprise, does that mean it will air with no commercials?
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?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
However, Enterprise is horrible... Voyager was bad... but Enterprise is REALLY bad. I know im really drawing straws between determining which one is worse... but that really is non releveant to the point.
The show was and is very terribly made and is even contradictory to what the intentions of gene rodenberys universe were. It's lost it's multi-culturalism, the founding principle and indeed the trademark difference star trek brought from it's very first iteration throughout the rest of it's tenure. "Enterprise" is nearly an all-white western crew with the exception of a black driver and a vulcan.
This is NOT the vision of our future Gene painted, and it is NOT star trek.
I understand the fans love this show for some strange reason, or maybe they simply love the Star Trek universe and will bear the burden of this worst incarnation just to keep it going... but i believe their efforts... and money.... would much better spent on getting paramount to create a new quality star trek true to its roots.
Abandon the scot bacula, the country western intro, the nearly all-white and all-western crap of a show theyve created, and return to what star trek was supposed to be.
If you havent forgotten, Trek was supposed to be about a HOPE for humanities united front against "the final frontier". At last mankinds differences werent as great as the difficulties in facing a diverse and strange universe beyond our little backwater pond of a planet.
This money should be spent creating a show with better writers, a better cast and crew, and something far more canon than they have been. I would much rather see the rise of anything at least on the level of deep space nine, than any continuance of this voyager "enterprise" drivel.
3 million could at least hire better writers, and change the cast.
Lastly, these guys hit it on the head when they said that star trek's important role in our society is inspiration, there is no doubt it's had a cultural impact of untold magnitude by instilling the grandest dreams in our children of decades ago to even now with the belief that we could at least try to make this great society of our future. An earth united, and the stars at our footsteps... let us not let it be so easily trampled upon by cheap writers and bad marketers.
--Vision
Just my 2c.
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
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?
This isn't CNN, pal. Maybe you missed the "News for Nerds" caption under the slashdot logo. If I want to know about Iraq, Bush or the tsunami, I'd be reading CNN.com or something else.
Can't they do anything right?
First the editors are "bad people(TM)" for not finding dupes, and now they are "bad people(TM)" for clearly identifying them.
Give them a break, they are making it easier on all of us.
We no longer have to read half the comments before finding it out.
It is right there, front and center.
I for one welcome a future with no more "Editors are L4M3455 D00DZ" posts!
watashi wa bengoshi dewa arimasen!
The only way to explain this is that Captain Archer was sent here from the future to ensure the time line. He must convince some Trekkies that the Star Trek Universe will actually happen. Without a second season, Cochrane's grandfather will never buy the T'Pal doll that will later inspire Cochrane to finally finish college and develop the warp drive. Otherwise, there will be a fork causing an instability in the fabric of space and time, leading to a new show: Babelstar Androgenous.
You raise a point- one of the worst natural disasters on record happened not three months ago, and we have people pledging money in the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for a commercial TV show to stay on the air. Give me a break. What about 3 Million for education? Scientific research? Hell, even Iraqi freedom!
To quote Milo Bloom in response to Opus the Penguin spending $79 on shoes for walking in a mall: You realize this is why the Roman Empire fell
The next week I tried to build one using all my wind up toys, string and the legs of the kitchen table
Could it run Linux?
First off, you are mistaken about the logical end-point of the grandparents "thought". Since we are working under conditions of diminishing returns, it makes sense to spread money/effort between a number of different problems - so even if AIDS is more important as a health problem than cancer, we still want to spend money on both of them.
Secondly, the argument is not only that there are many causes more worthy of their several million dollars, but that this particular cause has no worthy or socially redeeming value at all! They are using donations to prop up a for-profit enterprise (ahyuck! I made a funny!). If they wanted to take that money, produce a sci-fi show, and give it away to the general public, that would be worthy.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I for one was begging for this show to be cancelled after the first few episodes.
And I don't hate Trek. I'm a huge fan of ST:TOS. I liked what little I saw of ST:TNG and ST:V. Never cared for ST:DS9 (Hey, let's sit here and wait for adventure to come *to us*!), but I know lots of people who did.
But ST:E? Feh! When the communications officer whined for the first couple of episodes, I thought, "Uhhh...aren't there a million qualified people who would *kill* for this post? Step down and get out of the way!" But when the captain (whom I loved in Quantum Leap and was really geeked about seeing in SF TV again) took his *dog* down to the first alien world they encountered...I just gave up.
This show blew chunks from the get-go.
Where were those big checks when Firefly needed them? Now *that* was some inspiring space TV. And a hell of a lot more entrepreneurial in spirit than the Treks.
Regardless of the debates over the suckiness of "Enterprise", the opening of "Enterprise" seems to be a mozaic of aviations finer moments. I think footage of Space Ship One should be included--definately a milestone in mans quest for space and fitting to the opeing mozaic of Enterprise. Maybe get rid of the footage of the flying submarine thing and add Space Ship One.
Fans got the first shuttle named "Enterprise"--a great honor to a great show. The least the Star Trek producers could do is return the favor.
BTW: I'm not intersted in debating the suckiness of "Enterprise". Keep your "Enterprise sucks" comments to yourself please.
Where do I donate to KILL OFF Enterprise?!!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
For $3M, I'd be demanding some measure of control. The Trek franchise isn't a charity ... it's a business. They should consider this an infusion of capital, and as such, it has strings attached.
The economics go well beyond just dumping in money to fund the creation of episodes. The studio has to arrange for a timeslot on someone's cable or broadcast network. The network execs have an expectation that they'll be able to draw N-million viewers to justify the advertising rates. Advertisers have to believe that folks will actually watch, or they'll put their money elsewhere. Sure, the studios could release stuff direct to DVD, but that doesn't support the recurring revenue model they want. The opportunity cost is too high - for a given amount of effort and expense, they want to maximize the return. Trek is a relatively expensive series to produce, so they have to expect that it'll have greater returns than something cheaper.
Enterprise may be doomed by the economics. Simply shoring it up with contributions probably won't save it. They'd need to make a serious set of changes to be successful, and I'm not convinced that the folks in control of the creative aspects are prepared to be told "sorry, but what you're doing now sucks."
>>Aren't there better destinations for donations?
NO! There is no better use for THEIR money!
I am soooo sick of all of the holier than thou posters who feel that any time money is spent that it should be spent to feed the homeless, fight AIDS, fund anti-terrorism, or cure halitosis.
As long as they earned it/raised it legally there is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't spend it however they want. If donating to the above causes is how you want to spend the fruits of your labor then so be it. On the other hand, if sticking the money in a stripper's g-string makes you happy it's just as legitimate a usage.
The last freedom you have is your choice of spending the fruits of your labor the way you want to.
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.
Now bury it and move on already.
After I saw the first few episodes of season 1, I quit watching, disgusted, then I caught one of the season 3 episodes and have been hooked ever since, though season 4 is a hit and miss prospect at best.
1 season out of 4. Hmmm...
John
Admin
The Lyzrd's Stomp
The $3 million is a pledge, so it will not be given until something "positive" happens. As for the rest of the contributions, they were done through Paypal and will be refunded to the donors if the effort does not succeed.
You mean something like these guys: New Voyages? While the quality of the acting and story is debatable the authenticity of the sets and effects are quite stunning. :)
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
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.
Please help metamoderate.
2. About how much money are we talking here?
Actor John Billingsley (Enterprise's Dr. Phlox) stated that the production of one Star Trek: Enterprise episode costs about $1.6m. For 22 episodes of a full season, this boils down to $35.2m
3. What guarantee do I have that the contribution is safe and legal?
....."All contributed money is used for sponsoring Enterprise; only transactional fees charged to us by payment systems and banks (set to a flat 5% because of the varying payment methods and individual fees) are deducted. Furthermore, all potential excess in fees will be donated to the American Tsunami Relief Fund. If no agreement can be made with Paramount, your contribution will be refunded to you."
They currently have a total of $3,070,745.00 US contributed to saving the show.
I personally welcome the continuation of the show as I believe it is getting better. Originally when it aired I wasn't really that interested. Now I'm hooked on it.
I don't get UPN so I can't watch it so I have to go online and download the latest episode via Bittorrent. THAT is probably why their viewer ratings were so low. Checking the torrent tracker for this one episode totals 42,769.
If Paramount would release even a semi-high quality episode even with the commercials included I would rather do that to show my support. Hell, if they had a subscription not priced overly extremed I'd do it.
Online viewing is definalty growing more and more if they like it or not. Perhaps they'll learn from RIAA's mistakes and release an online "pay-per-download" setup. I'd join.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
but sure as hell it wasnt star trek enterprise...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
I have an idea for a new Star Trek Series. It's a reality show where fans compete in outrageous and embarrassing games to become cast members in an upcoming Star Trek series. At the end, producers will admit to them that there is no upcoming series, and they just wanted to see how stupid they could get trekkies to act.
That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
The opening credits do have the HMS Enterprize, the British warship. In addition, the social climate of the United States throughout the hey-day of NASA dictated that the majority of faces of aero- and astronautical progress would be of persons of European lineage. As NASA gives away film footage like candy to pro-space franchises such as Star Trek, this prior social order is reflected in the opening credits.
I personally have always felt the Star Trek franchise is more oriented towards "exploration" and general scientific curiosity.
I'd just like to point out that time in Enterprise's first season when they landed on a "rogue" planet that had escaped it's sun and therefore was in permanent darkness.
They landed in a JUNGLE full of PLANTS with LARGE LEAVES.
These people should have had a tad more scientific curiosity in highschool biology when the teacher explained what leaves are for.
I mean, nitpicking is one thing, but damn, people, follow through on the logical conclusions of "no sun"!
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Does it have to be?
Does it have to be just a television program? Can't it grow into something more? Can't it be a movement? Can't it be a means to spreading a message of hope and logic and tolerance?
Star Trek was all these things, once. Paramount has been letting Rick Berman kill all of that, they want it to be a cash cow, not a symbol.
I thought they'd suceeded in killing it, but those campaining fans seem to still feel "it".
You can't take the sky from me...
but this is more info about the largest doners.
What have kebabs got to do with it?
WHAT?
First ballistic missile: Germans
First orbitting artificial satellite: Russians
First animal in space: Russians
First animal to survive reentry: Russians
First Man in space: Russians
First Woman in space: Russians
First robot lander on the moon: Russians
First "once around the moon": Russians IIRC
First robot on mars: I think russians...
Unless you define "major achievement" as including the word "american" after that "first" bit, you are extremely ignorant. If you do, you're just plain jingo.
You can't take the sky from me...
Does it have to be?
Does it have to be just a television program? Can't it grow into something more? Can't it be a movement? Can't it be a means to spreading a message of hope and logic and tolerance?
Thus begins the first steps toward the Church of Trek.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
When the studios are catering to the advertisers, the shows are, hum, bland, and that's why they lose viewers.
I bet if the show was 50% funded by contributions, not only would the authors be able to say to the advertisers: We are making the show people actually want to watch, they would also attract better advertisers, because they would realise that there is a serious fanbase that's willing to pay good money for what they want (and that's who advertisers are trying to reach in the first place).
I also think that show writers will spend a little more time getting ideas and feeling the waters from the forums rather than in the board rooms, the quality of the show will skyrocket. And the fanbase will grow as well.
I also wonder whether they could then do some non-advertiser shows, meaning, show a 58 minute show instead of 40 minutes cut every eight minutes by commercials. I would watch that show. I would. I enjoyed the first remake with stewart, and saw many. Lately, though, can't stand the commercials and the poor acting. (send your actors to Shakespearean schools dammit!)
"Piter, too, is dead."
I think most people are choosing to do exactly that--not give any money. It's okay to talk about why we're not giving money.
I'm choosing to do that for a good reason: I'd get nothing for my donation. When I donate money to my local community radio station, a far more cash-poor outfit than Viacom, I get a t-shirt or a CD. Gifts like these are small but nice (this is a common way for the organization to say thanks to their donors). Even though my community radio station is incorporated, I get something far more valuable for my contribution: I become a member of the station. I volunteer there and I can rise as far in the station's hierarchy as I wish to go. I can make important station decisions as I dedicate more of my time and effort there. Anyone in the public can come to periodic meetings where everyone (who isn't on-air) goes to meet and discuss station issues. This is unusual--corporations are built to deny democratic access.
Quite the contrary is true of donating to a multinational corporation like Viacom. You'll get nothing in return for your donation (not even a DVD copy of the episodes you helped to make possible--considering how few people are donating, this would cost virtually nothing to supply). As a producer, you'll have to see the shows you funded with ads as they run on TV the first time. In exchange for paying the production costs, you won't control the copyright to the episodes (even jointly with all the other donors).
So when the revenue from DVDs and syndication dries up, you will have no power to relicense the shows you paid for. This means you can't relicense the shows under, say, a Creative Commons license where others can non-commercially share and enjoy the show, or build on it so long as they share their work under the same terms you shared your sponsored work with them ("ShareAlike").
This donation effort is apparently run by people who don't seem to understand the wisdom behind not treating a corporation like a charity. They also don't seem to get that when you pay for something to be produced you get more control over the result. Considering all the additional revenue Viacom makes from Star Trek (merchandising, for instance), which apparently Viacom would be allowed to keep, it becomes clear that these donors aren't so much donating to keep Enterprise going as they are donating to keep Viacom going.
Digital Citizen