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....

Re:Well

[PhotoBoy]

It's reckoned to be $1.6M per episode, so technically they need $36M to make a 22 episode season. But it all depends on how much Paramount want, they could accept $18M as enough to offset production costs or they could play hardball and raise the target to $50M.

Re:Well

[gl4ss]

well.
actually...

it's not the production costs that really matter in the end.. it's the money they think they can make with it - that's the reason to butcher up a show in the end anyways. a noisy minority that wants the show to continue doesn't bring in that much advertising revenue. and seriously speaking, if they brought out a new better show most of the enterprise fans would jump right in.

as for responsibility.. bah. grow up. i don't think anybodys going to run out of inspiration anymore and it certainly isn't coming from enterprise.

Re:Well

[Malfourmed]

If a studio makes a TV show that costs $1.6M per episode then it might sell the first-run US broadcast rights to a network for (making up a number here) $1.2M.

The network in turn has to make that amount by selling advertising slots, which are of course ratings dependent.

The $400K (or whatever it is) difference needs to be made up by international sales, second-run syndication rights, DVD/video sales and maybe even the "halo" effect a currently running series can have on sales of merchandising tie-ins such as toys or books. Then there's the need to make a profit of course.

UPN apparently came close to covering Enterprise's production costs in the first three seasons but from what I understand reduced its payment to $800K per episode for season 4, due to low ratings. At the same time the show's budget was reduced (by moving to cheaper high-definition video), but still the gap between Paramount's costs and first-run revenues is now around $500K-$600K per episode, or around $10M per year.

Some of this will be made up by the secondary rights, but I believe the gap is now larger than it was before.

If the Save Enterprise campaign can close that gap by offering a substantial donation, then the financial equation for Paramount/Viacom could change from Enterprise running at a likely loss to a likely break-even or profit.

I don't know what the size of the gap is, but a $3 million contribution (assuming the full amount can be passed onto Paramount) has to be a substantial addition to the bottom line. It represents an extra 8% (approx) return on funds (based on a $36M budget), which is a mighty fine bonus in anyone's book.

But will it be a bonus big enough?

Trying to herd cats

[Rocketboy]

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

They really got it together last season...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Um... no.

[datastalker]

"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.

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'?"

Re:Um... no.

[LordNimon]

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

It's more than that. James Doohan, the actor who plays Scotty, was given an honorary degree in Engineering by the Milwaukee School of Engineering where over half of the students polled said they were inspired to study engineering by his role in "Star Trek".

Let me repeat that: half of the engineering students were inspired by one Star Trek actor. Granted, I don't think that anyone will be inspired by Trip, but it still speaks volumes to the power of Star Trek.

Re:Wha?

[Kuro-Bishounen]

It's a conically shaped mass of lamb meat, fat and spices, cooked unevenly then served up to drunken British students in heart attack temptingly mayonaisy sauce (with garlic)

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...

[carninja]

TNG, DS9 and VOY weren't cancelled, their series was ended. That's like saying "Seinfield" was cancelled. It was simply time to move on. Only TOS got cancelled.

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.

I hope the get enough money...

[Raleel]

to keep the show, and not enough to keep the title song

Enterprise cancellation did not deter Berman

[Xpilot]

They're making yet another Star Trek movie!

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

What TV shows did Neil Armstrong and Gene Kranz get inspired by to ACTUALLY GET TO THE MOON!?

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.

Some more info...

[Malfourmed]

At this post at the TrekBBS forum one of the campaign organisers reveals that the donor is not Richard Branson (as was speculated by some) "but funny you should mention him", that two more Fortune 500 companies were interested and that the 'set' at paramount already knew the news before it was made public.

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.

News to You

[Doc Ruby]

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.

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?

They are also responsible for QUALITY.

[visionsofmcskill]

While i applaud the intentions of these donors, indeed the entire "save enterprise" foundation is an amazing initiative of fans attempting to keep a show they love alive.

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.

Re:They are also responsible for QUALITY.

[SleepyHappyDoc]

However, Enterprise is horrible... Voyager was bad... but Enterprise is REALLY bad.

That's totally a matter of taste. You don't care for the show. Obviously the donors do. No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to donate to help save a show you don't like. You have the right to spend your money how you choose, and so do they.

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.

Who decides what Star Trek is supposed to be? Gene Roddenberry created it back in the 60's, but he's been dead for over ten years now. It is no longer his, and the rotting hunk of flesh in the graveyard doesn't care about Trek in the least. The people who decide are the viewers and the fans. They vote with their remote controls and their dollars. I agree with the losing the theme, but it's only what, 60 seconds? Mute your TV, the visuals still look good. As for the all-white, all-western, I take it you didn't see Malcolm (white but not Western), Travis (not white at all, although I can understand why you might have missed him), Hoshi (also not white), and several speaking roles by Hispanic and Asian MACOs in season 3 (Daniel Dae Kim was one, in 'The Xindi'). There's also the Denobulan doctor and the Vulcan woman, who, while played by white actors, are not realy white chracters. Racial integration and acceptance doesn't mean every company should have a member of every type and colour and race of humanity involved, it means a world where colour is no longer a consideration. I think Enterprise and Star Trek have done a wonderful job in portraying this kind of future. No one in the show ever said a thing about Tuvok being a black Vulcan, and there's never been (to my knowledge) any distinction between racialness portaryed on Enterprise. They are all just humans (except the aliens, of course).

Anyways, your opinion on the quality of the show is immaterial. These people like it enough to pay big dollars to see it. They have the right to do that, just as you have the right not to.

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:Brings up a good question

[Malfourmed]

Part of the TrekUnited charter was that all donations be made with no strings attached. Ie, donators give up all claims on profits or ownership.

Re:Brings up a good question

[cashman73]

So they're basically asking folks to just throw their money at Paramount to continue producing a television series with mediocre ratings. So that Paramount can then ultimately cancel it (let's imagine it actually makes it to seven seasons), and then start selling DVD sets of the show?!?!

Last time I checked, amazon.com was selling the
first season of Deep Space 9 for $103.99!! Compare that to the price for the
first season of Stargate SG-1 at $52.47,... Now, we all know the, "true cost" of producing DVDs these days, and given that, even the Stargate guys are making a buttload of profit off of their DVD sets ... think of the mad money that Paramount is raking in from TNG, DS9, and VOY (oh yeah, not to forget about thos original series back in the 60s),...

Granted, I like Enterprise and all, especially now that the show is actually getting good this season (and not to forget about T'Pol's boobies ;-). But donating cash to a show/producer to produce a series that they're ultimately going to profit on like crazy in the long run is just insane. If Enterprise is to be saved, the fans need to make the clear case to Paramount that they want it to continue, without simply "donating" money to the studio. They need to convince the execs that the fan base is out there and they will be able to make money from advertising on the show. But I sure as hell ain't gonna donate money to a company that's practically ripping its fans off at the DVD store after the show!

Where do I send my check?

[Thud457]

Where do I donate to KILL OFF Enterprise?!!!!

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.

To answer the parent and grandparent

[maotx]

According to their site's FAQ:

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 dont know,

[imsabbel]

but sure as hell it wasnt star trek enterprise...

Re:Wha?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Whoever modded you just doesn't understand how important a decent kebab at the right time can be. Much better than Enterprise.

Hear hear! Bring back Futurama. Now there's a series genuinally in need of resurrection.

"not just a TV show"

[Scrameustache]

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".