ENTERPRISE renewed (all discussion here please!) (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Well, Ric, with the utmost respect to you, I disagree. The past nine or so years nearly yanked me out of the parts of the franchise that I do love. (To wit: In times past, I could watch TOS/TNG/DS9 with abandon; they were evergreens that I was always in the mood for. But with too much exposure to Voyager and then Enterprise, I came close to losing interest in any of the Trek incarnations.)

At any rate, this all follows a pattern similar to TOS's demise: In the third and final season, the series' budget was slashed -- and it was moved to the Friday 9 p.m. graveyard slot.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

They could always make another movie!

Glenn

 

[Glenn Overholt]

They could always make another movie!

Glenn

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I read a report in some British magazine yesterday that Paramount is going ahead with prequel movies that happens before Enterprise.

Whatever.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I read a report in some British magazine yesterday that Paramount is going ahead with prequel movies that happens before Enterprise.

Whatever.

 

[Ric Easton]

Maybe it just seems that long, Jack! DS9 only ended five years ago! BTW, I do think that DS9 was the high point of the franchise.

Ric

 

[Ric Easton]

Maybe it just seems that long, Jack! DS9 only ended five years ago! BTW, I do think that DS9 was the high point of the franchise.

Ric

 

[Tony Whalen]

I'm with Ric. DS9 was the high point.


Although I don't consider the franchise to be a HUGE disappointment, I must admit that my passion for all-things-Trek has cooled, thanks largely in part to Voyager. (I seem to be one of the few that enjoys ENT.)

I just couldn't abide VOY. I watched the first couple of horrible years, and then just tuned in occasionally to see if it was a Seven or Doctor ep, as they were the only characters the developed any kind of depth. Sadly, they weren't enough to buoy my interest above a passing-grade.

 

[Tony Whalen]

I'm with Ric. DS9 was the high point.


Although I don't consider the franchise to be a HUGE disappointment, I must admit that my passion for all-things-Trek has cooled, thanks largely in part to Voyager. (I seem to be one of the few that enjoys ENT.)

I just couldn't abide VOY. I watched the first couple of horrible years, and then just tuned in occasionally to see if it was a Seven or Doctor ep, as they were the only characters the developed any kind of depth. Sadly, they weren't enough to buoy my interest above a passing-grade.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

I enjoy it as well, especially the third season.

The very best thing for the franchise is for it to lie fallow for a while. We've had nonstop Trek for 17 years now (not counting the movies and syndication of TOS pre 87). Paramount should give it at least five years to build up anticipation.

I know many people have said this before but it seems so painfully obvious.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

I enjoy it as well, especially the third season.

The very best thing for the franchise is for it to lie fallow for a while. We've had nonstop Trek for 17 years now (not counting the movies and syndication of TOS pre 87). Paramount should give it at least five years to build up anticipation.

I know many people have said this before but it seems so painfully obvious.

 

[JoshuaB.]

I'm looking forward to Enterprise's fourth season, as I enjoyed the third season Xindi arc (and the latter half of Season 2). I don't truly believe that Paramount will end production after 100 episodes regardless of ratings. If the ratings increase and the series continues its creative surge (which has been noted by many print journalists) then I believe Paramount will continue the show (though nobody's saying it's a guaranteed seven-year run like the other Trek shows).

Some people are also worried about possible budget slashing, but I think it's a bit of confusion: Paramount has lowered the licensing fee for UPN to $800 000, not the $2 million plus episode budget (some estimates calculate $5 million per episode). Paramount will eat this cost because they know they'll make the difference up in syndication and merchandising (can you say DVD?).

Of course, why doesn't Paramount just produce the show in first-run syndication? It worked for TNG and DS9 and by placing Enterprise in non-prime-time hours, it could thrive like Trek shows of the past.

Eating licensing costs...eating lunch. Bye!

 

[JoshuaB.]

I'm looking forward to Enterprise's fourth season, as I enjoyed the third season Xindi arc (and the latter half of Season 2). I don't truly believe that Paramount will end production after 100 episodes regardless of ratings. If the ratings increase and the series continues its creative surge (which has been noted by many print journalists) then I believe Paramount will continue the show (though nobody's saying it's a guaranteed seven-year run like the other Trek shows).

Some people are also worried about possible budget slashing, but I think it's a bit of confusion: Paramount has lowered the licensing fee for UPN to $800 000, not the $2 million plus episode budget (some estimates calculate $5 million per episode). Paramount will eat this cost because they know they'll make the difference up in syndication and merchandising (can you say DVD?).

Of course, why doesn't Paramount just produce the show in first-run syndication? It worked for TNG and DS9 and by placing Enterprise in non-prime-time hours, it could thrive like Trek shows of the past.

Eating licensing costs...eating lunch. Bye!

 

[Jason Seaver]

Different times. When TNG and DS9 started, there were plenty of non-affiliated stations which had prime-time or near-prime hours to fill, and were willing to pay good money to do so. Now, they're paying small money for weekend late-night filler, so the producers either need another outlet (like Stargate or Andromeda on Sci-Fi) or have to deal with a miniscule budget (while network shows look slicker than ever) to break even. An expensive show like a Star Trek series would need almost absolute assurance that it will cash in on the back end.

Which is no guarantee. Most of the numbers are internal to Viacom, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if third-run and DVD revenue drops off significantly once you get past TNG. It's probably a bigger drop between TNG and DS9 than DS9 and Voyager, and Enterprise may rebound some, but the guys at Viacom may look at Enterprise and see diminishing returns.

Merchandising is also mentioned, but that seems scaled far back as well. Local stores have been blowing the Art Asylum toys out; the books don't take up as large a section of the sci-fi shelf as they used to (though, sadly, it's filled in by other licensed properties), there aren't as many released, there are even fewer hardcover/oversized releases, and the quality of the authors seems to have gone down; WildStorm hasn't used the comic license for years, even though I don't think TokyoPop's new deal is exclusive. While I've no doubt Paramount still makes a good deal of cash on Star Trek, I don't think it's the license to print money it used to be, and there's good reason to wonder if Enterprise is necessarily helping the property's profile.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Different times. When TNG and DS9 started, there were plenty of non-affiliated stations which had prime-time or near-prime hours to fill, and were willing to pay good money to do so. Now, they're paying small money for weekend late-night filler, so the producers either need another outlet (like Stargate or Andromeda on Sci-Fi) or have to deal with a miniscule budget (while network shows look slicker than ever) to break even. An expensive show like a Star Trek series would need almost absolute assurance that it will cash in on the back end.

Which is no guarantee. Most of the numbers are internal to Viacom, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if third-run and DVD revenue drops off significantly once you get past TNG. It's probably a bigger drop between TNG and DS9 than DS9 and Voyager, and Enterprise may rebound some, but the guys at Viacom may look at Enterprise and see diminishing returns.

Merchandising is also mentioned, but that seems scaled far back as well. Local stores have been blowing the Art Asylum toys out; the books don't take up as large a section of the sci-fi shelf as they used to (though, sadly, it's filled in by other licensed properties), there aren't as many released, there are even fewer hardcover/oversized releases, and the quality of the authors seems to have gone down; WildStorm hasn't used the comic license for years, even though I don't think TokyoPop's new deal is exclusive. While I've no doubt Paramount still makes a good deal of cash on Star Trek, I don't think it's the license to print money it used to be, and there's good reason to wonder if Enterprise is necessarily helping the property's profile.

 

[Dewitte]

Jason Seaver wrote in Post #86:
I know this is probably off-topic, but I have to disagree with you about the novel situation. Over the past few years, most of the novel offerings have been nothing short of terrific.

The new Deep Space Nine series of books is pretty darn good as is pretty much anything written by Keith deCandido (IKS Gorkon, among others). If you need a place to start, check out both parts of Avatar by S.D. Perry. The DS9 legacy in good hands.

De

 

[Dewitte]

Jason Seaver wrote in Post #86:
I know this is probably off-topic, but I have to disagree with you about the novel situation. Over the past few years, most of the novel offerings have been nothing short of terrific.

The new Deep Space Nine series of books is pretty darn good as is pretty much anything written by Keith deCandido (IKS Gorkon, among others). If you need a place to start, check out both parts of Avatar by S.D. Perry. The DS9 legacy in good hands.

De

 

[Jason Seaver]

Hmm. "Quality" was probably the wrong word (it's not like I've been reading them), but the name-recognition factor is certainly down. I don't expect to see Greg Bear again, but even once-dependable hacks like Peter David and Gar & Judy Reeves-Stevens have been passed by.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Hmm. "Quality" was probably the wrong word (it's not like I've been reading them), but the name-recognition factor is certainly down. I don't expect to see Greg Bear again, but even once-dependable hacks like Peter David and Gar & Judy Reeves-Stevens have been passed by.

 

[TheLongshot]

Peter David is a hack? A hired gun, maybe, but he's pretty good at what he does. Now, Kevin J. Anderson is what I'd call a hack.

Jason