3 million donated to the Save Enterprise Campaign!

[Nemesis 0]

You guys make it sound like Paramount wont do anything, unless 35 million is coughed up. The idea, is that some people actually donated that much to keep Enterprise alive, maybe there is still some public interest in the show.

 

I mean geez, what did those geeks do to get that Farscape minseries anyway?

$3 million dollars for a stupid TV show, I mean really what's the just cause for this kind of money being donated like that? So a bunch of people with nothing else in their lives can stay glued to their television sets that much longer so they can pretend that nothing matters and delude themselves from the real world? We shouldn't be paying money for something that hides us from the world's problems but to fix them.

[Darrik 0]

Aren't there homeless who could benefiet from 3 million bucks? Why the heck are people raising this amount of money for a stupid tv show, and yes it is a stupid tv show when people are starving or dying of diseases eachday?

yeah, we could be spending that money on something important, like naming a species of monkey after Ellen Degeneres.

[Images 0]

Nyah, not every cent in the world has to be spent on charity. That's a bit naive...why am I turning into the boogeyman of this board?!

[Darrik 0]

Nyah, not every cent in the world has to be spent on charity. That's a bit naive...why am I turning into the boogeyman of this board?!

If all our money was spent on charity, then

 

1)more people would go homeless

 

2)we'd raise the standard of living to where the homeless live in homes

 

3)society needs people to wear 17 coats during the summer and to race around in shoping carts (oh wait, I could do that job <_<)

[Vex Xiang 0]

$3 million dollars for a stupid TV show

 

3 million divided by the number of homeless people is equal to what? 3 mil wouldn't do anything except feed people in 1 metropolitan city for a couple of days. Throwing money at homeless people isnt the answer to poverty.

 

Anyway, back on track, I think this is a wonderful thing (if it turns out to be true)...just goes to show that the Trek fan base really is dedicated to the show. Of course, I havent been a fan of Enterprise lately since they lost my interest during the whole temporal war/expanse thing...but this truly impresses me.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Nyah, not every cent in the world has to be spent on charity. That's a bit naive...why am I turning into the boogeyman of this board?!

Heh, I read this, so I had to tell every one this. I was going threw the paper the other day, and it was critizing morons who donated to the Tsunami relief fund, well, not the people who gave money, and food and stuff, but morons who dontated stuff like...

 

Winter Jackets

Hand Moisturizers

Life Jackets

Viagra

Arctic Survival Tents

and Thong Underware

 

Thats right, the red cross has actually gotten these items, who someone wanted to donate to the people in that region. Makes me laugh.

[Darrik 0]

Heh, I read this, so I had to tell every one this. I was going threw the paper the other day, and it was critizing morons who donated to the Tsunami relief fund, well, not the people who gave money, and food and stuff, but morons who dontated stuff like...

 

Winter Jackets

Hand Moisturizers

Life Jackets

Viagra

Arctic Survival Tents

and Thong Underware

 

Thats right, the red cross has actually gotten these items, who someone wanted to donate to the people in that region. Makes me laugh.

don't forget the high healed shoes

[Cougar 0]

Heh, I read this, so I had to tell every one this. I was going threw the paper the other day, and it was critizing morons who donated to the Tsunami relief fund, well, not the people who gave money, and food and stuff, but morons who dontated stuff like...

 

Winter Jackets

Hand Moisturizers

Life Jackets

Viagra

Arctic Survival Tents

and Thong Underware

 

Thats right, the red cross has actually gotten these items, who someone wanted to donate to the people in that region. Makes me laugh.

Winter Jackets- In that region? <_< :o

Hand Moisturizers - Not that useful :lol:

Life Jackets- Not that bad, could be useful

Viagra - That's pathetic but funny...... I am sure at least some of them won't need it

Arctic Survival Tents- :lol: Who the heck donated this? :angry:

and Thong Underware- Like this could be useful

 

Anyways back on topic....

 

Trekunited and Save Enterprise are talking to paramount at this moment.... apparently they were contacted by paramount, that's all the info I know right now, more updates will come!

[WxMurray 0]

Trekunited and Save Enterprise are talking to paramount at this moment.... apparently they were contacted by paramount, that's all the info I know right now, more updates will come!

Really? Cool. I haven't been over there since the 3 million was donated due to homework and getting ready for spring break. I hope I can come back from spring break to see some good news, then.

[NDak 0]

::thinks we've gotten WAY off-topic::

[Travis Kroells 0]

6.5 on the off topic scale.

 

This post just bumped it up to 6.8

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Well, here is an interesting development.

 

At a popular Trek message board, several of the organizers of SaveEnterprise.com and TrekUnited have posted confirming they had some discussions with Paramount yesterday (Wednesday). Going thru seven or eight pages of back and forth posts, most anyone could get them to say is to confirm (in response to someone's smart remark) that Paramount is apparently still very concerned about PR. Also hinted there might be some news leaking out by the end of this week, though nothing was in stone. ::shrug::

 

If true, interesting...

Edited March 4, 2005 by FredM

[Cougar 0]

Hey there,

 

Well, here is an interesting development.

 

At a popular Trek message board, several of the organizers of SaveEnterprise.com and TrekUnited have posted confirming they had some discussions with Paramount yesterday (Wednesday). Going thru seven or eight pages of back and forth posts, most anyone could get them to say is to confirm (in response to someone's smart remark) that Paramount is apparently still very concerned about PR. Also hinted there might be some news leaking out by the end of this week, though nothing was in stone. ::shrug::

 

If true, interesting...

They don't want the some info leaked out... if some valuable info gets leaked out.... the whole internet will know, well thousands eventually.

 

So the staff can't say anymore than that they're just talking with paramount. I think their reason is valid, with one piece of info leaked out.... that person will tell the other, eventually thousands will know.... so it is crucial that they don't say anything more right now.

[Darrik 0]

with one piece of info leaked out.... that person will tell the other, eventually thousands will know

for some "strange" reason, I think we'll hear it here second (or first if they would just accept my Benjamin)

[Dumbass 0]

There is a basic concept of economics here that we seem to be forgetting.

 

Opportunity cost.

 

Let's say that Paramount is able to make a 5th season with these $3 million in donated funds. (It would be a really crappy season but let's forget that for a moment.) Let's say UPN was able to sell $10 million in advertising. They've made a profit of $10 million and didn't have to put up any of their own money to do it.

 

A free $10 million sounds like a good deal, right? Not necessarily.

 

Now let's say that Paramount has another option, producing another show with their own money for $10 million. However, UPN expects to sell $40 million in advertising because this new show is more popular and advertisers want to reach a larger audience. Since 40-10=30 they could expect to make a $30 million profit.

 

So in this scenerio the true cost of making a 5th Enterprise season for a "free" $10 million profit is the $30 million profit they could have made by producing the other series. That is an opportunity cost of $20 million. It is $20 million in profit that Paramount/UPN could have earned but didn't.

 

'Nuff said?

Edited March 5, 2005 by Dumbass

[Grom 0]

There is a basic concept of economics here that we seem to be forgetting.

 

Opportunity cost.

 

Let's say that Paramount is able to make a 5th season with these $3 million in donated funds. (It would be a really crappy season but let's forget that for a moment.) Let's say UPN was able to sell $10 million in advertising. They've made a profit of $10 million and didn't have to put up any of their own money to do it.

 

A free $10 million sounds like a good deal, right? Not necessarily.

 

Now let's say that Paramount has another option, producing another show with their own money for $10 million. However, UPN expects to sell $40 million in advertising because this new show is more popular and advertisers want to reach a larger audience. Since 40-10=30 they could expect to make a $30 million profit.

 

So in this scenerio the true cost of making a 5th Enterprise season for a "free" $10 million profit is the $30 million profit they could have made by producing the other series. That is an opportunity cost of $20 million. It is $20 million in profit that Paramount/UPN could have earned but didn't.

 

'Nuff said?

Opportunity cost- The next best thing that you didn't choose. <_<

[Dumbass 0]

Opportunity cost- The next best thing that you didn't choose. <_<

Very good, GromVik. You've learned property rights, government intervention, the minimum wage, and now opportunity cost. Now if you could just explain the Laffer cuve, Say's law, monetarisn, the Philips curve, how indifference curves tie in with budget constraints, and MC=MR you'll get your econ degree yet. :angry:

[Captain Huff 0]

Do Nerds just not make up a large enough demographic?? Apparently not. Why don't the ratings guys ever wire up MY house? Trek lives on in epic cult proportions, yet we can't turn on enough basement TV's to keep the stupid thing on the air during its run. We're dedicated, just too few in numbers. I guess we have to get out of the basements long enough to multiply and begin world domination.

 

Ah well, I'll cross my fingers for some more seasons to add to my syndication collection. (But I won't send my money... Too many addictive substances to spend that on.)

[Grom 0]

Very good, GromVik. You've learned property rights, government intervention, the minimum wage, and now opportunity cost. Now if you could just explain the Laffer cuve, Say's law, monetarisn, the Philips curve, how indifference curves tie in with budget constraints, and MC=MR you'll get your econ degree yet. :angry:

Well...of those, I think I can only remember the Laffer curve. It's been awhile. Isn't the Laffer curve all about the fact that there's a point where raising taxes will actually decrease desired revenues? The curve itself looks kind of like a parabola.

 

I'll take a stab at monetarism. Is that a reaction to the Keynesian demand centered economy? Isn't it something to do with the fact that if the government controls the money supply (keeps it stable), then things like inflation and unemployment will work themselves out on their own?

 

I'll get back to you on the others if I ever stumble across them.. <_<

[Darrik 0]

Here's an Article About How Fund-Raising Could Be Harmful,

 

And Here's Another One

 

It seems that the majority of these articles contain atleast one refrence to T'Pol [be it picture (not the MAXIM one though) or interview]

Edited March 7, 2005 by Darrik

[John_Anderson 0]

Once again, some food for thought for you fine folks. I once again felt obliged with posting this up. It's very interesting, and I think it'd be a great idea. :lol:

 

SpikeTV or Not SpikeTV?:

 

SpikeTV, one of the Viacom family of cable networks and the place that Star Trek repeats seem to go to die, has expressed some interest in producing a fifth season of Star Trek: Enterprise, according to a report in the Boston Herald.

 

``It would definitely be something we would look at, and we know how devoted the show's fans are,'' said Spike TV spokeswoman Debra Fazio. The network currently holds the cable rights for Star Trek: the Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.  Star Trek: Voyager is expected to begin soon and the original Trek series will be migrating to the network once the series' current contract with the SciFi Channel runs out.  So why not pick up production of Enterprise, especially if you have people willing to foot the bill for you?

 

The TrekUnited project has already taken in over $3 million in donations, most of that coming from three individuals who work in the aerospace industry and see the series as an inspiration for young people who might want to enter the field.  According to TrekUnited's co-founder, Tom Moore, a number of Fortune 500 companies are interested in possibly tossing more money into the till, meaning that any network that decides to pick up the series may be walking into a uniquely sweet deal.

 

UPN has stated publicly that the network's decision to can the series is final and SciFi Channel has stated repeatedly that they have no interest in picking the series up, which would seem to leave the door open for Spike.  Aside from the publicity it would generate, it would be the first original series on the cable channel that didn't look like it was made for a cable channel.  Most of Spike's original programming looks like it was made for the change found in the break lounge couch.  The channel does have the William Shatner faux reality series, Invasion, Iowa ready to launch and if they could convince Shatner to finally cut that deal to appear on Enterprise, well, lots of interesting things could happen.

 

If the battle for Enterprise is lost... start sending that mail to Spike TV. :(

 

Note: Article compliments of the fine people over at IGN and the Trek Report.

Edited March 8, 2005 by John_Anderson

[Dumbass 0]

Well...of those, I think I can only remember the Laffer curve.  It's been awhile.  Isn't the Laffer curve all about the fact that there's a point where raising taxes will actually decrease desired revenues?  The curve itself looks kind of like a parabola.

 

I'll take a stab at monetarism.  Is that a reaction to the Keynesian demand centered economy?  Isn't it something to do with the fact that if the government controls the money supply (keeps it stable), then things like inflation and unemployment will work themselves out on their own?

 

I'll get back to you on the others if I ever stumble across them..  :(

Laffer curve - yes and no. You are correct that supply-side conservatives have used it to argue that taxes are too high, and that lowering taxes will increase revenue to the government, but it all depends on where on the parabola we are located. If you lower tax rates and government revenues go up then we know that we can reduce taxes even more up to the point where we reach the apex, and that increasing tax rates will have the opposite effect. But what if we lower tax rates and revenues go down? The only way you can tell where your current point on the curve is is to change the tax rate and see what happens.

 

Where the theory falls apart, however, is it depends on what commodities are taxed. A tax on gasoline, which is an inelastic commodity (meaning that, like it or not, we simply must buy gasoline at whatever the market price is), will have a different effect than a tax on an elastic commodity like cheese or DVDs or pants or something else where price affects quantity purchased.

 

Monetarism - Essentially this is the belief that government's only valid economic function is to control the money supply, that doing so will control inflation, that fiscal policy shouldn't be used to affect the economy (that fiscal policy *should* be used is what Keynes said) and that a certain level of unemployment must simply be accepted as "natural". So you weren't too far off the mark.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Dumbass

[Grom 0]

Laffer curve - yes and no. You are correct that supply-side conservatives have used it to argue that taxes are too high, and that lowering taxes will increase revenue to the government, but it all depends on where on the parabola we are located. If you lower tax rates and government revenues go up then we know that we can reduce taxes even more up to the point where we reach the apex, and that lowering tax rates will have the opposite effect. But what if we lower tax rates and revenues go down? The only way you can tell where your current point on the curve is is to change the tax rate and see what happens.

 

Where the theory falls apart, however, is it depends on what commodities are taxed. A tax on gasoline, which is an inelastic commodity (meaning that, like it or not, we simply must buy gasoline at whatever the market price is), will have a different effect than a tax on an elastic commodity like cheese or DVDs or pants or something else where price affects quantity purchased.

 

Monetarism - Essentially this is the belief that government's only valid economic function is to control the money supply, that doing so will control inflation, that fiscal policy shouldn't be used to affect the economy (that fiscal policy *should* be used is what Keynes said) and that a certain level of unemployment must simply be accepted as "natural". So you weren't too far off the mark.

Indifference curves are fun. People don't know what really makes them happy. On an indifference curve any point on the curve itself represents happiness. Yet, there are an infinite number of indifference curves above that first indifference curve that will make a person even more happy. The highest indifference curve (though unattainable) is this fictional bliss point. Where bugets come into play is that they constrain just what indifference curve that a person can be on if they spend all of there money. Obviously indifferernce curves are different for each person. :lol:

 

Now if we do an isocost analysis on...err...I'll stop there. :(

 

Anyone got any spare utils?

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

UPN's decision may not be as final as they wish to admit. Apparently, it became known today that the order by Paramount for all Star Trek: Enterprise sets to be torn down has been cancelled. Instead, it's been changed to a "Fold & Hold" order. Basically, this means that the sets are to remain intact...though possibly moved on the soundstage to allow it's use by other shows if needed.

 

In addition, the "PR" from the TrekUnited group having $3.1M has apparently grown recently. It's now being reported on a few mainstream news sites. UPN does what UPN is told to do...that's what happens when your bought out. Besides, the future of the show does not necessarily depend on that network given the wide variety owned by the parent company.

[Cougar 0]

Hey there,

 

UPN's decision may not be as final as they wish to admit. Apparently, it became known today that the order by Paramount for all Star Trek: Enterprise sets to be torn down has been cancelled. Instead, it's been changed to a "Fold & Hold" order. Basically, this means that the sets are to remain intact...though possibly moved on the soundstage to allow it's use by other shows if needed.

 

In addition, the "PR" from the TrekUnited group having $3.1M has apparently grown recently. It's now being reported on a few mainstream news sites. UPN does what UPN is told to do...that's what happens when your bought out. Besides, the future of the show does not necessarily depend on that network given the wide variety owned by the parent company.

Fred, were you at that chat?

 

yeah, the sets haven't been torn down yet, they're in Fold & Hold mode. And TU/SE are in talks with Paramounts. So looks like stuff is turning out well.