The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Enterprise (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=244393)

patweb May 9 2014 04:45 PM

Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
I heard from a good source that the producers asked the TNG crew to forgo their royalties in order to secure Scott Bakula as the lead role.

They refused, and it was decided to drop ST from the name of the series, which apparently didn't release Paramount of it's obligation.

Nerys Myk May 9 2014 06:01 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Source? Sounds very dubious.

My understanding was they thought it would be "different" not to use the name and attract some non Trekkie viewers and "Enterprise" alone would send the message it was a Star Trek show to the fanbase.

patweb May 9 2014 07:32 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Quote:

Nerys Myk wrote: (Post 9563755)
Source? Sounds very dubious.

My understanding was they thought it would be "different" not to use the name and attract some non Trekkie viewers and "Enterprise" alone would send the message it was a Star Trek show to the fanbase.

I can't reveal the source, consider it hearsay in any case, because it was relayed by a third party to me. Since there are most likely non-disclosure rules, I wouldn't want to jeopardize the source.

Christopher May 9 2014 08:18 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
I don't buy it, because ENT wasn't the first time they considered not using the Star Trek name. They initially considered dropping it for DS9 -- which makes sense, since a show about a space station doesn't entail a lot of trekking. They only kept it because of name recognition.

But when the time came to make the fifth series, they figured the name Enterprise was recognizable enough on its own, so they finally tried dropping the ST supertitle. But apparently the audience was more clueless than they'd expected, and a lot of viewers didn't watch it because they didn't know it was Star Trek -- or at least that's what UPN believed and why they insisted on adding the supertitle early in season 3.

Really, it's not that unusual for spinoffs to have different titles from their originals -- The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Rhoda, The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman, The Dukes of Hazzard and Enos (anyone remember that?), Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, Murder, She Wrote and The Law and Harry McGraw (anyone remember that?). Some spinoffs have used similar titles to their originals', like The Man from UNCLE and The Girl from UNCLE or Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. But really it's only been since TNG onward that it's become a pattern for multiple spinoffs to share the same blanket title, like Law & Order or CSI.

trekker670 May 9 2014 09:43 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
I too find this very hard to believe. B&B stated in their interviews for the blurays that was they dropped the name because it would attract a wider audience (as Nerys stated).

I also don't see how the TNG crew forgoing their royalties would have any impact on ENT, and even more-so, why dropping "Star Trek" from the title would either rectify the situation or "hurt" the TNG crew for not "cooperating."

Christopher May 9 2014 09:54 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Quote:

trekker670 wrote: (Post 9564700)
I also don't see how the TNG crew forgoing their royalties would have any impact on ENT, and even more-so, why dropping "Star Trek" from the title would either rectify the situation or "hurt" the TNG crew for not "cooperating."

It's a weird claim, but I think the intent of it is that Paramount needed more money in order to meet Bakula's salary demands and thus tried to get out of paying residuals to the TNG cast. Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul (or robbing Patrick to pay Scott).

But there's no way I can see that dropping the Star Trek name from Enterprise would have had any impact on that in any way. The post says that Paramount though it would release them from their obligation, i.e. to pay residuals to the TNG cast, I assume. But that makes no sense whatsoever, since the TNG cast gets residuals for TNG, not for Star Trek in general. (The only people who get residuals from an episode are those whose names appear in its main-title or first-act credits, aka "above the line.") The only ENT episode any TNG cast member would make money from was the one they actually appeared in, "These Are the Voyages." So there's simply no possible connection between the incomes of the TNG cast and the title of ENT.

trekker670 May 9 2014 10:19 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 9564748)
It's a weird claim, but I think the intent of it is that Paramount needed more money in order to meet Bakula's salary demands and thus tried to get out of paying residuals to the TNG cast. Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul (or robbing Patrick to pay Scott).

One would think that those funds would come out of two separate buckets. The TNG crew gets paid residuals based on when their show/likeness is sold (syndication, DVD sales, action figures, etc.). I would think TNG residuals would come from those deals directly, whereas new content would come from a completely different budget.

Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 9564748)
But there's no way I can see that dropping the Star Trek name from Enterprise would have had any impact on that in any way. The post says that Paramount though it would release them from their obligation, i.e. to pay residuals to the TNG cast, I assume. But that makes no sense whatsoever, since the TNG cast gets residuals for TNG, not for Star Trek in general. (The only people who get residuals from an episode are those whose names appear in its main-title or first-act credits, aka "above the line.") The only ENT episode any TNG cast member would make money from was the one they actually appeared in, "These Are the Voyages." So there's simply no possible connection between the incomes of the TNG cast and the title of ENT.

Agreed. In my personal opinion, this claim is complete bogus.

(As an aside, a few other TNG cast members would get residuals for playing different characters, such as Brent Spiner, or directing, such as LeVar Burton. But any of these residuals would be separate from their TNG residuals)

Christopher May 9 2014 11:09 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
^Oh, that's right, I forgot Spiner played a different character in ENT. Along with regulars from other series including Rene Auberjonois and Ethan Phillips.

jespah May 10 2014 03:23 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Quote:

trekker670 wrote: (Post 9564871)
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 9564748)
It's a weird claim, but I think the intent of it is that Paramount needed more money in order to meet Bakula's salary demands and thus tried to get out of paying residuals to the TNG cast. Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul (or robbing Patrick to pay Scott).

One would think that those funds would come out of two separate buckets. The TNG crew gets paid residuals based on when their show/likeness is sold (syndication, DVD sales, action figures, etc.). I would think TNG residuals would come from those deals directly, whereas new content would come from a completely different budget.

Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 9564748)
But there's no way I can see that dropping the Star Trek name from Enterprise would have had any impact on that in any way. The post says that Paramount though it would release them from their obligation, i.e. to pay residuals to the TNG cast, I assume. But that makes no sense whatsoever, since the TNG cast gets residuals for TNG, not for Star Trek in general. (The only people who get residuals from an episode are those whose names appear in its main-title or first-act credits, aka "above the line.") The only ENT episode any TNG cast member would make money from was the one they actually appeared in, "These Are the Voyages." So there's simply no possible connection between the incomes of the TNG cast and the title of ENT.

Agreed. In my personal opinion, this claim is complete bogus.

(As an aside, a few other TNG cast members would get residuals for playing different characters, such as Brent Spiner, or directing, such as LeVar Burton. But any of these residuals would be separate from their TNG residuals)

Agreed, plus wouldn't the Screen Actors' Guild have said something by now? Failing to pay residuals (or pushing actors to forego their residuals) would be something that the union would find of interest, so there would have been some press coverage of such an attempt by now.

Plus - seriously - the residuals checks probably wouldn't have made an enormous economic difference. This is not millions of dollars, by any stretch.
http://www.sagaftra.org/content/residuals-faq

Mister Spock May 10 2014 08:10 PM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
I remember hearing that it didn't bear the Star Trek title at the beginning because of the setting of the show - that for the characters and ship, it wasn't quite Star Trek as we knew it. It was more about how things became Star Trek.

King Daniel Into Darkness May 11 2014 10:44 AM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
IIRC, it was an attempt to attract an audience to whom the name "Star Trek" was stigmatized. If it was about royalties, they'd not have added the name in season 3.

Tosk May 11 2014 11:32 AM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Honestly, the idea floated in the OP doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not saying "I disagree", it just literally makes no sense.

Mage May 11 2014 11:39 AM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Quote:

Tosk wrote: (Post 9569503)
Honestly, the idea floated in the OP doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not saying "I disagree", it just literally makes no sense.


Agreed. If the OP is willing to share the source, it might seem more credible, but right now, it all sounds like attention whoring. Which, unfortunatly, is working.

Dukhat May 12 2014 12:04 AM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
Quote:

patweb wrote: (Post 9563428)
I heard from a good source that the producers asked the TNG crew to forgo their royalties in order to secure Scott Bakula as the lead role.

They refused, and it was decided to drop ST from the name of the series, which apparently didn't release Paramount of it's obligation.

I'm extremely confused. Why would the TNG cast have to forgo their royalties? Why not the TOS, DS9, or VOY cast? And if this is true, why are we hearing this years after the fact, from a board newbie who "won't reveal his source," instead of, say, from Frakes or Stewart? And what percentage is royalties anyway, when whatever cost offset they might have provided would have been zapped by Spiner and Stewart's salaries for Nemesis?

UPN constantly promoted the show in commercials stating something to the effect of "the first show that both Star Trek fans and non-fans alike can watch!" The dubiousness of that advertising aside, they didn't want to have their casual viewing audience see the name of the show and think "Oh God, not another Star Trek show..." so they made the decision to leave off the "Star Trek." When that proved not to be the reason why people weren't watching the show, they then did a 180 and not only reinstated the subtitle, but went apeshit with the TOS references.

Emperor Norton May 12 2014 03:02 AM

Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name
 
It was a good idea to go apeshit with TOS references; Enterprise was setting up the TOS era, and is what we used to just call "Pre-TOS"; an unknown, dark territory we assumed was interesting. The problem is the going apeshit with TNG references.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.