RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,943
Posts: 5,390,602
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 661
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Enterprise

Enterprise The final frontier has a new beginning in this forum!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 9 2014, 04:45 PM   #1
patweb
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: California
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.
patweb is offline  
Old May 9 2014, 06:01 PM   #2
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
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.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline  
Old May 9 2014, 07:32 PM   #3
patweb
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: California
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
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.
patweb is offline  
Old May 9 2014, 08:18 PM   #4
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now  
Old May 9 2014, 09:43 PM   #5
trekker670
Captain
 
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."
trekker670 is offline  
Old May 9 2014, 09:54 PM   #6
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

trekker670 wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now  
Old May 9 2014, 10:19 PM   #7
trekker670
Captain
 
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

Christopher wrote: View Post
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.

Christopher wrote: View Post
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)
trekker670 is offline  
Old May 9 2014, 11:09 PM   #8
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now  
Old May 10 2014, 03:23 PM   #9
jespah
Commodore
 
jespah's Avatar
 
Location: Boston, the Gateway to the Galaxy
View jespah's Twitter Profile
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

trekker670 wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
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.

Christopher wrote: View Post
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
__________________
Oh, Stewardess! I speak Jive!
http://www.jespah.com (fanfic with all ratings). TU Publishing
Adult Trek Anthology 2
jespah is offline  
Old May 10 2014, 08:10 PM   #10
Mister Spock
Lieutenant
 
Mister Spock's Avatar
 
Location: North London, England
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.
Mister Spock is offline  
Old May 11 2014, 10:44 AM   #11
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old May 11 2014, 11:32 AM   #12
Tosk
Rear Admiral
 
Tosk's Avatar
 
Location: On the run.
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.
Tosk is offline  
Old May 11 2014, 11:39 AM   #13
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

Tosk wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline  
Old May 12 2014, 12:04 AM   #14
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

patweb wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; May 12 2014 at 12:47 AM.
Dukhat is offline  
Old May 12 2014, 03:02 AM   #15
Emperor Norton
Lieutenant Commander
 
Emperor Norton's Avatar
 
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.
Emperor Norton is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 PM.

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