WHAT?! Paramount bought Desilu in 1967 and produced Star Trek for part of its run.
Ah, my bad. I just always remembered the Desilu part. Never realized Parmount bought them out that early.
Murder of TNG?
- Thread starter nnnnnnn
- Start date
Ah, my bad. I just always remembered the Desilu part. Never realized Parmount bought them out that early.
Also keep in mind that TNG and DS9 were not on a network, they were syndicated. So a show conntracted to a network can be cancelled if the network does not want it anymore. In syndication Paramount sold the show to many independant stations and those fee's sustained the shows production. If a show does badly, independant stations drop the show, and the studios income to make the show goes down. The studio (Paramount in this case) makes the decision when to cancel the show based on the profit to cost ratio they want to have.
On a network when they cancel a show, the studio that makes it then needs to decide if the show has enough potential to be shopped to another network, it is rare they do it, but has been known to happen on a few occations. In Enterprise's case UPN and the Studio were same company . In the case of TNG, the independant stations still wanted TNG and the demand was still there, but Berman, Paramount and the others wanted to end the show.
Also the as how like TNG the cost of making it was going up each year. Contracts with a lot of the cast had to be extended past the 6 year contract most of them had. Other productions and post-production costs also rose so the profit to cost ratio was starting to shrink. There was a huge fear that Stewart would not return aftert he 6th season.
Neither TNG nor DS9 ran on a network. They were syndicated.
As already pointed out, a show is "cancelled" when a network decides they don't want it any more.
Another network may pick it up, but it's still counted as having been "cancelled" by the earlier carrier.
TNG wasn't a network show, and it wasn't cancelled by anyone. The powers that be decided to end it and replace it with Voyager, which then DID run on the [then] new UPN network.
Also, the fans aren't part of the creative team. They're on the receiving end of what the creative team comes up with.
I think you know all this, don't you?
Not really.
Paramount created UPN, but Paramount was then bought by the company that owned the TV network CBS.
CBS was given control of the UPN network, and so Paramount Pictures lost control of the United Paramount Network. (This is why when UPN later merged with the WB, the resulting network was called "The CW" rather than "The WP". CBS removed the Paramount name from the TV side entirely, and inserted their "C" in place of the "P".)
Paramount Pictures had nothing to say about the ending of Enterprise, because the powers that be at CBS cancelled the show. They were in charge of the network, and Paramount no longer was.
Also, CBS took ownership of all of Star Trek away from Paramount, and then Paramount was jettisoned off when CBS split into at least two separate companies. Paramount ended up owned by the new company that did not own Trek.
No.
If we're part of the creative team, then I want my royalty check!
In a sense it does. A lot of fans interned on TNG.
I'm a fan and I wanted the show to end.
Heretic.
Not True, your timing is off.
During Enterprise's entire run, Paramount Studios, CBS and UPN were owned by Viacom as controled by Summer Redstone and Les Moonves. It was not until after Enterprise ended in 2005 that the comany was split (completed in 2006) into the now seperate Viacom and CBS. When the comanies split CBS was given total control of Star Trek while Paramount Studios under Viacom currently holds the rights to create Star Trek movies, they do pay CBS a license fee for that right. After the split UPN (as now owned by CBS not Viacom anymore) was just about dead in the water until Moonves hatched a deal with Warner Brothers to merge UPN and the WB to create the CW. Some have speculated that the planned (but as of yet unannounced) split of Viacom may have helped put a nail (and there were a few nails) in the Enterprise's coffin.
I'm curious, how many people here were around during TNG's original run 87-94? Just seems like there is some misinformation floating around.
Last edited:
But that's just some fans, not "the fans". The percentage of fans who worked on the show is probably too small be be called "a lot".
A lot is still a lot regardless of percentage though. There are a lot of words on this page although they are nothing compared to all the words in the world.
At times the fans were able to exert some influence on their favorite show, but I agree this does not make them part of the creative team.
A lot is still a lot regardless of percentage though. There are a lot of words on this page although they are nothing compared to all the words in the world.
When you start working on the show, you stop being a fan- you become part of the creative team. Fans are not on the creative team. That's why they are fans and not employees. Look, do you want me to draw a Venn diagram?
A lot is still a lot regardless of percentage though. There are a lot of words on this page although they are nothing compared to all the words in the world.
When you start working on the show, you stop being a fan- you become part of the creative team. Fans are not on the creative team. That's why they are fans and not employees. Look, do you want me to draw a Venn diagram?
I would, but I love a good Venn diagram.
No, it really doesn't.
In what alternate universe?
As do fans of any show.
Again, in what alternate universe? Admittedly, their priority is profit and entertainment over logic, but no network sets out to kill successful shows.
Huh?
And your definition of a "hack" writer is...?
Again, huh?
A Season Eight would have been very difficult to make profitable with renegotiated contracts of the actors taking too much of the overall budget.
I'm now curious how long the OP wanted the series to go on for. How many more years of TNG should there have been?
Similar threads
