Season 4 and syndication deal of ENT

[jefferiestubes8]

I am taking this part of a thread in Future of Trek here to further discuss this.

Paramount produced each episode at a loss in season 4 so that they would have enough episodes to sell in a syndication deal.

Source please AviTrek.
I'd like to read about how if Paramount knew they would get their 4 seasons and # of episodes

Was there a magic number of episodes for syndication? Since TOS only had 3 seasons and was syndicated surely ENT could have been cancelled earlier?
Were the actors aware that Paramount was producing their show at a loss?

I don't believe this other thread goes into the detail of the syndication:
Instead of being cancelled why wasn't ENT moved to SciFi?

 

[ChristopherPike]

The idea of Enterprise being in syndication (in the Original Series sense that it was suddenly being run everywhere for a decade) always makes me laugh.

In America, it's on SyFy and also a HD provider someplace... and that's about it basically! Now you'd imagine that would've changed with a profitable film only now leaving cinemas after immense popularity.

The show ended after four seasons because the incoming head of CBS/Paramount didn't want the show around on his watch. He still doesn't, either ENT or any iteration of the franchise.

I once read that for a show to be in syndication 100 episodes are required. Which by reckoning means ENT deserved a two-parter to bookend the whole series. Something like that would've gone a long way to mending the hurt in my opinion, but there's no business model that covers how bad you left your the fanbase feeling.

 

[joncreed]

Enterprise does well in SyFy and with the Star Trek film's success, you would think Paramount would jump on the bandwagon and do an Enterprise movie on SyFy or a direct to DVD release.

C'mon, Battlestar Galactica has a prequel series called "Caprica" coming to SyFy AND Bryan Singer is doing his own version independent of the SyFy series! Not to mention Stargate has yet another spin-off called "Stargate Universe" starring Robert Carlyle and Ming Na!

These two franchises don't come any where near the popularity of Trek right now- strike while the iron is hot Paramount! What the hell is the matter is with them?! My money is waiting - I will watch your Enterprise movie and/or buy the direct-to-DVD!!

 

[SFRabid]

I am taking this part of a thread in Future of Trek here to further discuss this.

Paramount produced each episode at a loss in season 4 so that they would have enough episodes to sell in a syndication deal.

Source please AviTrek.
I'd like to read about how if Paramount knew they would get their 4 seasons and # of episodes

Was there a magic number of episodes for syndication? Since TOS only had 3 seasons and was syndicated surely ENT could have been cancelled earlier?
Were the actors aware that Paramount was producing their show at a loss?

I don't believe this other thread goes into the detail of the syndication:
Instead of being cancelled why wasn't ENT moved to SciFi?

Pretty much common knowledge. It seems that most every time someone connected to Enterprise talks about season 4 they mention that season 4 was made so that Enterprise can go into syndication. Getting close to the 100 episode mark seems to be key. Studios make good money with syndication.

 

[Trekwatcher]

The notion that you need 100 episodes for syndication goes back decades. It is only a rough benchmark, and look at how successful TOS was in syndication with far fewer episodes.

 

[nx1701g]

^ Back then the requirements were less episodes though. If I recall correctly the magic number in 1970 was 80 episodes (which TOS technically had including The Cage and they listed it in the sales, but The Cage didn't air for the first time until the 25th Anniversary).

 

[Tallis Rhul]

So let me get this straight... the head of CBS doesn't want any version of Star Trek on the network?

Is he allergic to money?

 

[cylkoth]

The notion that you need 100 episodes for syndication goes back decades. It is only a rough benchmark, and look at how successful TOS was in syndication with far fewer episodes.

Correct. The 100 episode benchmark means a station could rerun a show 5 days a week for 20 straight weeks without rerunning the same episode in that period. Viewers thus wouldn't grow tired of a show, and keeping tuning in. The more eps the better obviously.

Re, tv show financing-Networks have utilized 'deficit financing' for tv series for decades. The network pays a license fee to the studio that only cover part of the budget, and the studio pays the rest. Selling the reruns allows them to recoup their investment. Even with the state of the industry roday-all of the major networks either owned or owning studios that produce shows for them (taking money from the left pocket and putting it in the right), this financing structure remains in place.
So Paramount/UPN's motive for greenlighting a 4th season had everything to do with increasing the episode count, not their intense desire for more Trek.

As for the where the reruns air now, that is yet another result in the shift that's taken place on the television landscape. Hour long shows used to sell in syndication until the Great Talk Show Boom that happened in the early 80s. They got crowded out of the market as talk shows popped up on nearly every station all thru out the day. Cable nets picked up the slack, and made a home for them, attaining solid ratings for the most popular, with the studios selling 'weekend windows' to tv stations, ie, MGM selling Stargate SG1 reruns to Sci Fi which they could run during the week, so the local stations could air the show on weekends... The money a cable net shells out should be equal to what the studio would charge a collective of individual stations across the country.

 

[cylkoth]

In America, it's on SyFy and also a HD provider someplace... and that's about it basically! Now you'd imagine that would've changed with a profitable film only now leaving cinemas after immense popularity.

Ironically, Paramount is hauling out TNG for broadcast syndication this fall, due in part to the success of the new film, and the sucky economy derailing new series production for syndication this year.

 

[Navaros]

There is no question that the only reason ENT lasted for 4 seasons, and the reason why it lasted for 4 seasons precisely, is because that is the amount of episodes needed to sell it in reruns later.

Berman even admitted that in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9HcSB9WDTQ

 

[Trekwatcher]

^ Back then the requirements were less episodes though. If I recall correctly the magic number in 1970 was 80 episodes (which TOS technically had including The Cage and they listed it in the sales, but The Cage didn't air for the first time until the 25th Anniversary).

Not really. They wanted 100 eps back then if they could get them. TOS was the exception, not the rule.

 

[BillJ]

I am taking this part of a thread in Future of Trek here to further discuss this.

Paramount produced each episode at a loss in season 4 so that they would have enough episodes to sell in a syndication deal.

Source please AviTrek.
I'd like to read about how if Paramount knew they would get their 4 seasons and # of episodes

Was there a magic number of episodes for syndication? Since TOS only had 3 seasons and was syndicated surely ENT could have been cancelled earlier?
Were the actors aware that Paramount was producing their show at a loss?

I don't believe this other thread goes into the detail of the syndication:
Instead of being cancelled why wasn't ENT moved to SciFi?

Pretty much common knowledge. It seems that most every time someone connected to Enterprise talks about season 4 they mention that season 4 was made so that Enterprise can go into syndication. Getting close to the 100 episode mark seems to be key. Studios make good money with syndication.

Your avatar really creeps me out. Jolene Blalock looks like Steven Tyler after a bender.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Paramount produced each episode at a loss in season 4 so that they would have enough episodes to sell in a syndication deal.

It should be noted that most television series produced by studios for the broadcast networks are produced at a loss in hopes of eventually turning a profit in syndication.

It works like this: networks and studios negotiate a license fee in exchange for which the network gets the right to run each episode of a series they contract for a certain number of times. Actual ownership of the series resides with the studio and any production partners. The license fee rarely covers the entire cost of producing the series. The network makes its money from sales of advertising, but the studio does not see any of that ad money - they receive only the fixed and agreed-upon fee per episode.

This is why it's such a bad thing for studios when a show they produce is cancelled early - they generally wind up taking a loss on the production.

This odd system was more-or-less invented by Desi Arnaz, BTW.

One of the things that made TNG so appealing to Paramount was that they were able to recoup all their costs and turn a profit on the series as it was being produced. Without a network involved, they structured their deals with the independent stations running the show such that Paramount got the majority of advertising money for the hour. Same with DS9, which also didn't run on a network.

Now, did the license fee that UPN paid to the studio for the first three years of Enterprise cover the entire cost of production - that would be real unusual, but not impossible - or did it simply cover a larger percentage of the cost than did a reduced license fee that the network offered for the fourth year?

 

[pookha]

one of the excutives at turner broadcasting said people were laughing everytime the claim was made that enterprise was losing money.

frankly an awful lot of shows are planned to lose money during the first broadcast with the knowledge they will make money in syndication , dvd sales ect.