This is topic ENTERPRISE cuts costs, saves fourth season... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003714

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-21-2004, 07:26 PM:
 
I felt this needed a new thread, as this one is not about the fact that Enterprise as a star trek show sucks in general, but how they managed to avoid cancellation and saved a fourth season, and how those changes will make one of the suckiest shows to ever suck since the word suck was invented...

Shooting digitally instead of on film..

Yep you heard right, they dropped film to go digital, using in many cases handheld HD cams, and quite often shooting with a three camera setup to avoid multiple takes and sound looping later in production...

Few new effects creations...

They will render only from the bank of special effects that have been created so far, and new budgeting of effects is to be limited to about one tenth of last seasons budget...

Shortened shooting schedules....

Episodes are bieng shot in one fourth the time, to avoid escalating crew expenditures...

When all is said and done, about 250 to 600 thousand dollars per episode is cut, from the nearly 2.2 million dollar budget that they had hoped for.

Even then, UPN is still only paying about $800 thousand per episode, even though production costs are around 1.6 million per episode.

Paramount is just trying to find a way for this show to work instead of fail. If it fails it drags the franchise with it, so they believe. So instead they keep this fledging space crapfest on the air.

And now in digital.

Kirk where are you when we need you man!

Ciao Baby
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-21-2004, 09:19 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-21-2004, 10:09 PM:
 
Who really cares if it is being shot digital when it is just going on TV anyway?

As for the show, I liked what they did with last season, haveing the season just one big story line. I hate shows that everything returns to normal at the end of the episode.

However, overall, I think it is time to retire Star Trek.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-21-2004, 10:27 PM:
 
I still like the "film look", even for television shows. Try as they might, video usually has a "reality television" look rather than looking cinematic. Lots of shows on tight budgets have opted for Super-16 film over video cameras, if 35mm is too expensive. Many European networks have used 16mm for decades for their prime time shows.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-21-2004, 10:47 PM:
 
Is "Enterprise" already one of the majority of TV series being produced in Canada instead of the United States? That would seem to be one way of saving money, although the outsourcing angle has really become irritating.

I read a figure somewhere that stated as many as 70% of dramatic TV series for American networks are shot in Canada. New Zealand, Austrailia and Mexico are snagging more production in feature film work. I don't know how other states here in America are figuring. Are there any TV series currently being produced in Texas?
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-22-2004, 07:26 AM:
 
As a semi-regular viewer of this show, I think it is really going off in some strange directions. Due to some local station problems, we missed seeing the first 2 shows this season. The local station has not seen fit to rebroadcast them either.

Now digital?

I agree with J. Pytlak. Film looks better.
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 11-22-2004, 09:36 AM:
 
I'd rather have 7 of 9.
 

---

Posted by Samuel Hynds (Member # 2610) on 11-22-2004, 09:58 AM:
 
who wouldn't.
 

---

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 11-22-2004, 11:56 AM:
 
HMMMMMMMMMMMM 7 of 9
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-22-2004, 01:45 PM:
 
As long as they show it with the UPN network bug, they could shoot it in 70mm and I still wouldn't watch it. If they get rid of the UPN network bug, I'll watch it even if it's shot black-and-white Super 8!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-22-2004, 01:52 PM:
 

quote:

---

I'll watch it even if it's shot black-and-white Super 8!

---

quote:

---

Black-and-White Films
PLUS-X Reversal Film 7265

This is a medium-speed black-and-white Panchromatic film suitable for general exterior photography. It has a high degree of sharpness, good contrast, and tonal gradation. It can be used for interior photography with ample artificial illumination. The film has a daylight EI (ASA) of 100. In Tungsten light (3200K), the EI (ASA) is 80.

Tri-X Reversal Film 7266

This is a high-speed black-and-white Panchromatic film with an antihalation undercoat that makes it suitable for general interior photography with artificial light. It can be used in daylight and is particularly useful for sports pictures taken at regular speed or slow motion in weak light (overcast sky or late in the day). This film is characterized by excellent tonal gradation and sharpness. The film has a Daylight EI (ASA) of 200, Tungsten EI (3200K) (ASA) is 160.

---

 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 11-22-2004, 04:51 PM:
 
Seems to be the same pattern as with the original 1966-1969 STAR TREK.
IIRC, they kept cutting costs every season, and the series didn't earn money until the neverending reruns on syndication.

Not very clever to go digital - how are they going to sell "original production film clips"? I read somewhere that producer Gene Roddenberry "saved" all the outtakes and workprints from the lab vault when STAR TREK was cancelled and for years made a living out of selling "film cels" ...
 

---

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 11-22-2004, 07:19 PM:
 
Well regardless of what it's being shot on, this new 3 ep story arc format absolutely rocks. It looks like they brought in a whole new team of writers and reinvented the show. I'm absolutely loving this season and I hope this gives them the second wind they needed to make it a go.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-22-2004, 07:20 PM:
 
I bet that in twenty years they will wish that the show had been shot and archived on film.
 

---

Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 11-26-2004, 06:47 AM:
 
In my humble opinion, and it is humble I love Star Trek as much as the next Film-Tech geek. That show is too dark and too drawn out. They need more light on that show. It's depressing and a 3 episode format I would think could hurt them because of people like me who grew up loving Star Trek and TNG that don't have time to watch every episode in succession. Why can't they just write a simple story anymore where the good guys win and the Enterprise goes warping away at the end.
This is problably also an advertising ploy to make sure that the ones that are watching are subjected to enough commercials and it furthers the "digital is perfect" propaganda.
I was looking forward to watching this series develop and catching up where I left off, however, I'm very disappointed.
 

---

Posted by Trevor Bailey (Member # 75) on 11-29-2004, 04:15 PM:
 
Last week's episode (Awakening) seemed to have some odd camera angles and shots. Is this what we can expect from Roxann Dawson? I thought LeVar Burton did a good job with "The Augments".
 

---