Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   Could the successful Veronica Mars Kickstarter appeal be a watershed moment for niche movie funding? And could this be the path to The X-Files 3 and Dredd 2?   (denofgeek.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Dredd, Kickstarter, genre movie, Rob Thomas, financing, The Little Mermaid, Paranormal Activity, studio system  
•       •       •

1599 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Mar 2013 at 8:58 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 06:05:05 AM  
I want to slap subby, the guy who wrote the article and probably a lot of other people, too.
 
2013-03-14 09:09:35 AM  
I don't know subs, but I do know that recent Dredd movie was way, way, way better than I'd been expecting.
 
2013-03-14 09:10:01 AM  
Kickstarter is an awesome path to retirement.
 
2013-03-14 09:20:59 AM  
David Duchovny was getting a million an episode the last season of The X-Files, I haven't come close to making that in my lifetime, and they want ME to pay to finance the film.  Yeah right.
 
2013-03-14 09:28:12 AM  
I like the X-Files, but I really can't understand why anyone would really be all that interested in another movie considering the last movie wasn't all that great, nor were the last few seasons...
 
2013-03-14 09:29:25 AM  
Dredd had a budget of 50 million. When kickstarter films start reaching that level of funding studios will start to take notice.
 
2013-03-14 09:30:33 AM  
Paranormal Activity stands out in the modern era because it's so cheap, and yet so successful.

Uh... getting shelved for the better part of a decade after filming, then having your ending completely altered (to something stupider) and the project thrown up as cheap Halloween filler one year when some other project fell through, then the franchise taken up by some random other schmucks, is successful?

I dunno how it works in Hollywood, but I don't know how sanguine I'd be about a project where I didn't get paid until several years later, and then someone else got my check.
 
2013-03-14 09:32:32 AM  

mongbiohazard: I don't know subs, but I do know that recent Dredd movie was way, way, way better than I'd been expecting.


That is because The Raid Redemption was good. Dredd just added a mask.
 
2013-03-14 09:40:00 AM  

Carth: Dredd had a budget of 50 million. When kickstarter films start reaching that level of funding studios will start to take notice.


Anytime studios see free money, they take notice. All they're asking WB to do is promote and distribute which is good for fans because that means they won't be trying to nose in and do re-writes and/or editing (hopefully).

I've never heard of this show before, but somewhere, a FOX exec is scratching their chin and flipping through a catalog of all their "cult following" shows wondering how they can get some of that free money.
 
2013-03-14 09:58:32 AM  
I wish Veronica Mars was still available on Netflix. I was watching the second season when it disappeared.
 
2013-03-14 09:59:11 AM  

LarryDan43: mongbiohazard: I don't know subs, but I do know that recent Dredd movie was way, way, way better than I'd been expecting.

That is because The Raid Redemption was good. Dredd just added a mask.


Except Dredd was in production for a lot longer than The Raid. Both of them coming out around the same time was pure coincidence.

I enjoyed The Raid: Redemption, but I enjoyed Dredd more.
 
2013-03-14 10:02:28 AM  
There was an X-Files 2?

I thought The Raid: Redemption started strong but then faded fast (even with the ridiculous martial arts kills). I liked Dredd. Check out End of Watch to round out the "trapped in a building" trifecta.
 
2013-03-14 10:10:05 AM  

Nightenstaff: Carth: Dredd had a budget of 50 million. When kickstarter films start reaching that level of funding studios will start to take notice.

Anytime studios see free money, they take notice. All they're asking WB to do is promote and distribute which is good for fans because that means they won't be trying to nose in and do re-writes and/or editing (hopefully).

I've never heard of this show before, but somewhere, a FOX exec is scratching their chin and flipping through a catalog of all their "cult following" shows wondering how they can get some of that free money.



What fantasy world do you live in where $2 million is enough to make a studio film with now-well known stars? Even if the actors work for free, you're talking about paying for a script, paying for sets and locations, and paying for a crew to work on your movie for at least 2 months. Given that they'd likely want to use a lot of the same crew from the TV show, you're talking about a union crew.

And that's not even counting the costs of buying up national advertising, making prints, and setting up a wide release, which would cost millions more.

In short, the 2 million that was raised is impressive, but it is not nearly enough to get this movie off the ground. No one is digging out old cult shows yet.
 
2013-03-14 10:14:20 AM  

stoli n coke: In short, the 2 million that was raised is impressive, but it is not nearly enough to get this movie off the ground. No one is digging out old cult shows yet.


TWO MILLION TO BRING BACK THE CREW OF FIREFLY!!!!
 
2013-03-14 10:16:10 AM  

LarryDan43: I wish Veronica Mars was still available on Netflix. I was watching the second season when it disappeared.


It is still available online. You just have to sit through commercials.

http://www.thewb.com/shows/veronica-mars  (or not if your adblock is up).
 
2013-03-14 10:30:59 AM  
this is a terrible, terrible precedent...people offering big budget studios money to make films that will make them more money. it'd be one thing if the kickstarter was to buy the rights, but this is a horrible misuse of the service.
 
2013-03-14 10:58:38 AM  

psilosybical: this is a terrible, terrible precedent...people offering big budget studios money to make films that will make them more money. it'd be one thing if the kickstarter was to buy the rights, but this is a horrible misuse of the service.


So, no one should ever use Kickstarter for anything they can then sell to people other than those who participated in the initial Kickstarter?  Well, there goes 90% of what's on KS.
 
2013-03-14 11:00:15 AM  
So, folks are ok with studios asking for donations so they can make a movie, which they will then charge these same people $10+ to see in a theater with 60 or so more folks. 1/3 of which can't get off the damn phone. Is that about right?

Will this increase production value? Make the movie more enjoyable?
 
2013-03-14 11:02:45 AM  
Everyone who contributes to a movie kickstarter should get free theater tickets, a free dvd and a producer credit
 
2013-03-14 11:08:11 AM  
Teufelaffe:  So, no one should ever use Kickstarter for anything they can then sell to people other than those who participated in the initial Kickstarter?  Well, there goes 90% of what's on KS.

no, it just defies the point of kickstarter. kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created. there's plenty of money in the pockets of warner brothers, kristen bell, and whoever else is involved. should fans really be paying for something that could be paid for if they just had a goddamned petition?
 
2013-03-14 11:09:44 AM  

CPennypacker: Everyone who contributes to a movie kickstarter should get free theater tickets, a free dvd and a producer credit


Well, for the Veronica Mars one you can in fact get digital, DVD, and Bluray copies of the film, a copy of the script, t-shirts, and potentially other stuff (including a role as an extra) for pitching in at various levels.  Though, producer credit is not among the rewards, I noticed.
 
2013-03-14 11:10:26 AM  

stoli n coke: Nightenstaff: Carth: Dredd had a budget of 50 million. When kickstarter films start reaching that level of funding studios will start to take notice.

Anytime studios see free money, they take notice. All they're asking WB to do is promote and distribute which is good for fans because that means they won't be trying to nose in and do re-writes and/or editing (hopefully).

I've never heard of this show before, but somewhere, a FOX exec is scratching their chin and flipping through a catalog of all their "cult following" shows wondering how they can get some of that free money.


What fantasy world do you live in where $2 million is enough to make a studio film with now-well known stars? Even if the actors work for free, you're talking about paying for a script, paying for sets and locations, and paying for a crew to work on your movie for at least 2 months. Given that they'd likely want to use a lot of the same crew from the TV show, you're talking about a union crew.

And that's not even counting the costs of buying up national advertising, making prints, and setting up a wide release, which would cost millions more.

In short, the 2 million that was raised is impressive, but it is not nearly enough to get this movie off the ground. No one is digging out old cult shows yet.


Actually, Thomas has made it pretty clear that $2 million is the bare minimum they needed to get this done.  He's pretty much working for back-end money and the actors are likely working for scale.  And it's not like super-low budget movies haven't been done before.  Just looking at the last decade or so:

Garden State - $2.5 million
Lost in Translation - $4 million
Napoleon Dynamite - $400,000
Beasts of the Southern Wild - $1.8 million
Winter's Bone - $2 million
The Kids Are Alright - $4 million

It's pretty clear this is a passion project for most of the people involved.  Obviously, the more money they raise, the more they'll be able to do (and they're at about $2.64 million as I write this).  Nobody's doing another Firefly movie for $2 million, certainly.  But for a show like Veronica Mars, that didn't really rely on action or effects, they can do this on the cheap.
 
2013-03-14 11:11:34 AM  

Unoriginal_Username: So, folks are ok with studios asking for donations so they can make a movie, which they will then charge these same people $10+ to see in a theater with 60 or so more folks. 1/3 of which can't get off the damn phone. Is that about right?

Will this increase production value? Make the movie more enjoyable?


So, here's how this works.

When someone puts a project up on Kickstarter, they're asking for donations. It turns out that people aren't in any way forced to donate! Also, when they do donate, they receive something in return. The person who is deciding whether to donate or not gets to decide whether the good feeling they get for supporting the project, plus the gifts they receive in addition, are worth the amount of money they're thinking of donating. If not, they don't donate. If so, they do!

If you donate a certain amount, you are supposed to get a copy of the movie. So you're not being charged another $10 to go see it. But, if you're the kind of person willing to donate money to see a project come to fruition, you might even be willing to pay another $10 to see the movie in the theater.

Some people like to support stuff. People who don't don't usually support stuff on Kickstarter. If you're not willing to support the Kickstarter, then you get to choose whether you want to pay $10 to see the movie the regular way.

But if this gets a studio to look Veronica Mars' way, and they put money in to get the film made, that's all it takes for some fans of the show to feel satisfied. Game companies use Kickstarter to fund demos all the time, so they can take the polished demo to a publisher and get the $30 million it costs to make a AAA game.
 
2013-03-14 11:14:43 AM  

psilosybical: Teufelaffe:  So, no one should ever use Kickstarter for anything they can then sell to people other than those who participated in the initial Kickstarter?  Well, there goes 90% of what's on KS.

no, it just defies the point of kickstarter. kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created. there's plenty of money in the pockets of warner brothers, kristen bell, and whoever else is involved. should fans really be paying for something that could be paid for if they just had a goddamned petition?


<insert facepalm.jpg here>

Yes, I'm sure that all it would have taken was a petition.  Just like the Babylon 5 petition worked to keep it on the air.  And the Firefly petition.  And the Robotech petition.  And the Camelot petition.  And the...well, I hope you get the point.
 
2013-03-14 11:19:37 AM  

psilosybical: Teufelaffe:  So, no one should ever use Kickstarter for anything they can then sell to people other than those who participated in the initial Kickstarter?  Well, there goes 90% of what's on KS.

no, it just defies the point of kickstarter. kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created. there's plenty of money in the pockets of warner brothers, kristen bell, and whoever else is involved. should fans really be paying for something that could be paid for if they just had a goddamned petition?


Petitions are worthless.  It costs nothing to sign a petition.  This is proving that there are people out there who are willing to put their money into this project.  WB has promised to pay for the marketing and distribution costs if the movie gets made (not an insignificant sum) so, while they'll likely make some money off the movie, it's unlikely to be much and they almost certainly would have lost money had they fronted the production costs themselves.

As you say "kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created."  Everybody involved has made it abundantly clear that this movie is not going to be made without proof of fan investment.  This is, clearly, the best way to demonstrate that.
 
2013-03-14 11:27:09 AM  
I was watching the Rooster Teeth live stream when Richard Garriott announced his new game and was using Kickstarter to fund it. But if you contributed to his kickstarter. You got a copy of the beta and the game when it was finally released.
 
2013-03-14 11:27:46 AM  
Teufelaffe:<insert facepalm.jpg here>

Yes, I'm sure that all it would have taken was a petition.  Just like the Babylon 5 petition worked to keep it on the air.  And the Firefly petition.  And the Robotech petition.  And the Camelot petition.  And the...well, I hope you get the point.


the fans weren't loud enough. money isn't necessary for volume is more my point.

rugman11:  As you say "kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created."  Everybody involved has made it abundantly clear that this movie is not going to be made without proof of fan investment.  This is, clearly, the best way to demonstrate that.

correct. kickstarter is there to fund the otherwise unfunded. this had potential funding all around it, just unwilling participants.

i'm glad you guys have no problem with a mega corporation with billions and billions of liquid cash profiteering. facepalm indeed.
 
2013-03-14 11:34:15 AM  

psilosybical: the fans weren't loud enough. money isn't necessary for volume is more my point.


OK, find us a movie or TV show that was produced as the result of a petition and not money.  Go ahead, we'll wait.
 
2013-03-14 11:37:09 AM  

psilosybical: rugman11: As you say "kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created." Everybody involved has made it abundantly clear that this movie is not going to be made without proof of fan investment. This is, clearly, the best way to demonstrate that.

correct. kickstarter is there to fund the otherwise unfunded. this had potential funding all around it, just unwilling participants.

i'm glad you guys have no problem with a mega corporation with billions and billions of liquid cash profiteering. facepalm indeed.


Many fans wanted a Veronica Mars movie.  The people involved wanted to do a money (even on the cheap) but couldn't afford to do it themselves.  The film company said "we're not in the business of losing money, so if you want to do a money, you pay for it."  So the people involved went to the fans and said, "look, the only way this is getting done is if you're willing to fund it.  What do you think?"  And the fans, or at least 43,700 of them declared that they were willing to pay out of their own pocket to get this thing done.  Will WB make some money off of this?  Maybe, but probably not much.

This is a new frontier.  I don't know how it will work out or if others will follow suit, but for the first time 40,000+ are able to come together to collectively finance a movie they want to see.  What's wrong with that?
 
2013-03-14 11:41:27 AM  

rugman11: psilosybical: Teufelaffe:  So, no one should ever use Kickstarter for anything they can then sell to people other than those who participated in the initial Kickstarter?  Well, there goes 90% of what's on KS.

no, it just defies the point of kickstarter. kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created. there's plenty of money in the pockets of warner brothers, kristen bell, and whoever else is involved. should fans really be paying for something that could be paid for if they just had a goddamned petition?

Petitions are worthless.  It costs nothing to sign a petition.  This is proving that there are people out there who are willing to put their money into this project.  WB has promised to pay for the marketing and distribution costs if the movie gets made (not an insignificant sum) so, while they'll likely make some money off the movie, it's unlikely to be much and they almost certainly would have lost money had they fronted the production costs themselves.

As you say "kickstarter is there to fund projects that would otherwise be unable to be created."  Everybody involved has made it abundantly clear that this movie is not going to be made without proof of fan investment.  This is, clearly, the best way to demonstrate that.


Well stated.

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting about this style of funding a movie, however, is that without the studio actually funding the production, you don't get studio production  notes.

Louie C.K. was offered more money per episode to up the production value of his show, but he declined because the more money a studio spends the more they will want to be involved with the end product. By keeping Louie under $1,000,000 an episode (and it's way under that, I think under $500,000) he keeps the studio off his back and he gets to make the show he wants to make.

Veronica Mars is a very fan based show, it may not be the most popular show ever, and didn't really connect with the population at large, but those of us who loved it did so with great fervor. If a studio funded the production, the movie would have to be altered to appeal to a massive audience, probably loosing what made it what it was. By funding it ourselves with Kickstarter perks, the people who made the show originally get to make the movie they wanted to make, instead of the movie the studio can market to everyone.

Fanservice? Maybe. There is nothing wrong with trying to appeal to a wide audience, or trying to make as much money as possible, but this model provides fans with the ability to get what they want if they are willing to pay for it. This movie won'y be for everybody, it's for the fans, so why shouldn't the fans pay for it? Excellent, excellent model.
 
2013-03-14 11:44:14 AM  

psilosybical: i'm glad you guys have no problem with a mega corporation with billions and billions of liquid cash profiteering. facepalm indeed


This isn't a megacorporation. It's a group of people who want to make a film. Kristen Bell isn't exactly top-shelf talent, and I sincerely doubt that she has the scratch available to plow $2M into a movie which would be billed as a vanity project. If everyone heading the production mortgaged their houses, they could probably get $2M together. Probably.

WB is the distributor. That means that they don't invest in the film itself, but they commit to releasing the finished film and promoting it. Every indie film needs a distributor, because otherwise there's no way they're going to get into theaters. WB stands to make a modest return, if the film is successful. Since it probably won't be (let's be honest), it's far more likely that WB is going to do a limited run in a handful of theaters and then go straight to DVD.
 
2013-03-14 11:44:51 AM  

psilosybical: correct. kickstarter is there to fund the otherwise unfunded. this had potential funding all around it, just unwilling participants.


So your argument is, Kickstarter is for funding things that can't get normal funding from people who have money, but this one shouldn't be on KS because it couldn't get normal funding from people who have money?  That's some mighty fine logic there.
 
2013-03-14 12:13:19 PM  
Now we can get that Wheel of Time movie franchise. $7.5 billion or so should do it
 
2013-03-14 12:32:18 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-14 12:48:55 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: OK, find us a movie or TV show that was produced as the result of a petition and not money.  Go ahead, we'll wait.


arrested development came back due to demand. they didn't ask me for my money, and i'll be enjoying it come may.

rugman11: Will WB make some money off of this?  Maybe, but probably not much.


if you believe that, then you're being naive. once WB sees the demand to assume they will not get their hands involved is to just be ignoring the obvious.

hetheeme: Excellent, excellent model.

absolutely incorrect. the purpose of kickstarter is for independent projects to get funding so they can exist. NOT to wake up a film distributor. this is a pretty basic concept, it's a misuse of the service.

t3knomanser: This isn't a megacorporation. It's a group of people who want to make a film. Kristen Bell isn't exactly top-shelf talent, and I sincerely doubt that she has the scratch available to plow $2M into a movie which would be billed as a vanity project. If everyone heading the production mortgaged their houses, they could probably get $2M together. Probably.

WB is the distributor. That means that they don't invest in the film itself, but they commit to releasing the finished film and promoting it. Every indie film needs a distributor, because otherwise there's no way they're going to get into theaters. WB stands to make a modest return, if the film is successful. Since it probably won't be (let's be honest), it's far more likely that WB is going to do a limited run in a handful of theaters and then go straight to DVD.


WB is a megacorporation. your fantasy that they will be happy to just distribute this movie and let this be a kickstarter fairy tale is just that; a fantasy. they're a for-profit organization, and when they see fan support to this extent you'd better believe that they will exploit it. they have a lightning in a bottle marketing angle now that money couldn't buy (or i suppose technically, money could buy), so you'd better bet that this will end up at every corner movie theater they can get the movie into. that's what they do, and i'm not faulting them for it. my problem lies more with the creator and the fans.

between the clown who created this show and amanda palmer's temporary abuse of kickstarter, the idea of the service for projects that NEED it is completely devalued. what was once started as a service to help out independent projects by everyday people has been officially co-opted by the big guys. and nearly everyone here is ok watching that go away. i'm not.

I created this alt just for this thread: So your argument is, Kickstarter is for funding things that can't get normal funding from people who have money, but this one shouldn't be on KS because it couldn't get normal funding from people who have money?  That's some mighty fine logic there.


kickstarter's there for the little guys, not for millionaires or corporations. to see it used in this fashion is disgusting, and if you don't see it this way, you're completely missing the plot.
 
2013-03-14 12:53:55 PM  

t3knomanser: This isn't a megacorporation. It's a group of people who want to make a film. Kristen Bell isn't exactly top-shelf talent, and I sincerely doubt that she has the scratch available to plow $2M into a movie which would be billed as a vanity project. If everyone heading the production mortgaged their houses, they could probably get $2M together. Probably.


kristen bell has a net worth (if the source is to be believed) of $8m. she's not starving, and she could certainly have secured a loan to make this happen. rob thomas also co-created party down and the new 90210. something tells me he could have helped out with this, too. it's similar to amanda palmer using kickstarter and asking her fans for money (let alone their time and expertise in her backing band) instead of asking her millionaire husband to help her out. these people have options, and they're giving a great service a terrible stink.
 
2013-03-14 12:54:11 PM  
Firefly animated movie with original actor's voices?

That may be affordable.
 
2013-03-14 12:56:39 PM  

mongbiohazard: I don't know subs, but I do know that recent Dredd movie was way, way, way better than I'd been expecting.


^^^this^^^
 
2013-03-14 01:16:51 PM  

psilosybical: I created this alt just for this thread: So your argument is, Kickstarter is for funding things that can't get normal funding from people who have money, but this one shouldn't be on KS because it couldn't get normal funding from people who have money? That's some mighty fine logic there.

kickstarter's there for the little guys, not for millionaires or corporations. to see it used in this fashion is disgusting, and if you don't see it this way, you're completely missing the plot.


"Kickstarter is a funding platform for creative projects. Everything from films, games, and music to art, design, and technology. Kickstarter is full of ambitious, innovative, and imaginative projects that are brought to life through the direct support of others."

Huh, don't see anything in there about Kickstarter being for the "little guys" exclusively.  But, since that's what you think it's for, do you also object to these projects?

Shroud of the Avatar (Richard Garriot hardly qualifies as one of the "little guys")
Star Citizen (Again, Chris Roberts is not one of the "little guys")
Almond+ (the "sequel" to an existing, well-selling product)
Smallworld 2 (Days of Wonder is a multi-million dollar company)
Rivet Wars (From CoolMiniOrNot, a well established company)

Yeah, there are a lot of "one person working out of their garage" projects on Kickstarter, but if KS was intended to be only for those people, the folks who run Kickstarter would have done something to ensure that (no projects from companies with over X number of employees, or no companies over $X yearly income, etc).  The fact that Kickstarter hasn't implemented such limitations means that they don't think their service is just for the "little guys" either.

Sorry if that bursts your "Kickstarter is for the underdogs" bubble, but Kickstarter's stated purpose is to get creative people together with money, not to act as some noble endeavor for the downtrodden entrepreneur.
 
2013-03-14 01:18:23 PM  
Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease let there be a Dredd 2.
 
2013-03-14 01:20:39 PM  
A Dredd 2 Kickstarter would certainly get my money.  The first one kicked ass.
 
2013-03-14 01:25:04 PM  

psilosybical: arrested development came back due to demand. they didn't ask me for my money, and i'll be enjoying it come may.


Arrested Development came back because Netflix was looking to get into original programming and decided to take on an already established product.  If demand was enough to bring it back, the feature film wouldn't have sat in development hell for five years (which it actually still is).

psilosybical: if you believe that, then you're being naive. once WB sees the demand to assume they will not get their hands involved is to just be ignoring the obvious.


What real demand is there, though?  So far we know ~50,000 care enough to prepay for a digital download of it.  Veronica Mars averaged 2-3 million viewers.  Even if every one of those people goes to see it, that's only about 20-30 million dollars.  Realistically, this movie is probably going to make less than $10 million dollars.  It's a vanity/fan project and, as such, it makes sense that the fans should pay for it.

psilosybical: kickstarter's there for the little guys, not for millionaires or corporations. to see it used in this fashion is disgusting, and if you don't see it this way, you're completely missing the plot.


You're looking at this backwards.  Kickstarter has generally been used in the way you described.  In this case, it's being used to bring tens of thousands of fans of an existing property together to see it continue.  I fell like you don't seem to be getting that THIS MOVIE DOES NOT GET MADE ANY OTHER WAY.  Nobody was going to fund a Veronica Mars movie except for the fans and now they have a way too.

psilosybical: kristen bell has a net worth (if the source is to be believed) of $8m. she's not starving, and she could certainly have secured a loan to make this happen. rob thomas also co-created party down and the new 90210. something tells me he could have helped out with this, too. it's similar to amanda palmer using kickstarter and asking her fans for money (let alone their time and expertise in her backing band) instead of asking her millionaire husband to help her out. these people have options, and they're giving a great service a terrible stink.


Kristen Bell is going to be giving up two months of her work hiatus to work for next to nothing when she could instead be making other movies where she actually gets paid.  That opportunity cost alone is probably over $1 million.  This isn't the same as a musician taking in $1 million to make an album and then begging people to join play with her on the tour for free.  This is a movie.  They're expensive to make and they always need a distributor if they even hope to recoup their costs.  Personally, I don't think it's reasonable to ask actors and writers to pay for a fan project out of their own pockets.
 
2013-03-14 01:29:30 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Huh, don't see anything in there about Kickstarter being for the "little guys" exclusively.  But, since that's what you think it's for, do you also object to these projects?

Shroud of the Avatar (Richard Garriot hardly qualifies as one of the "little guys")
Star Citizen (Again, Chris Roberts is not one of the "little guys")
Almond+ (the "sequel" to an existing, well-selling product)
Smallworld 2 (Days of Wonder is a multi-million dollar company)
Rivet Wars (From CoolMiniOrNot, a well established company)

Yeah, there are a lot of "one person working out of their garage" projects on Kickstarter, but if KS was intended to be only for those people, the folks who run Kickstarter would have done something to ensure that (no projects from companies with over X number of employees, or no companies over $X yearly income, etc).  The fact that Kickstarter hasn't implemented such limitations means that they don't think their service is just for the "little guys" either.

Sorry if that bursts your "Kickstarter is for the underdogs" bubble, but Kickstarter's stated purpose is to get creative people together with money, not to act as some noble endeavor for the downtrodden entrepreneur.


oh, not a problem. my bubble isn't at all bursted. i have a problem with any project up there that can achieve its own financing. it's not like we're talking quantum physics here. trying to argue this by giving me examples of other people milking this system is not helping your cause in my eyes. whatever it takes for you to justify your donation to this in your head is fine by me, but you're not persuading me that a group of people turned to their fans instead of ANY other source.
 
2013-03-14 01:31:50 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Now we can get that Wheel of Time movie franchise. $7.5 billion or so should do it


god movies 6-10 would be really painful to watch.
 
2013-03-14 01:37:44 PM  

rugman11: Arrested Development came back because Netflix was looking to get into original programming and decided to take on an already established product.  If demand was enough to bring it back, the feature film wouldn't have sat in development hell for five years (which it actually still is).

What real demand is there, though?  So far we know ~50,000 care enough to prepay for a digital download of it.  Veronica Mars averaged 2-3 million viewers.  Even if every one of those people goes to see it, that's only about 20-30 million dollars.  Realistically, this movie is probably going to make less than $10 million dollars.  It's a vanity/fan project and, as such, it makes sense that the fans should pay for it.

You're looking at this backwards.  Kickstarter has generally been used in the way you described.  In this case, it's being used to bring tens of thousands of fans of an existing property together to see it continue.  I fell like you don't seem to be getting that THIS MOVIE DOES NOT GET MADE ANY OTHER WAY.  Nobody was going to fund a Veronica Mars movie except for the fans and now they have a way too.



right, because arrested development would not have come back without netflix. and i feel like if you're gonna say netflix was the saving grace of AD, you have to account for it as being a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE for veronica mars. let's not do double standards.

this isn't a fan project. this is now a major motion picture. it's a cute story to say that the fans resurrected it, but the fact of the matter is that now all that the "fan project" talk amounts to is great PR for WB. if you don't think that this will be shoved down everyone's throat via news outlets, commercials, television specials, and any other outlet that WB's advertising dollars can buy then you're only kidding yourself. there's something they can latch onto here, so you'd better believe they will. your box office numbers are nice, but multiply by 5 if you want to be realistic.
 
2013-03-14 01:39:19 PM  

psilosybical: WB is a megacorporation. your fantasy that they will be happy to just distribute this movie and let this be a kickstarter fairy tale is just that; a fantasy


Um, no, that's how Hollywood works. These agreements get encoded into things like "contracts". Distributors never pay to produce films. Studios do. WB Studios _could_ take over production of the film, but now they have to put up their own money. It's far better for WB to let this be an indie film and then they get to control how it's distributed. This is indie film-making 101. The only thing unusual here is that WB signed on to distribute before the production was even funded, but it'd hardly be the first time a film didn't get made while under contract.
 
2013-03-14 01:50:03 PM  

psilosybical: i have a problem with any project up there that can achieve its own financing


Why are you assuming that 1) Kickstarter is ONLY for projects that cannot achieve funding any other way and 2) that a project from a large corporation automatically means they haven't tried other methods of funding?

Oh, FYI, the Veronica Mars KS is NOT from WB.  It's been started by the executive producer of the original TV series.  Of course, if you'd checked out the actual Kickstarter instead of making assumptions, you'd already know that.
 
2013-03-14 01:50:19 PM  

t3knomanser: Um, no, that's how Hollywood works. These agreements get encoded into things like "contracts". Distributors never pay to produce films. Studios do. WB Studios _could_ take over production of the film, but now they have to put up their own money. It's far better for WB to let this be an indie film and then they get to control how it's distributed. This is indie film-making 101. The only thing unusual here is that WB signed on to distribute before the production was even funded, but it'd hardly be the first time a film didn't get made while under contract.


you speak like a filmmaker, but you can't be one because you're not horrifically offended by this.

at this point it's largely "wait and see". it's possible that WB will be content in their role as distributor. i don't see that as being likely.

anyway, it's clear that everyone here is comfortable with the fact that they paid money to make warner brothers money (even if you did get your movie made) and opened the doors for other big films to overshadow the little films and albums and inventions that used to be what kickstarter was all about. here come the sharks...
 
2013-03-14 01:50:43 PM  

psilosybical: this isn't a fan project. this is now a major motion picture.


It is not a major motion picture. It is a minor indie film with pre-committed distribution.

psilosybical: if you don't think that this will be shoved down everyone's throat via news outlets, commercials, television specials, and any other outlet that WB's advertising dollars can buy then you're only kidding yourself.


You really think WB is going to be so foolish as to build a gigantic marketing blitz for a minor release in their schedule?  Really? Looking at the kickstarter rewards, it's pretty clear that any theatrical release is going to be fairly minor, and the WB has no intention of seriously promoting it (releasing the shooting script and digital downloads on the day of?). This Kickstarter is more of a way to pre-order the digital downloads than it is for WB to make a movie on the cheap.

A low-budget film based on a TV series that whimpered out after three seasons is not going to be a cash-cow for WB.
 
2013-03-14 01:54:37 PM  

psilosybical: it's possible that WB will be content in their role as distributor. i don't see that as being likely.


Well, they don't really have a say in the matter, now. The only way they could make a Veronica Mars movie now would be to buy the rights out from under the Kickstarter production  because they've already made the agreement. Besides, why would WB want to risk their own money on this if they could avoid it?  You seem to be arguing that  no film produced on Kickstarter should have distribution, which is utterly insane.

psilosybical: here come the sharks...


Oh, please. Cut the histrionics. There are already plenty of big-budget products incubating in Kickstarter. And there are still plenty of small projects that get successful only because of Kickstarter. Heck, I'm in on a day planner based on the Egyptian calendar that more than tripled its original funding targets. They're giving away copies to libraries, they made so much money.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report