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.

(SeattlePI)   Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign rattles movie industry. And by "rattles", they mean that Hollywood has just seen the perfect new way to fleece the marks out of more money that gimmicks like 3-D could never have delivered   (seattlepi.com) divider line 96
    More: Interesting, Hollywood, film industry, Kickstarter campaign, Rob Thomas, Kickstarter, UPN, rale, cult hit  
•       •       •

3504 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 23 Mar 2013 at 11:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-23 05:07:15 PM

LemSkroob: Bit of a double-dip i guess. They only way it would make sense i guess would be if giving to Kickstarter was the same as pre-ordering a copy of the DVD. If you dont get a full copy of the movie, its a loss for you.


There's a little more to it than that. If it's a project you personally want to see made, there's the game theory aspect to it as well -- can you rely on others to fund it? That said, most of these crowdfunded project give you a copy if you donate over a certain funding level. For Veronica Mars, anyone who kicked in over $35 gets a copy of the film.
 
2013-03-23 05:07:50 PM
I should mention the non-profit I work for is turning to crowdfuding, so I'm getting a kick of of these replies, etc.
 
2013-03-23 05:27:04 PM

realmolo: The first season of "Veronica Mars" was fantastic. Probably the best "mystery" show ever. It was nearly perfect.

The second and third seasons...not so much. They're almost like the "Matrix" sequels, in that they diminish the greatness of the first season by retroactively messing up some of the plot and characters.

 A movie could work, though.


What Matrix sequels. There were no Matrix sequels........
 
2013-03-23 05:36:11 PM

kab: How is this fleecing the market subby?

If anything, every form of entertainment out there should be funded this way.   Fewer folks lose money, and consumers get exactly what they want / deserve.


I'm not sure that would work.

Now, if you said that it could contribute, that is to say, create a hybrid model whereby people who come in on a Kickstarter-type project get "shares" in the final AND studios back the rest, to include promotion, handshaking and marketing (I'd be pissy if I put in $35 to facilitate a project that eventually ended up making $1B worldwide and a fat profit for a studio exec and all I get is a copy of the movie), because let's face it, any deal where money gets exchanged for proposed profit is a "who you know" sort of deal, then maybe I can see this sort of thing having legs.

But right now?   I think Kickstarter-funded projects that don't really have centralized control by people who can capably promote the project AND sell it to a wide-scale audience are a pipe dream.  

The other thing about this of number of people passionate enough to fund a project doesn't take into account all the people who would go see a movie because "it's out there to be seen".  There are plenty of people in the world that really don't care who directs something, who stars in something and all the other blah-blah some of us care about.  They go and see a movie because that's just what they do.  That's a harder chunk of the population to figure out.

I think studios kind of use things like Serenity and Snakes on a Plane as cautionary tales.  The internet likes it?  Big deal.  Not everybody is as "plugged in" as those people are.  

Alphakronik: Mugato: jake_lex: I never saw Firefly as a show that was going to be able to go 100+ episodes without getting lame, anyway

I could see Whedon's "everyone is so clever and sarcastic" dialog getting old fast. It certainly did with Buffy. A lot of otherwise good writers have the problem of all their characters speaking in the same voice. See also Aaron Sorkin, Kevin Smith, Tarantino.

I'd say while Tarantino has been guilty of that in the past, his most recent films have seemed to show an improvement in the area (Inglorious Basterds, Django).

Well scripted, and very well written, IMO.


I used to be a big believer that Tarantino would end up like Smith and Whedon in the whole "overwritten dialogue" category.  (Sorkin slightly edges the both of them out - but not by much - because he can at least write stories among adults, not overgrown children or pretentious hipsters.  You get the feeling those two write scenes as if they were thinking "yeah, everyone's going to be repeating THAT to their friends after they leave the theater, bwah, I'm so clever" - nobody ever notes Smith or Whedon for their visuals, and it's very likely because they care more telling than showing.)

Then I saw the House of Blue Leaves scene in Kill Bill Pt. 1.  Not the Crazy 88 fight, though that had its merits.  Just the scene between the Bride and O-Ren.  To this day, I will stop anything I'm doing to watch that scene.  Say what you want about Tarantino's ability to write dialogue, but if you look at that scene and can say that he's "just a writer" the way Smith and Whedon are writers, you must be blind.
 
2013-03-23 05:53:05 PM

MrEricSir: LemSkroob: Bit of a double-dip i guess. They only way it would make sense i guess would be if giving to Kickstarter was the same as pre-ordering a copy of the DVD. If you dont get a full copy of the movie, its a loss for you.

There's a little more to it than that. If it's a project you personally want to see made, there's the game theory aspect to it as well -- can you rely on others to fund it? That said, most of these crowdfunded project give you a copy if you donate over a certain funding level. For Veronica Mars, anyone who kicked in over $35 gets a copy of the film.


Which is pretty much buying a DVD copy twice.

Make it a $19.95 for a physical DVD when it comes out, and then i would bite. Like i had said, just make it a pre-order system. Paying more for something that is known to have a true value that is lower is just silly.
 
2013-03-23 05:54:39 PM

kroonermanblack: Wtf is 'veronica mars'? It's drawing a lot of bizarre comparisons, but the name makes me think it's some low-rent Sex and City knockoff.

I could google it, I know, but I thought I'd ask since everyone here seems to love it?

/no, lmgtfy isn't farking funny or helpful, before you post it
//fellow consumer feedback is important and helpful in defining a genre above and beyond what generic press conference marketing can tell me


Sex and the City?!?  Not even the tiniest bit. If I had to compare it to anything, maybe a cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer (minus vampires) and Freaks and Geeks.
 
2013-03-23 05:59:42 PM

Mad_Radhu: Iczer: Ennuipoet: I like reading Joss Whedon's reactions to this.  On the one hand he's a booster, on the other you can hear the hesitation in his tone about revisiting Firefly.  I can sympathize, as much as I love Firefly I respect the desire to move forward and not be shackled to previous projects.  It's like he balancing on a razor blade trying to keep the fans happy while at the same time telling them it ain't gonna happen.

I'd just like to have some closure for certain aspects of Firefly honestly. Like who/what exactly Book was prior to becoming a shepherd.

They covered it in a Firefly comic:

(Spoilers)

His background is explored further in the comic book Serenity: The Shepherd's Tale. Book was born Henry Evans, a boy who was raised by an abusive father. He ran away from home and began life as a petty criminal before being recruited by the Independence movement and moving out to the Border Worlds. Long before the Alliance begins the Unification War, forward-thinking Browncoats assign Evans to be a long-term mole. He sheds his old identity by killing a random passerby and stealing his identification card, becoming Derrial Book. His Browncoat superiors keep tabs on him by surgically removing one of his eyes and replacing it with an artificial camera. He joins the Alliance military and quickly moves up in rank. Becoming an officer, Book intentionally leads a risky operation that results in a humiliating defeat for the Alliance. He is forced to retire from the Alliance military. It is implied that the Alliance covers up the loss, therefore not officially punishing Book. Homeless, he visits a soup kitchen and finds God while contemplating a bowl of soup. He takes refuge at an abbey where he becomes a shepherd before leaving on Serenity to become a missionary.


Why the flaming fark would he be homeless? He's a long-term mole, he would be recovered for debriefing, and probably training and counter-whatever tactics type analysis.
 
2013-03-23 06:39:48 PM
Having somehow blinked and missed the half-season Firefly was around, I caught the movie Serenity without any knowledge of the show. I loved it. The vision, the cast, the whole thing hung together really well.

So I went and tracked down Firefly, and was over it within two-and-a-half episodes. The scripts were thin, the acting wooden, the production values bordering on laughable.

Sorry, fanboys. You should feel lucky you have that film as the show's legacy
 
2013-03-23 06:43:35 PM

kroonermanblack: He's a long-term mole, he would be recovered for debriefing, and probably training and counter-whatever tactics type analysis.


And this is why certain mysteries should be left as  mysteries goddammit. Not everything needs to be explained, not every lose end needs to be tied up. We don't need to know Book's backstory- it's enough to know that he  has one, and the things he doesn't tell us have an effect on what's happening in the story right now.
 
2013-03-23 06:52:14 PM
Thank Christ I didn't have to fork over my own cash to get more Arrested Development.
 
2013-03-23 07:01:54 PM

FirstNationalBastard: dopekitty74: I'd contribute to a kickstarter to make a finale episode for My Name Is Earl.

/still want's to know who Dodge's daddy is!

Didn't they just pretty much wrap My Name Is Earl up on an episode of Raising Hope?



FirstNationalBastard: dopekitty74: Did they? I don't have cable anymore and never got into that show when i did.

No, turns out they just got all the cast members back to play different roles, which pissed away an opportunity to actually wrap My Name Is Earl up.

/I had heard there was a My Name Is Earl reunion on the show... stupid me, I thought the actors had appeared as their Earl characters.



In the first episode of "Raising Hope", a newscaster starts a report saying something along the lines of "A small town crook trying to make amends finally completes his list, and you'll never believe how."
 
2013-03-23 07:33:43 PM

Mugato: Ennuipoet: I like reading Joss Whedon's reactions to this.  On the one hand he's a booster, on the other you can hear the hesitation in his tone about revisiting Firefly.  I can sympathize, as much as I love Firefly I respect the desire to move forward and not be shackled to previous projects.  It's like he balancing on a razor blade trying to keep the fans happy while at the same time telling them it ain't gonna happen.

I liked Firefly as much as the next nerd but it's over. Almost all of the cast has new gigs (has whatever show Summer Glau is on been canceled yet?) and Whedon's going to be tied up with Marvel for at least the next decade. Anyway, they tied things up pretty nicely in the movie no one saw.


And if you've read any of the comics that Whedon has put out, its just as well there won't be any more FIREFLY.

In short:  they suck ass.
 
2013-03-23 08:14:14 PM

alwaysjaded: Another precedent that will be set is the amount of whining of fan boys if this movie isn't one of the greatest films ever made. Considering the amount of righteous outrage you see when a nostalgia trip type movie doesn't measure up to expectations for a ticket price of $8-12, but when fans are shelling out 10 grand? Some pharmaceutical company is going to get rich inventing a cream needed to soothe those ruffled feathers.

Look at what happened with Serenity.


...I don't know any Firefly fan that didn't think Serenity was at least good.  Some took issue with the exposition and the death of certain characters, but they didn't condemn it like the Trek fanboys have with the reboot movie, and are already doing with Reboot II: The Wrath of the Fanboys.
 
2013-03-23 08:15:02 PM

Ennuipoet: I like reading Joss Whedon's reactions to this.  On the one hand he's a booster, on the other you can hear the hesitation in his tone about revisiting Firefly.  I can sympathize, as much as I love Firefly I respect the desire to move forward and not be shackled to previous projects.  It's like he balancing on a razor blade trying to keep the fans happy while at the same time telling them it ain't gonna happen.


All he needs to do is get a Kickstarter going for Dr. Horrible 2. All will be forgiven.
 
2013-03-23 08:24:13 PM
I just can't see myself giving up cash for vaporware
/Anyone received their Ouya yet?
 
2013-03-23 08:39:30 PM

IlGreven: All he needs to do is get a Kickstarter going for Dr. Horrible 2. All will be forgiven.


Why the hell would that need a Kickstarter? He funded the first one out-of-pocket, paid everyone involved, and made a huge profit. And that was before Avengers.

Kickstarter is for things that wouldn't otherwise get funded... that doesn't remotely apply to Dr. Horrible.  If everyone involved was ready to make Dr. Horrible 2, it would have happened.
 
2013-03-23 08:58:31 PM

clkeagle: IlGreven: All he needs to do is get a Kickstarter going for Dr. Horrible 2. All will be forgiven.

Why the hell would that need a Kickstarter? He funded the first one out-of-pocket, paid everyone involved, and made a huge profit. And that was before Avengers.

Kickstarter is for things that wouldn't otherwise get funded... that doesn't remotely apply to Dr. Horrible.  If everyone involved was ready to make Dr. Horrible 2, it would have happened.


Wasn't Dr. Horrible more or less just a way for him and some bored cast and crew to have some fun and make some cash during the writer's strike? It was really more of a happy accident than anything else that it ever got made.
 
2013-03-23 09:12:19 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: doczoidberg: When is Kristen Bell going to pose nude?


Let's get one thing straight - I think Kristen Bell is sexy as hell, has a beautiful face and a killer body...but after seeing that still frame from awhile ago where one of her girls made a sneak peak....I don't think you want to see them all up in the daylight.  Nothing terribly wrong with them - but they are not classically trained show-em-if-you-got-em boobies.


Maybe you get laid a lot more than I, but I have never been interested in seeing boobies and then failed to enjoy them when I get the chance.
 
2013-03-23 09:17:01 PM

IlGreven: ...I don't know any Firefly fan that didn't think Serenity was at least good


I think it was a forgettable mess that failed as a movie to engage non-fans and failed as a tribute to the show fans loved. I'm not saying it was  bad, but it certainly wasn't good, even if it did have some individually good moments. It didn't feel necessary. It definitely didn't feel satisfying.
 
2013-03-23 09:42:31 PM

LemSkroob: MrEricSir: LemSkroob: Bit of a double-dip i guess. They only way it would make sense i guess would be if giving to Kickstarter was the same as pre-ordering a copy of the DVD. If you dont get a full copy of the movie, its a loss for you.

There's a little more to it than that. If it's a project you personally want to see made, there's the game theory aspect to it as well -- can you rely on others to fund it? That said, most of these crowdfunded project give you a copy if you donate over a certain funding level. For Veronica Mars, anyone who kicked in over $35 gets a copy of the film.

Which is pretty much buying a DVD copy twice.

Make it a $19.95 for a physical DVD when it comes out, and then i would bite. Like i had said, just make it a pre-order system. Paying more for something that is known to have a true value that is lower is just silly.



That doesn't make any sense. Then you're not funding the movie, you're just buying the dvd. If that's all you want, you can do that after the movie has been made. Which is only happening thanks to those fans that donated.
 
2013-03-23 10:50:29 PM

Cheater71: LemSkroob: MrEricSir: LemSkroob: Bit of a double-dip i guess. They only way it would make sense i guess would be if giving to Kickstarter was the same as pre-ordering a copy of the DVD. If you dont get a full copy of the movie, its a loss for you.

There's a little more to it than that. If it's a project you personally want to see made, there's the game theory aspect to it as well -- can you rely on others to fund it? That said, most of these crowdfunded project give you a copy if you donate over a certain funding level. For Veronica Mars, anyone who kicked in over $35 gets a copy of the film.

Which is pretty much buying a DVD copy twice.

Make it a $19.95 for a physical DVD when it comes out, and then i would bite. Like i had said, just make it a pre-order system. Paying more for something that is known to have a true value that is lower is just silly.


That doesn't make any sense. Then you're not funding the movie, you're just buying the dvd. If that's all you want, you can do that after the movie has been made. Which is only happening thanks to those fans that donated.


Preordering absolutely counts as funding a project.
 
2013-03-23 10:57:31 PM

Smackledorfer: Preordering absolutely counts as funding a project.


Not generally, no. Pre-ordering is a marketing gimmick to get people to give you money  before your product is released, but well after it's been put through production. It doesn't have to be that way, but when people talk about pre-ordering, that's almost always what they mean.

Kickstarter frowns on using their service as a form of pre-ordering. That's why most projects have a variety of rewards. The purpose of the reward is  not to be equivalent to the purchase price. You might donate $50 for the promise of a t-shirt, for example. It's much more like the PBS fund drives- donate $300, and you can get this sturdy tote-bag, emblazoned over its entire surface with the color brown. The bag clearly isn't worth that much money, but it's a reward for donating that much money.

Long story short: Kickstarter isn't a place to do pre-orders or to sell things.
 
2013-03-24 01:52:02 AM
People paying up front for the movies they want to see. That's a dream come true.
 
2013-03-24 02:19:21 AM

t3knomanser: Not generally, no


I would argue that any time a company is still putting money into their product then the  money coming from a pre-order counts towards the funding of a project.

If most pre-ordering takes place after that point, then I would have to agree with you.  I pre-ordered once, and the store took more orders than they stocked anyways.  I will never pre-order again.


That said, in the context of LemSkroob's post, his example would, I think we both agree, certainly count as funding a project.
 
2013-03-24 02:24:20 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Mugato: Ennuipoet: I like reading Joss Whedon's reactions to this.  On the one hand he's a booster, on the other you can hear the hesitation in his tone about revisiting Firefly.  I can sympathize, as much as I love Firefly I respect the desire to move forward and not be shackled to previous projects.  It's like he balancing on a razor blade trying to keep the fans happy while at the same time telling them it ain't gonna happen.

I liked Firefly as much as the next nerd but it's over. Almost all of the cast has new gigs (has whatever show Summer Glau is on been canceled yet?) and Whedon's going to be tied up with Marvel for at least the next decade. Anyway, they tied things up pretty nicely in the movie no one saw.

And if you've read any of the comics that Whedon has put out, its just as well there won't be any more FIREFLY.

In short:  they suck ass.


I will politely disagree. His run on Astonishing X-Men was fantastic and got me reading the X books again for a while until they went downhill again.
 
2013-03-24 02:27:28 AM

Smackledorfer: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: doczoidberg: When is Kristen Bell going to pose nude?


Let's get one thing straight - I think Kristen Bell is sexy as hell, has a beautiful face and a killer body...but after seeing that still frame from awhile ago where one of her girls made a sneak peak....I don't think you want to see them all up in the daylight.  Nothing terribly wrong with them - but they are not classically trained show-em-if-you-got-em boobies.

Maybe you get laid a lot more than I, but I have never been interested in seeing boobies and then failed to enjoy them when I get the chance.


"When you've seen one pair of boobs. It just makes you want to see all the rest of them." - Ron White
 
2013-03-24 02:30:37 AM
The more accurate model is "some people paying up front for the movies they want to see, the majority downloading it for free at no expense via bittorrent"
 
2013-03-24 02:36:30 AM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: But for budget and cast availability how about Terriers?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
kab
2013-03-24 02:39:11 AM

narkor: The more accurate model is "some people paying up front for the movies they want to see, the majority downloading it for free at no expense via bittorrent"


Well that's the thing.  Piracy becomes a bit of a moot point, because if the project doesn't hit its goal, it simply doesn't get made.
 
2013-03-24 02:45:10 AM

t3knomanser: IlGreven: ...I don't know any Firefly fan that didn't think Serenity was at least good

I think it was a forgettable mess that failed as a movie to engage non-fans and failed as a tribute to the show fans loved. I'm not saying it was  bad, but it certainly wasn't good, even if it did have some individually good moments. It didn't feel necessary. It definitely didn't feel satisfying.


I thought it was awesome and nicely answered two of the four major questions I had after the series ended -- What's River's deal? and Reavers...why?  And I can live without knowing what's up with the blue glove guys or what Book's backstory was (he was a former Alliance agent, we all know it).  My only complaint about it is that the Alliance Agent was too similar to Jubal Early, and felt like a rehash.  Other than that (and that only barely bothered me), it was totally what I want in a sci-fi flick spun off a TV show.  It wasn't just a long episode, it was big and showy but still stayed true to the series.
 
2013-03-24 02:56:29 AM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: But for budget and cast availability how about Terriers?


How about a Terriers and Rubicon crossover movie. The boys stumble upon a sleeper cell that the American Policy Institute has been tracking for some time and they threaten to spoil the entire operation when they get into a property dispute over the placement of a dog house.
 
2013-03-24 08:35:07 AM

Phil Moskowitz: Zarquon's Flat Tire: But for budget and cast availability how about Terriers?

How about a Terriers and Rubicon crossover movie. The boys stumble upon a sleeper cell that the American Policy Institute has been tracking for some time and they threaten to spoil the entire operation when they get into a property dispute over the placement of a dog house.


Never saw Rubicon but okay, sounds good.
 
2013-03-24 09:55:36 AM

skepticultist: What's River's deal? and Reavers...why?


Two questions I didn't actually want answered, because I knew the answer was going to be incredibly stupid. And I was right.

The Reavers should have simply been people driven mad by being out in space for too long. Imagine that- you just have people who have wandered too far from civilization, for too long, and they lose what makes them human. It could happen to anyone.

As for River's deal- ugh. The idea that she's a supersoldier waiting to snap is just... feh. It would have been way cooler had she simply been experimented on, broken, and tossed aside. She's just mentally crippled, and she doesn't get superpowers in the bargain. The Alliance wants her, not because she has the last samples of super-soldier serum in her blood, but because she was supposed to have been  disposed of. And they failed to dispose of her.
 
2013-03-24 10:49:33 AM
Kickstarter is a bad thing and you should feel bad if you support this.

Instead of the usual process of "guy has an idea, gets investors, produces the idea, and if it's well liked he and the investors profit, if it's not, they're boned" this is becoming "guy has an idea, asks fans to chip in with money as investors, produces the idea, and if it's well liked he, and only he, makes the profits while the fanvestors just get some swag and glee, if it's not well liked, well, he didn't lose s*** and can go about his day."  It's just a very clever way of separating a fool and his money.

Look at the Veronica Mars shenanigans. Gee, Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell wanted to make the movie to "please the fans", so they asked the fans for support. Fans are flocking in droves and it's nearly reaching the 2 million dollars goal in less than a week. After they get the money, the movie will be filmed and, Warner Brothers agreed that they'd distribute the movie. Guess what's gonna happen? Veronica Mars will be a modest hit with a big ROI. Rob Thomas, Kristen Bell and WB will share the profits and the fans will get their glee. That's like getting charged twice. Plus in order to get the movie you need to chime in with at least $35 which is much more than a movie ticket or an iTunes download of the film.

If you think this is good, again, you should feel bad. They're taking a loan from all of you and will pay you exactly zero interest besides glee. Now, if glee is enough for you, then be my guest, but it's still a dumb thing since there are people who charge for giving loans, they're called banks. You're giving them free money so they can make free money. It's a win-win financial scenario for them and you're just getting glee out of it. Again, that's fine and dandy, but it's dumb.

Kickstarters should be made for non-profit products instead of commercial crap being sold to 3rd parties. A guy has a cool idea and he can't make it happen due to lack of funding money? It's okay then as long as he doesn't get to sell the products. Only the investors should get products and it's okay if the guy ends up with some extra money from the whole thing as a reward.
 
2013-03-24 11:29:50 AM

rocky_howard: They're taking a loan from all of you


No they are not. They are accepting donations in exchange for gifts. It is not a loan.
 
2013-03-24 12:01:11 PM

therecksays: DjangoStonereaver: Mugato: Ennuipoet: I like reading Joss Whedon's reactions to this.  On the one hand he's a booster, on the other you can hear the hesitation in his tone about revisiting Firefly.  I can sympathize, as much as I love Firefly I respect the desire to move forward and not be shackled to previous projects.  It's like he balancing on a razor blade trying to keep the fans happy while at the same time telling them it ain't gonna happen.

I liked Firefly as much as the next nerd but it's over. Almost all of the cast has new gigs (has whatever show Summer Glau is on been canceled yet?) and Whedon's going to be tied up with Marvel for at least the next decade. Anyway, they tied things up pretty nicely in the movie no one saw.

And if you've read any of the comics that Whedon has put out, its just as well there won't be any more FIREFLY.

In short:  they suck ass.

I will politely disagree. His run on Astonishing X-Men was fantastic and got me reading the X books again for a while until they went downhill again.


I was specifically referring to the FIREFLY comics that Dark Horse put out.

I have heard good things about Whedon's X-MEN run, but considering that I am not a fan of the X-Men or mutants in
general, I really can't argue the quality of those since even if they are as good as they are reputed to be, I would not
like them.
 
2013-03-24 12:06:35 PM

rocky_howard: Kickstarter is a bad thing and you should feel bad if you support this.

Instead of the usual process of "guy has an idea, gets investors, produces the idea, and if it's well liked he and the investors profit, if it's not, they're boned" this is becoming "guy has an idea, asks fans to chip in with money as investors, produces the idea, and if it's well liked he, and only he, makes the profits while the fanvestors just get some swag and glee, if it's not well liked, well, he didn't lose s*** and can go about his day."  It's just a very clever way of separating a fool and his money.

Look at the Veronica Mars shenanigans. Gee, Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell wanted to make the movie to "please the fans", so they asked the fans for support. Fans are flocking in droves and it's nearly reaching the 2 million dollars goal in less than a week. After they get the money, the movie will be filmed and, Warner Brothers agreed that they'd distribute the movie. Guess what's gonna happen? Veronica Mars will be a modest hit with a big ROI. Rob Thomas, Kristen Bell and WB will share the profits and the fans will get their glee. That's like getting charged twice. Plus in order to get the movie you need to chime in with at least $35 which is much more than a movie ticket or an iTunes download of the film.

If you think this is good, again, you should feel bad. They're taking a loan from all of you and will pay you exactly zero interest besides glee. Now, if glee is enough for you, then be my guest, but it's still a dumb thing since there are people who charge for giving loans, they're called banks. You're giving them free money so they can make free money. It's a win-win financial scenario for them and you're just getting glee out of it. Again, that's fine and dandy, but it's dumb.

Kickstarters should be made for non-profit products instead of commercial crap being sold to 3rd parties. A guy has a cool idea and he can't make it happen due to lack of funding money? It's okay then as long

as he doesn't get to sell the products. Only the investors should get products and it's okay if the guy ends up with some extra money from the whole thing as a reward.

facepalm.jpg
 
2013-03-24 12:15:00 PM

Cheater71: Nobody seems to want to do the math on this. Veronica mars will do 10 - 15 million tops. After distribution costs, marketing and theaters taking their cut, the actual profit is something like 6 million. Still a profit sure, but not exactly the 100s of millions Hollywood likes. This isn't something Hollywood can do long term and make a mint off of.


The math is your money + no film= out like bandits
 
2013-03-24 12:20:32 PM

dopekitty74: Did they? I don't have cable anymore and never got into that show when i did.


Cable??
 
2013-03-24 01:02:34 PM

skepticultist: My only complaint about it is that the Alliance Agent was too similar to Jubal Early, and felt like a rehash.  Other than that (and that only barely bothered me), it was totally what I want in a sci-fi flick spun off a TV show.  It wasn't just a long episode, it was big and showy but still stayed true to the series.


I have a feeling that they were originally supposed to be the same character, but with a bigger budget Joss was able to snag Chiwetel Ejiofor for the role, so he made him into a new character. If the series had continued, Jubal would probably have taken the place of The Operative in the TV storyline.
 
2013-03-24 01:03:37 PM
For the movie, it probably wasn't worth throwing out such a good character just because a similar one had already been used in a TV show that not a lot of people watched.
 
2013-03-24 02:22:54 PM
I'm probably going to out myself here, but I think people REALLY have the wrong idea about what happened here. While a few fans may have ponied up some cash via the kickstarter campaign, by far a majority of the kickstarter funds came from the Execs in the form of multiple fake accounts. This whole thing has been a publicity stunt for a film that was already funded with a promise by the studio to match any dollar they raised.
 
2013-03-24 05:24:11 PM

Evi1Bo1weevi1: This whole thing has been a publicity stunt for a film that was already funded with a promise by the studio to match any dollar they raised.


Since it's not being produced by a studio, your conspiracy theory is extra super crazy. It's being  distributed by Warner Brothers. They're not producing it. They're doing a limited theatrical release so that they can say it had a theater run, and then they're going DTV. Why on  Earth would they go through all that for something they're dumping on the Internet three days after the movie comes out?
 
2013-03-24 08:26:39 PM

t3knomanser: Evi1Bo1weevi1: This whole thing has been a publicity stunt for a film that was already funded with a promise by the studio to match any dollar they raised.

Since it's not being produced by a studio, your conspiracy theory is extra super crazy. It's being  distributed by Warner Brothers. They're not producing it. They're doing a limited theatrical release so that they can say it had a theater run, and then they're going DTV. Why on  Earth would they go through all that for something they're dumping on the Internet three days after the movie comes out?


It's not a conspiracy theory, everyone in the industry is talking about how good of an idea it was. It isn't even a secret.
 
2013-03-24 09:13:52 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: facepalm.jpg


Facepalm all you want. I don't think Kickstarters should be used to finance businesses. I'm okay with them being used to finance dreams and for the sake of seeing something completed and then the backers get gifts based on that, but never a commercial product. It's disingenuous.
 
2013-03-25 12:42:12 AM

machodonkeywrestler: Cheater71: Nobody seems to want to do the math on this. Veronica mars will do 10 - 15 million tops. After distribution costs, marketing and theaters taking their cut, the actual profit is something like 6 million. Still a profit sure, but not exactly the 100s of millions Hollywood likes. This isn't something Hollywood can do long term and make a mint off of.

The math is your money + no film= out like bandits


If no film gets made, kickstarter will work with donators to get their money back. Its not the big scam you think it is.
 
Displayed 46 of 96 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 »






Report