DENGLER!!!!

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go
User avatar
Tensen01
Sketchasaurus Rex
Posts: 1783
Joined: 27 Sep 2004, 20:10
First Video: Who Watches Movies?
Location: Colorado
Contact:

DENGLER!!!!

Postby Tensen01 » 14 Mar 2013, 16:08

Image
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby AlexanderDitto » 14 Mar 2013, 16:24

Hahaha that guy. Gotta love him.

I want to grow up and become Steven Dengler.
User avatar
auberginequeen
Posts: 1559
Joined: 25 May 2009, 19:04
First Video: Rejected 'Get A Mac' Ads
Location: aubergineland

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby auberginequeen » 14 Mar 2013, 16:35

Veronica Mars ... movie?! Aubergine is the happiest panda right now. The series was amazing and ended on such an awful cliffhanger when it was cancelled. Please, please let this be good.
User avatar
empath
Posts: 13531
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 17:20
First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
Location: back in the arse end of nowhere

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby empath » 14 Mar 2013, 17:46

AlexanderDitto wrote:Hahaha that guy. Gotta love him.

I want to grow up and become Steven Dengler.



SO. MUCH. THIS. :)


Thanks, Steve! I'll be honest, I'm not even a fan of the show, but this whole...'thing' just makes me happy. :D
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Metcarfre » 15 Mar 2013, 09:36

And this is why I use xe.com/ for my currency rate info now.
*
User avatar
RedNightmare
Posts: 1236
Joined: 25 Nov 2011, 02:56
First Video: The Job
Location: Your deepest fears

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby RedNightmare » 15 Mar 2013, 10:42

Moviebob had a really interesting article about this Kickstarter getting funded. That the movie is coming might be cool (only saw a few episode, found it enjoyable), but it could have some nasty implication: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... mpaign=all
"I wouldn't call myself an evil genius. Simply genius will suffice."

http://www.twitch.tv/rednightmare7

Image
User avatar
Keab42
Posts: 6662
Joined: 27 May 2009, 16:38
Location: In England

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Keab42 » 15 Mar 2013, 11:23

Yeah.

Basically Hollywood gets this movie made for them, then gets to keep box-office sales.

On the surface it seems neat, but I have my misgivings.
Keab42: Keeb-forty-two Deal with it. @Keab42 | | +Keab42 | | Tumblr
User avatar
Tensen01
Sketchasaurus Rex
Posts: 1783
Joined: 27 Sep 2004, 20:10
First Video: Who Watches Movies?
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Tensen01 » 16 Mar 2013, 05:22

RedNightmare wrote:Moviebob had a really interesting article about this Kickstarter getting funded. That the movie is coming might be cool (only saw a few episode, found it enjoyable), but it could have some nasty implication: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... mpaign=all


I might agree with him if he actually made any sort of point in that article. But it was "I never saw the show, don't care, but I have some misgivings that I won't actually in any way extrapolate on, some Futurama reference that implies to all of kickstarter."
Image
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby AlexanderDitto » 16 Mar 2013, 08:33

Tensen01 wrote:
RedNightmare wrote:Moviebob had a really interesting article about this Kickstarter getting funded. That the movie is coming might be cool (only saw a few episode, found it enjoyable), but it could have some nasty implication: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... mpaign=all


I might agree with him if he actually made any sort of point in that article. But it was "I never saw the show, don't care, but I have some misgivings that I won't actually in any way extrapolate on, some Futurama reference that implies to all of kickstarter."


Yeah I'm going to have to agree with Tensen, that article is kind of a crock of shit. I mean, besides the stupidity that is

(Nancy Drew: 2000 to save you the trouble of heading to Wikipedia) and that it was apparently the reason that I was supposed to somehow distinguish Kristen Bell from the thousands of other waifish blonde ingénues vying for next-big-thing-hood in the early 2000s.


Can you imagine him deriding a new Mario game because they're basically all the same? His head would probably explode. But just because it's got a female lead solving mysteries, it's Nancy Drew, right? Ha ha ha ha ha yes OK please continue to write an article about this after having established for us you know basically nothing about it.

But the points he makes in the article basically boil down to "I'm uncomfortable with this kickstarter." Also some of the things he says are factually incorrect. For example, he seems to fail to realize that people who pledge to the Kickstarter get a copy of the movie, so this

if we get enough of it you will then have the option of giving us more money so you can now buy it!" Oh, and maybe they'll also give you a hat or something if you gave enough money initially.


Is just nonsense. And his final point

Revolutions aren't supposed to look exactly like what came before.


is completely ridiculous. Crowdfunding, even when done for projects owned and monetized by a major movie studio, is a complete change in the way projects are financed. Something like the Veronica Mars movie would never have gotten made if it weren't for fans being able to essentially vote directly with their dollars. This is a huge change from the way movie studios normally choose which projects to finance! It's direct democracy. It doesn't matter who is making the Kickstarter- Bob's touchy-feely "it rubs me the wrong way" feeling didn't flair up when Obsidian Entertainment, for example, Kickstarted a game? What matters is it changes the way a creator secures financing for their endeavor by cutting out the middleman. That's it. This isn't about handmade soaps or paintings made from rabbit poop. It's about how things get financed, big or small.

As for his "Hollywood would abuse the geeks" bullshit: if people want it, they'll buy it. If they don't, they won't. This idea that a corporation can "ransom fans of a TV show" is completely stupid, as though he thinks right now movie studios make more series of TV shows because the fans. HA! They do it because they think it'll make money. If they don't, they don't make it. At least this system gives fans the ability to finance a project a movie studio doesn't want to support because they think it's not profitable. It's not randsome. No one is forcing you to pay for it. And if you do put money toward it, what's the problem? If the Kickstarter goes through, you get the thing you paid for. There's no extortion unless a big company actually doesn't make the thing they promised to make, in which case, take a look at the "Risks" section of their kickstarter and make sure you're not signing up for a thing that looks like it could just be cancelled.
User avatar
King Kool
Quality and Quantity
Posts: 5987
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 19:22
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby King Kool » 16 Mar 2013, 08:55

I think Bob's problem is that Kickstarter could be inundated with established yet dormant things trying to get new life, rather than new ideas that don't have the financial capital to get off the ground. There's probably now forty dead IPs that might get dragged up to get new life, but no big movie projects that are brand new. Even if someone donates to, "this movie with Actor X," that might only get off the ground because of people who already KNOW Actor X because of that same system.

He makes the point that, since WB likely had to be involved, this was a big marketing test BY WB to see if enough people wanted a Veronica Mars movie (anc clearly there is). I don't see any problem in being a little hesitation.

If you think a movie or TV studio might not just hold a pledge drive to get whatever show's on right now (I dunno, Mentalist season 13, or whatever season that show's on), or possibly even purposefully make creators end seasons with horrible cliffhangers to get people to be, "Well, they can't end it like THAT!" and see what they'll pony up... well, they might not, but it is definitely a possibility.

I dunno. Bob knows his movie stuff. I'd be willing to give him this one.
Image
a winner is you. - Ash
King Kool, you are wrong. - Graham
King Kool, shut your face. - James
This thread was creepy until KingKool made it AWESOME. - Tombrend
Why this obsession with foam implements? - Metcarfre
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Lord Hosk » 16 Mar 2013, 09:16

I agree that there is the potential for abuse for example, "we are going to cancel this popular series. Wait, you guys like it? well lets kickstart the next season" its just a way to fleece more money.

But that will only work once.

The biggest thing about hollywood and most big business is that people really do risk their job and future career with "big decisions" If an executive at Warner Brothers says "lets make a Show X movie" the studio spends 100 million dollars and it makes $5,000,000 opening weekend, they get fired, same as the guy who proposed new coke (which was initially a huge success) and the guy who proposes garlic gum.

This kickstarter allowed some minor executive to put the idea out without risking losing his or her job. If they had thrown money at it and it didnt work they are out, and it would follow them making it difficult to just get another job, if it succeeded they get a promotion. This way they can get a promotion vrs no risk.
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
Keab42
Posts: 6662
Joined: 27 May 2009, 16:38
Location: In England

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Keab42 » 16 Mar 2013, 09:22

Bob summarised his misgivings a lot better with a bit of a rant on Twitter.
Keab42: Keeb-forty-two Deal with it. @Keab42 | | +Keab42 | | Tumblr
User avatar
King Kool
Quality and Quantity
Posts: 5987
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 19:22
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby King Kool » 16 Mar 2013, 09:36

And someone he quoted summarized it in one sentence.

"Please, geeks and nerds of the world over. Do not turn Kickstarter into the Pet Cemetery of pop culture."
Image
a winner is you. - Ash
King Kool, you are wrong. - Graham
King Kool, shut your face. - James
This thread was creepy until KingKool made it AWESOME. - Tombrend
Why this obsession with foam implements? - Metcarfre
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby AlexanderDitto » 16 Mar 2013, 17:16

King Kool wrote:And someone he quoted summarized it in one sentence.

"Please, geeks and nerds of the world over. Do not turn Kickstarter into the Pet Cemetery of pop culture."


But why does that matter? Give the people what they want to see, right? If a million people want to continue financing terrible sequels of pop culture, that's what's going to happen.

I think the problem is that Bob is projecting some kind of cuddly empathy onto Kickstarter, like it's only for projects involving homespun spider silk garments and niche boardgames and weird gadgets made out of chewing gum.

Kickstarter, Indigogo, Rockethub, etc are all just financing methods. Like any other method for raising capital, they can and WILL be used for whatever the market will allow them to be used for. The reason they're unique is because they're direct financing methods, where producers generate their capital directly from consumers, with almost nobody (besides the Kickstarter people) in between.

That's it. That's all they guarantee. They don't guarantee that the projects made will be indie or new or unique or original or creative or even good. The point is that they make it possible to more directly let people get what they want to pay for, and make it so that creators don't have to put up a giant chunk of cash they don't have to finance a venture that might ultimately fail due to lack of interest.

Bob seems to want Kickstarter to be something that it's not, some magical land where original ideas get money thrown at them not because they're great, but because they're original.

Good luck with that idea! Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to build an online system what for many projects is basically a giant pre-order system (see: all the webcomics that are kickstarting efforts to have physical books of their comics printed). This really should have been something that popped into existence as soon as PayPal became a thing.
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Lord Hosk » 16 Mar 2013, 17:20

also this ;)

Image
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
King Kool
Quality and Quantity
Posts: 5987
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 19:22
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby King Kool » 16 Mar 2013, 18:04

AlexanderDitto wrote:
King Kool wrote:And someone he quoted summarized it in one sentence.

"Please, geeks and nerds of the world over. Do not turn Kickstarter into the Pet Cemetery of pop culture."


But why does that matter? Give the people what they want to see, right? If a million people want to continue financing terrible sequels of pop culture, that's what's going to happen.


Yeah, and maybe that's a BAD thing, or at least there's an aspect of bad within it. Just like anything, like the proliferation of books or the Internet, we get Twilight and Mr. T Ate My Balls.
Image
a winner is you. - Ash
King Kool, you are wrong. - Graham
King Kool, shut your face. - James
This thread was creepy until KingKool made it AWESOME. - Tombrend
Why this obsession with foam implements? - Metcarfre
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Kapol » 16 Mar 2013, 18:55

I think the point that Moviebob was trying to make wasn't that the danger was for stagnation. It was that studios may kickstart projects which they've already decided to greenlight (and fully fund) regardless. Then use kickstarter, under the veil that they won't fund the movie unless they know there's 'significant demand,' to 'offset' some of the costs. By which I mean that they're just getting whatever money they can extra even though they're already going to get the movie and all of it's profits anyways. The cost for movies are so scattered that there'd likely be no way of knowing that the kickstarter money wasn't necessary.

But I think that was his point. I'm not going to comment on my opinion at the moment due to no time.
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby JackSlack » 16 Mar 2013, 19:24

See, I'm kind of on the opposite side of this to Bob, which also means I have misgivings. Namely, I'm fine with using Kickstarter-esque mechanics to fund things.

But I think, at least here, it should be given away for free afterwards.

See, that way? It's basically the Street Performer Protocol. And SPP is brilliant. It solves instantly the problem of piracy. (Creators do not need to worry about it; they've already been paid.) It allows the internet to act as a free distribution source. (If it's good, there's a good chance it will go viral and be seen by many.) And frankly, if that's how it's being done? Who cares if it's a big company or one guy? It's a perfectly valid funding model, still a brilliantly democratising one, and frankly, a more useful one in the internet age than the usual 'pay to view' model.
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Lord Hosk » 16 Mar 2013, 20:21

The problem with giving it away for free in the hollywood movie context is that, a realistic 2 hour movie with good actors, and more than one room and one camera is going to cost 20-50 million if its a low SFX movie. Kickstarter wont raise that, at least not more than once for something like a third clerks or something.

The incentives have to be appropriate though, like a possible stretch goal of "if we raise 10 million it will be released in theaters for free for the first week"

Theaters would LOVE this because they make about 10 cents per ticket the first week anyways and this would put butts in their seats who would buy their popcorn and soda. If you were able to go to lets say Argo, for free opening weekend would you be willing to buy $5 in stuff from the concession stand? Those theaters would be PACKED.

then week two they would sell tickets from the publicity, and DVD sales (assuming the movie was good) would be pretty strong so they make their full money.

I dont know, im arguing for and against it here.
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby AlexanderDitto » 16 Mar 2013, 20:31

JackSlack wrote:See, I'm kind of on the opposite side of this to Bob, which also means I have misgivings. Namely, I'm fine with using Kickstarter-esque mechanics to fund things.

But I think, at least here, it should be given away for free afterwards.

See, that way? It's basically the Street Performer Protocol. And SPP is brilliant. It solves instantly the problem of piracy. (Creators do not need to worry about it; they've already been paid.) It allows the internet to act as a free distribution source. (If it's good, there's a good chance it will go viral and be seen by many.) And frankly, if that's how it's being done? Who cares if it's a big company or one guy? It's a perfectly valid funding model, still a brilliantly democratising one, and frankly, a more useful one in the internet age than the usual 'pay to view' model.


Except that won't work. The Veronica Mars kickstarter is not unique in that the funds raised from the Kickstarter aren't the total amount necessary to make the thing. Many of the video game Kickstarters have been this way too: they're set up to be just enough to make whatever is left of the game, but all the initial work, the prototyping, etc, was already paid for by the parent company/the creators.

And what about kickstarters for actual, physical products? Like Makerbots and Pocket Knives and all the fancy gadgets and gizmos that you can get on Kickstarter these days? Though those may have been designed and produced for a Kickstarter run, it'd be absurd to demand that the company give away these items for free, forever, once the kickstarter is over. It would bankrupt them almost immediately. Why should non-physical projects be treated differently?

EDIT: NINJA'D BY HOSK! *Shakes fist at Hosk*

Kapol wrote:I think the point that Moviebob was trying to make wasn't that the danger was for stagnation. It was that studios may kickstart projects which they've already decided to greenlight (and fully fund) regardless.


This was the first part of his argument, and I don't get what the danger is. People who put money into a kickstarter are doing so voluntarily, and usually they're getting a physical reward in exchange, like buying the DVD upfront. They're not getting swindled out of anything except maybe a very small amount of interest.

And if the company really does ransom the property (no rewards, just "give us money or this thing we greenlit won't get made"), after one or two of those, chances are good people will figure out that the thing's been made already, there's no reason to give the money, and the Kickstarter will fail. Then the company has shot itself in the foot: either it really goes through with the ransom and kills the project, which means they've just lost a ton of money that they spent on developing the project, or they put the project out anyway, and further reinforce the idea that their vague threats are meaningless.

Besides, I could make Bob's same argument about our current methods of production. Hollywood greenlights a movie or TV show that I'd clearly love, but then they ransom it by making me subscribe to an expensive cable package to see it! Or forcing me to buy a $15 movie ticket to see it! And if not enough people watch the show or buy tickets, they'll cancel it, or never make the sequel! It's RANSOM!!!

Except it's not, it's called capitalism.
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby JackSlack » 16 Mar 2013, 21:10

AlexanderDitto wrote:And what about kickstarters for actual, physical products? Like Makerbots and Pocket Knives and all the fancy gadgets and gizmos that you can get on Kickstarter these days? Though those may have been designed and produced for a Kickstarter run, it'd be absurd to demand that the company give away these items for free, forever, once the kickstarter is over. It would bankrupt them almost immediately. Why should non-physical projects be treated differently?


Hence why I said 'at least in this case'. Physical objects do have other realities in place, but then again (at least for now, see 3D printing) such things don't have the same piracy issues and distribution scenarios that make the SPP viable.

As for the scale argument, hmm. Let me think on that one.
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Kapol » 16 Mar 2013, 21:39

AlexanderDitto wrote:This was the first part of his argument, and I don't get what the danger is. People who put money into a kickstarter are doing so voluntarily, and usually they're getting a physical reward in exchange, like buying the DVD upfront. They're not getting swindled out of anything except maybe a very small amount of interest.

And if the company really does ransom the property (no rewards, just "give us money or this thing we greenlit won't get made"), after one or two of those, chances are good people will figure out that the thing's been made already, there's no reason to give the money, and the Kickstarter will fail. Then the company has shot itself in the foot: either it really goes through with the ransom and kills the project, which means they've just lost a ton of money that they spent on developing the project, or they put the project out anyway, and further reinforce the idea that their vague threats are meaningless.

Besides, I could make Bob's same argument about our current methods of production. Hollywood greenlights a movie or TV show that I'd clearly love, but then they ransom it by making me subscribe to an expensive cable package to see it! Or forcing me to buy a $15 movie ticket to see it! And if not enough people watch the show or buy tickets, they'll cancel it, or never make the sequel! It's RANSOM!!!

Except it's not, it's called capitalism.


Except that's not what's meant. You're assuming they do the kickstarter AFTER the movie is finished. When they've already put a good deal of money and effort into it. But the situation which Bob described had it at the beginning. Basically hold a kickstarter under the claim that it's doing it to 'gauge interest in the project to decide if it goes into production' while already having basically decided to give it the go ahead. For all intents and purporses, doing it for the sole reason to get as much money as they can to start with for something they already intend to do.

And if it fails? They just don't do the project. They don't lose any real money from the ordeal, and they can claim they tried when people ask for whatever it is they're talking about. They might have to go back on an already made decision, yes. But that isn't anything heartbreaking for the company heads who are worried about the profits and not the product. The only thing that's lost is that the project won't happen.

Now, as you mentioned, the kickstarter that this worry is based on (but not for, which is important to distinguish in this case) is offering most of the finished product as incentives, just like many video games do. This isn't a bad thing per say. Though one could argue about the traditional preorder issues. Especially since movies still don't seem to be fully into pre-ordering since there isn't any sort of 'Gamestop' to push it or rewards for pre-ordering. But those problems aren't exclusive to this Kickstarter conversation so don't deserve delving into at this point I think.

It's here that I feel it's important to point out that he mentions this isn't for the actual kickstarter itself. It's the fear that companies will see this project, how well it's doing and how much of a success it's been, and try to immitate it. Except perhaps not being as kind on certain aspects. Like upping the minimum goal, putting preassure on fans to give more. Or making the rewards that should be a decent price more expnsive. It's not anything that's neccessarily going on yet, but things that could be done.

The article also seems to take into consideration how he feels kickstarter was originally intended for promotion of projects that wouldn't (or couldn't) happen otherwise. The idea of kickstarters being used as a way for companies to assign if a project is worth it or not kind of goes against that. That's something I'm not going to expand on though/ I don't really feel that way myself. Plus I can't figure out a way to make compelling arguements that don't retread old ground.

This is mostly me going on Bob's opinion, as I understood it. Now for my opinion.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with the concept behind it. I've never seen the show the kickstarter is for, but I don't really mind people pledging money for something they care about. The idea of companies basically lying in the future to get more money from fans is something to take into consideration looking onwards. But that fear doesn't justify thinking any less of this campaign itself. We'll see what the future holds.

There is one thing that annoys/worries me though, and it actually is happening with the Veronica Mars kickstarter. And that's the prices for the actual movie. The fact the lowest you can pay to get the movie is $35 for a digital copy, and $50 for a DVD, seems pretty unfair. I understand you do get the other rewards as well of course. But I think that there should be options for just the movie since that's the main focus of the kickstarter.

Most kickstarters I've seen for games or products normally have the reward tiers that include said item at the price they intend to sell it for at market or less. Mind you, I haven't seen every game, so this might just be from personal experience and/or assumptions, I'll admit. But they normally treat them as actual pre-orders or something akin to supporting it by buying a discounted alpha (such as Minecraft did). The Digital copy of most movies is normally about $15 when it's released, and a DVD is normally $20.

Now, the release dates make me question if the backers will get them early. If they get the digital copies and/or DVDs upon theatrical release (without them being publically available), then I can understand it a bit more. I still think it's a bit unfair (especially for the digital copy which doesn't have as much of a cost behind it), but I can understand it. So that really depends on what is intended for that kind of thing.

But, as you said, people are giving their money to the project knowing most of this stuff. It's their choice. As long as they aren't being mislead, I have no problem with it overall. There are obviously problems that could arise in the future. But worrying about them now won't do much about them occuring anyways.
User avatar
empath
Posts: 13531
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 17:20
First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
Location: back in the arse end of nowhere

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby empath » 17 Mar 2013, 05:14

Kapol wrote:Except that's not what's meant. You're assuming they do the kickstarter AFTER the movie is finished. When they've already put a good deal of money and effort into it. But the situation which Bob described had it at the beginning. Basically hold a kickstarter under the claim that it's doing it to 'gauge interest in the project to decide if it goes into production' while already having basically decided to give it the go ahead. For all intents and purporses, doing it for the sole reason to get as much money as they can to start with for something they already intend to do.

And if it fails? They just don't do the project. They don't lose any real money from the ordeal, and they can claim they tried when people ask for whatever it is they're talking about. They might have to go back on an already made decision, yes. But that isn't anything heartbreaking for the company heads who are worried about the profits and not the product. The only thing that's lost is that the project won't happen.


Except the film/show/performance/whatever ISN'T already agreed upon as "A Go" at this point in the very example you outline above. The Pointy Hairs in the boardroom agree on greenlighting production contingent on a 'marketing survey to gauge interest' - i.e. the Kickstarter and the so-called false reason for it.

Okay, let me reiterate your example:

    1) Movie studio is thinking about making... I dunno Pride & Prejudice & Zombies (which IS 'in development' but plenty of projects never make it OUT of this stage); they do surveys which give a positive response, and they've got tentative agreements with actors and directors/writers/etc. to sign on with the project. They've also got similar interest from backers - i.e. the money is available if they declare the project is a go.

    2) One exec suggests running a "PPZ Kickstarter" to get a little more front money ($2mil of an expected budget of $75 million, basing on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter); the other suits concur, and the Kickstarter goes ahead...

    {and this is where we split: "a" points follow a line where the Kickstarter is successful, "b" points go down the route where it wasn't}

    3a) the Kickstarter is conservatively successful, clearing its goal about 3/4 through the timeframe.

    4a) the movie goes ahead, actors and crew are signed, and production begins. Movie gets made.

    ...or...

    3b) the Kickstarter flounders; by the end of it, only maybe 60% of the target $2 million is raised.

    4b) the studio execs are flustered; funding expected to be raised HAS NOT BEEN secured even though the amount 'lost' is less than 2% of the budget, and other investment sources would be willing to cover the shortfall. The board loses confidence in the project, and the film isn't made.


Right?

So, even though you say that the studio only overtly states that the Kickstarter is to gauge customer interest to decide whether or not to make the film and covertly to milk a little more money out of said customers on the front end before making the film anyway, the END RESULT is... the Kickstarter ends up being the deciding factor as to whether the film is made or not.

Which is what you state Bob's argument is and you argue against...yet give an example which supports his case and not yours? :?


It's here that I feel it's important to point out that he mentions this isn't for the actual kickstarter itself. It's the fear that companies will see this project, how well it's doing and how much of a success it's been, and try to immitate it. Except perhaps not being as kind on certain aspects. Like upping the minimum goal, putting preassure on fans to give more. Or making the rewards that should be a decent price more expnsive. It's not anything that's neccessarily going on yet, but things that could be done.


Meh. It WILL get done - corporations always get their amoral and avaricious fingers in EVERY pie, sooner or later. :|

The article also seems to take into consideration how he feels kickstarter was originally intended for promotion of projects that wouldn't (or couldn't) happen otherwise. The idea of kickstarters being used as a way for companies to assign if a project is worth it or not kind of goes against that. That's something I'm not going to expand on though/ I don't really feel that way myself. Plus I can't figure out a way to make compelling arguements that don't retread old ground.


I agree, I think that's what Bob's complaint is about. Kickstarter's own website has an 'indie' feel to it - they specifically restrict projects to 'artistic' ones:

We allow creative projects in the worlds of Art, Comics, Dance, Design, Fashion, Film, Food, Games, Music, Photography, Publishing, Technology, and Theater.


I tend to agree with him that big media companies and studios getting into Kickstarter sorta goes against the spirit of the site...but heck, if the staff are okaying these projects (they ARE film, one of the named 'worlds' in that FAQ statement I took from the site), it's not much of a complaint... Image

Besides, their apparent intent - to use crowdsourcing as a 'divining rod' to help gauge interest with their other market research - isn't that bad idea, even for the average person on the street. It INCREASES the chance for people to have their say, to give input and feedback...er, 'feedforward (?) about what they'd like to see.

Heck, I've NEVER had ANY contact with any form of 'market demographics' surveys, etc. involving Hollywood films - mostly because I live in 'the Back of Beyond'...but now? Now I DO have the chance to tell Hollywood studios that I WOULD like to see a Clerks III or another Firefly movie. :roll:

So, while I think Bob's point is technically correct, it's not anything I'm going to worry about. :)
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
RedNightmare
Posts: 1236
Joined: 25 Nov 2011, 02:56
First Video: The Job
Location: Your deepest fears

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby RedNightmare » 17 Mar 2013, 06:07

What in Nuffle's name have I unleashed?!
I was pretty on Bob's front, but I can see why people aren't. I might respond at a later time, when I have my thoughts on this in order.
I do however want to add one thing: Awesome for Steve! What movies do we want to see him in next? I'm saying either Avengers 2 or a Firefly thing :D
"I wouldn't call myself an evil genius. Simply genius will suffice."

http://www.twitch.tv/rednightmare7

Image
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: DENGLER!!!!

Postby Lord Hosk » 17 Mar 2013, 06:56

I think avengers 1 already paid for two, and most of three...

As for firefly I think joss' position is its dead on film, and while he loves the 'verse, he would be very sad if it wasnt dead because that would mean that his friends were all out of work and available which he doesnt want to ever be the case.
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests