Kickstopper

[MovieBob]

Kickstopper

MovieBob has some concerns that major film studios might start looking to Kickstarter to back their next big project.

Read Full Article

 

[Croquemitaine]

Much as I'm excited to see a Veronica Mars movie, I'm in full agreement with Bob that the industry-related implications of this are frightening. Then again, Kickstarter as a whole has already been moving away from being an "indie thing" to a promotional and financial tool used by ever larger companies.

Big business will eventually co-opt any successful idea. Remember when "online business" used to mean some kind of small cottage-type operation?

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

I'm not entirely clear on your point here, Bob. If Kickstarter's raison d'etre is to finance projects that otherwise would never have seen the light of day due to a lack of mainstream support... isn't that exactly what's happened here? Moreover, the $35 reward for this project is a digital copy of the movie - about the same price you'd pay for a Blu-Ray ("The Silver Lining Playbook" is going for $28 on Amazon right now) - so at the most basic level, investors aren't required to pay again once the movie actually comes out...

 

[Callate]

I'm a bit torn. On one hand, Bob is right- Kickstarter was supposed to be about independents and exiles from the mainstream coming in swinging, proving that good projects could find backing in this cold cruel world of ours if they brought their message directly to We The People (cue eagles swooping, flags waving, stirring brass fanfares and/or the patriotic/revolutionary images of your choice.) I'm not thrilled with the idea of Warner Bros. co-opting that system, and I've already basically said that the moment an EA or an Activision gets involved in such a process, our collective response should be to spit in their faces and slam the door on them. If nothing else, we should make sure the Kickstarter legal process is sewn up tight so no matter how big you are, if you try to renege you get hammered for everything the fans gave you and then some.

But another part of me says, "If Joss Whedon said the whole cast was willing to make another Serenity movie and they just needed to prove that there was interest out there, would I contribute?"

Oh, holy fuck, yes, I would. And if there was a speaking part available for top-tier bidders, I would sell an organ.

We have met the gullible sheeple, and he is us.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

I'm not entirely clear on your point here, Bob. If Kickstarter's raison d'etre is to finance projects that otherwise would never have seen the light of day due to a lack of mainstream support... isn't that exactly what's happened here? Moreover, the $35 reward for this project is a digital copy of the movie - about the same price you'd pay for a Blu-Ray ("The Silver Lining Playbook" is going for $28 on Amazon right now) - so at the most basic level, investors aren't required to pay again once the movie actually comes out...

But what happens when they stop handing out the movie when you pay. What happens when you only get signed posters for $50 or a trailer for a $100.

Thats one question. But the point Bob is trying to make is that studios can now say that there may not be interest in this project. So pay us upfront to prove you want more. How long before a popular show like say The Big Bang theory is in 'danger' and fans need to raise five million to keep the going. Thats the point that Bob is trying to make. That studios no longer have to make a show or movie to sell it, they can now threaten not to make it at all unless fans pay up front. And that is scary.

 

[Vivi22]

But what happens when they stop handing out the movie when you pay. What happens when you only get signed posters for $50 or a trailer for a $100.

Then you do what you would do any time there's a kickstarter with crappy rewards: decide if you still want to give money or if you want to give at a lower level because you don't think the rewards are worth it. This question isn't even a real issue.

 

[Deathlyphil]

I don't know why, but after reading Bob's last line about the revolution looking just the same as the original, it reminds me of Tommy Lee Jones's character in Under Siege.

Tom Breaker: Look, Bill, if this is about reliving the 60's, you can forget about it, buddy. The movement is dead.
William Strannix: Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a *****... so welcome to the revolution.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

But what happens when they stop handing out the movie when you pay. What happens when you only get signed posters for $50 or a trailer for a $100.

Then you do what you would do any time there's a kickstarter with crappy rewards: decide if you still want to give money or if you want to give at a lower level because you don't think the rewards are worth it. This question isn't even a real issue.

But if its a great Kickstarter with crappy rewards. Like say. A new season of Firefly. Who cares about the donations rewards, the end goal would be all that mattered.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

But what happens when they stop handing out the movie when you pay. What happens when you only get signed posters for $50 or a trailer for a $100.

Then you don't invest in that Kickstarter. It's that simple. I think we all need to take a step back and remember that donating to a project - any project - is entirely voluntary. No one's making you do anything. If you're willing to pay $50 for a signed poster, that's your responsibility, not anyone else's. (And I think that, evidence to the contrary, there is a limit to how far fans can be manipulated.)

Thats one question. But the point Bob is trying to make is that studios can now say that there may not be interest in this project. So pay us upfront to prove you want more. How long before a popular show like say The Big Bang theory is in 'danger' and fans need to raise five million to keep the going. Thats the point that Bob is trying to make. That studios no longer have to make a show or movie to sell it, they can now threaten not to make it at all unless fans pay up front. And that is scary.

I've never been a fan of the Slippery Slope argument, because it relies on a lot of conjecture and speculation rather than empirical evidence. To wit: one can just as easily argue that any studio which attempted to manipulate its audience in this way and then failed to deliver would be burnt to a crisp by the backlash. Alternatively, one could point out how slowly studios adapt to new situations and new technologies, and how utterly useless they tend to be at doing anything but following their marketing research. I don't think there's any cause for concern there.

But if its a great Kickstarter with crappy rewards. Like say. A new season of Firefly. Who cares about the donations rewards, the end goal would be all that mattered.

Again I say: in that scenario? Don't donate. If it's funded regardless, you benefit anyway because the product is still being put out there for you to enjoy; if it isn't funded, better rewards will be offered as incentives.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I'm a bit torn. On one hand, Bob is right- Kickstarter was supposed to be about independents and exiles from the mainstream coming in swinging.

But another part of me says, "If Joss Whedon said the whole cast was willing to make another Serenity movie and they just needed to prove that there was interest out there", would I contribute? Oh, holy fuck, yes, I would.

Yeah, I was going to bring up Firefly too. I would totally get onboard for another Serenity movie.

Or a new Xenosaga game (cough cough, are you listening Monolith Soft?).

But the other point bugs me a lot too. Big studios using KS as an extra money grab is really shady and could go very bad very fast. I hate the idea of shows or movies being held ransom to the fans' willingness to contribute to a KS. KS is for avoiding big studio involvement, not a prereq.

Moreover, the $35 reward for this project is a digital copy of the movie - about the same price you'd pay for a Blu-Ray - so at the most basic level, investors aren't required to pay again once the movie actually comes out...

They are if they want to see it in the theater.

Also, who really pays 35 bucks for a digital copy? For movies, I don't pay more than 10 bucks (I recently got X-Men First Class for 5 bucks on DVD). I only pay 35 bucks for a TV series, and only if it comes a whole season at a time (minimum of 13, 40 minute episodes). I wouldn't pay more than 15 bucks for a Futurama season because the episodes are only 20 minutes long, and I love that show.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Yeah, I remember when showing support for a show or project meant eating half a million Subway sandwiches, or flooding the studio with pie tins. The implication was clear; you don't think the fan base exists to make this worth funding? Well it's here and here's the pile of letters to prove it. It's not that you haven't got the money to do it - you're a studio, of course you have. You just want more.

Just wait until Activision kickstarts $300 million to make the next COD.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

They are if they want to see it in the theater.

That's still their choice, isn't it?

Also, who really pays 35 bucks for a digital copy?

Uh... anyone who buys it via Amazon? Of course there are better deals out there, but that's the ballpark of retail price.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Uh... anyone who buys it via Amazon? Of course there are better deals out there, but that's the ballpark of retail price.

Amazon has sales. If you add a product to your wish list, Amazon may even e-mail you if the price drops (I've noticed this particular feature is very inconsistent, but it does work sometimes). Just get it when it's on sale. I never buy things at full price. The very idea!

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Amazon has sales. If you add a product to your wish list, Amazon may even e-mail you if the price drops (I've noticed this particular feature is very inconsistent, but it does work sometimes). Just get it when it's on sale. I never buy things at full price. The very idea!

Kind of missing the point: Bob's viewing this as "give us money so you can give us more money later", except that the actual movie is being directly distributed to donors who pay the equivalent of DVD retail price.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Well that was weird. The whole article kinda vanished for a day, then came back, complete with forum thread. Weird. Anyway....

Kind of missing the point: Bob's viewing this as "give us money so you can give us more money later", except that the actual movie is being directly distributed to donors who pay the equivalent of DVD retail price.

True. But you're kinda missing his and my point.

His Point: A DVD isn't what they're paying for. A movie is something released in a Movie Theater. That is what they're funding, not the DVD. And they will have to pay again to see that in a theater as it is meant to be seen.

You may not care about the difference, but I am sure Movie Bob does because he's Movie Bob.

My Point: Hardly anyone actually pays retail price for DVDs. And a Digital Download is something you often get FREE with a DVD purchase (or, more often, with Blue Ray purchase). I have a free copy of Avatar (the movie) that I have never used because I have the Blue Ray.

I'm one of those people who prefers a physical product. A lot of people are like me. I would be upset if I only got a digital download after paying 35 bucks.

For comparison, I pledged 20 bucks for the current Torment KS. I will get a digital copy of a game that will sell for 60 dollars. For going digital, I am getting a 66% discount, and I'm getting it at release.

20 dollars for a game is what I'd expect to pay for a game on sale on Amazon a few months after release. Torment is offering me that upfront if I get a simple digital download rather than a product in a case - if I wanted a physical product, I'd have to pledge 65 dollars.

Games cost more than movies. Go to Amazon, or Best Buy, or Wal Mart. The games cost more than the movies. The TV shows usually cost more than movies too.

Thus I do not feel that 35 dollars for a digital copy fits the comparative price range for a movie - particularly as a digital download requires no expense on their part to deliver or package, unlike a physical product.

And yes, I see you point - they are getting a product. But I hope you at least see our points (mine and Bob's).

 

[tkioz]

I honestly wonder if Bob would be peeing on the parade if it was a fandom he was interested in... somehow I doubt it...

 

[Netrigan]

I'm not sure I have a problem with it. This isn't likely to be an expensive movie to make and it's based on a property that got dropped from CW because of not particularly good ratings, so any executive worth his salt is going to be highly skeptical that they'll get even a modest return on a no-budget movie.

In a way, this could be a good thing as part of movie making is looking for investors. Lack of money is the biggest reason why there's no Terry Gilliam "Don Quixote" starring Johnny Depp. I'm assuming Kickstarter projects are run as investments (with the possibility of returns) and not just people buying really expensive movie tickets. But this really isn't all that different from George Harrison funding "The Life Of Brian" because he was willing to spend a good chunk of his fortune to watch a new Monty Python movie.

So if a marginal hit can gain new life because its fans are willing to make a proper investment (i.e. one with the potential for profit), then this could be very good indeed. The stuff which meets the requirement will get a bit of good press and people might check it out because fans are willing to put their money where their mouths are.

And you should check out Veronica Mars. Yes, there is a lot of pretty people having pretty people problems, but the character of Veronica Mars makes it so worthwhile as she provides a pretty cynical opinion of it. It's kind of like the Josie & The Pussycats movie was a scathing criticism of itself.

 

[Falseprophet]

Joss Whedon's already come out and said he couldn't even think of a Firefly Kickstarter project for at least 3 years because of how tied up he is at Marvel [http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/joss-whedon-on-kickstarter-and-firefly].

I agree that crowdfunding was supposed to level the playing field for the independents. It's been a real boon for comic creators, tech inventors, musicians tired of being screwed by the labels, retro and indie video game developers, and especially tabletop RPGs, where there are still devoted, passionate fans but fewer and fewer publishers left with ready capital to develop new products.

But the big publishers, labels, studios, et al were watching the likes of Rich Burlew, Double Fine, Pebble, and Amanda Palmer just like the rest of us. It was only a matter of time before they decided to dip a toe in the water themselves.

The thing about revolutions: it's easy to be idealistic while you're still fighting the good fight. But when the revolutionaries win, they have to get down to the business of running things. Then they learn it's not as easy as they thought. They will probably have to sell out some of their ideals. They might end up being as bad as the regime they overthrew. They might even be worse.

 

[RaikuFA]

I'm worried about this. I'm currently working on a game as a writer and I might have to use Kickstarter to fund it. Yet if this keeps up, people are going to think I'm just scamming them cause I'm secretly working for a big name studio or some BS.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

I'm a bit torn. On one hand, Bob is right- Kickstarter was supposed to be about independents and exiles from the mainstream coming in swinging, proving that good projects could find backing in this cold cruel world of ours if they brought their message directly to We The People (cue eagles swooping, flags waving, stirring brass fanfares and/or the patriotic/revolutionary images of your choice.) I'm not thrilled with the idea of Warner Bros. co-opting that system, and I've already basically said that the moment an EA or an Activision gets involved in such a process, our collective response should be to spit in their faces and slam the door on them. If nothing else, we should make sure the Kickstarter legal process is sewn up tight so no matter how big you are, if you try to renege you get hammered for everything the fans gave you and then some.

But another part of me says, "If Joss Whedon said the whole cast was willing to make another Serenity movie and they just needed to prove that there was interest out there, would I contribute?"

Oh, holy fuck, yes, I would. And if there was a speaking part available for top-tier bidders, I would sell an organ.

We have met the gullible sheeple, and he is us.

I agree. I don't want to see the big corporations use kickstarter, because it's something that should be used by independent artists and similar. However, there are some shows I would love to see more of, like Firefly for example.