3 ms·

Given that Warner Brothers is behind this and still owns the property (per what I read, elsewhere), I'm not particularly in favor of this. They have plenty of

Given that Warner Brothers is behind this and still owns the property (per what I read, elsewhere), I'm not particularly in favor of this. They have plenty of money to "risk" and invest, and presumably will see the lion's share of any positive outcome of this initiative. If and as such, I'm not favorably inclined towards their using the mechanism to... mitigate risk (yet further), I guess. It takes away from projects that don't have a "sugar daddy" sitting in the wings. P.S. Or, even if it doesn't "take away" from other projects seeking funding, I'm... somehow still offended. Especially in light how how these same "big name" studios use severely restricted distribution options and other controls to screw over not only fans/customers but the shows that depend upon them. Warner Brothers using Kickstarter -- or, "forcing" their property to do so? It just stinks, to me.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
I'm mixed on it. I'd rather see micro-equity crowdfunding, but my understanding is the SEC still hasn't issued rules for that yet. Outside of that, making movies using other people's money is what studios do. It's the core of their very model. Isn't it better if it's from the fans than some ROI obsessed hedge fund?
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  I think I know what you mean. I would, regardless of my comment and the circumstances I describe, probably kick in (or, have kicked in, were it then an option) for another season of "Firefly". I might be more in favor if the restrictions on the resulting product were loosened. As it is... I guess I kind of feel like the players you name are getting the fans to directly fund production, while still walking off with all the profit. And, regarding restrictions on the finished product... We'll see. But, I'm not optimistic. Prove me wrong, VM! :-)
InclinedPlane 14y ago
You have to pick your battles. You can't reinvent hollywood overnight, but you can make incremental changes bit by bit. Sending a strong signal that fans will flock to smart TV shows helps if it gets more shows of that caliber made, even if the slimebags in hollywood profit from that too. And it also gives a signal to the legitimate indie creators out there that there's money available for people who can make shows that engage their fans strongly.
- eric-hu 14y ago
  To add on to the spirit of your comment, this could be the first of many major films funded through Kickstarter. In this case, the intellectual rights are already owned by Warner Brothers. In the next film, perhaps Joss Whedon wants to create a new sci fi movie with Nathan Fillion in a universe that hasn't yet been purchased by a major studio. (Replace director/actor with your choice). Hopefully this will be yet-another-alternative for non-Hollywood American entertainment to be produced.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Exactly. It's going to be more difficult for unknown artists to bootstrap their way to million dollar movies, but that's how it is in the industry already. Eventually there will be folks who make big movies with wide ranging cultural impact who do so entirely outside of the traditional system. But until then, baby steps.
doktrin 14y ago
Totally fair concern. For what it's worth, I think this was intended as an interest barometer first and funding vehicle second. If I understand correctly, passing the one million mark was sufficient to bring in WB backing. Since this would probably only cover a fraction of the production costs, it feels as if they [Warner Bros] really just wanted some market research validating interest in the product. > Warner Brothers using Kickstarter -- or, "forcing" their property to do so? It just stinks, to me. I know where you're coming from, but I don't feel the same way. The alternative, in this case, was literally nothing. The production would not have been greenlit, and fans would be left without a potentially interesting movie. Kickstarter has made this project a reality, and that's no small accomplishment.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

I'm mixed on it. I'd rather see micro-equity crowdfunding, but my understanding is the SEC still hasn't issued rules for that yet. Outside of that, making movies using other people's money is what studios do. It's the core of their very model. Isn't it better if it's from the fans than some ROI obsessed hedge fund?

pasbesoin 14y ago
I think I know what you mean. I would, regardless of my comment and the circumstances I describe, probably kick in (or, have kicked in, were it then an option) for another season of "Firefly". I might be more in favor if the restrictions on the resulting product were loosened. As it is... I guess I kind of feel like the players you name are getting the fans to directly fund production, while still walking off with all the profit. And, regarding restrictions on the finished product... We'll see. But, I'm not optimistic. Prove me wrong, VM! :-)

InclinedPlane 14y ago

You have to pick your battles. You can't reinvent hollywood overnight, but you can make incremental changes bit by bit. Sending a strong signal that fans will flock to smart TV shows helps if it gets more shows of that caliber made, even if the slimebags in hollywood profit from that too. And it also gives a signal to the legitimate indie creators out there that there's money available for people who can make shows that engage their fans strongly.

eric-hu 14y ago
To add on to the spirit of your comment, this could be the first of many major films funded through Kickstarter. In this case, the intellectual rights are already owned by Warner Brothers. In the next film, perhaps Joss Whedon wants to create a new sci fi movie with Nathan Fillion in a universe that hasn't yet been purchased by a major studio. (Replace director/actor with your choice). Hopefully this will be yet-another-alternative for non-Hollywood American entertainment to be produced.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Exactly. It's going to be more difficult for unknown artists to bootstrap their way to million dollar movies, but that's how it is in the industry already. Eventually there will be folks who make big movies with wide ranging cultural impact who do so entirely outside of the traditional system. But until then, baby steps.

doktrin 14y ago

Totally fair concern. For what it's worth, I think this was intended as an interest barometer first and funding vehicle second. If I understand correctly, passing the one million mark was sufficient to bring in WB backing. Since this would probably only cover a fraction of the production costs, it feels as if they [Warner Bros] really just wanted some market research validating interest in the product. > Warner Brothers using Kickstarter -- or, "forcing" their property to do so? It just stinks, to me. I know where you're coming from, but I don't feel the same way. The alternative, in this case, was literally nothing. The production would not have been greenlit, and fans would be left without a potentially interesting movie. Kickstarter has made this project a reality, and that's no small accomplishment.