Kickstarter and Hollywood

[Ginger Tea]

There is already a Kickstarter type service for independant movies caled vodo that releases the movies as torrents and as most are already released payment is purely optional as a donation/thanks for the film or in some cases put towards the next project (or episode in the case of 'tv' mini series Pioneer One)

I saw a poll on the escapist asking if Veronica Mars the movie should be allowed onto Kickstarter seeing as it is going to be a WB project and in turn should video game giants get in on the act.

Seeing as Serenity got made due to fan pressure, if it was offered up as a kickstarter to continue as a final season (or any canned show that was mis-scheduled to fuck) I think it would have reached some of it's goals quite quickly.

I've not read up on Veronica Mars' tiers and rewards, but one poster commented that at $50 you got the movie on DVD, so in this case it is WB seeking to finance the movie via kickstarter 'for the fans' never saw the show and know very little although I think the music video to the Faders No Sleep Tonight is meant to be set at the school.
I hope they are not expecting Kickstarter backers to fund the movie 100%, as a movie studio they should be using it as a green light process, if they get $100,000 then that means there is an audience in this TV to movie project, unlike Firefly's list of names and no financing.
Both prove that there is a fan base wanting this, but no one would shell out, nor would it get it's money back in time, if they wanted a few million, especially if they over budget and use only a fraction even with hollywood accounting taken into acount.

edit:
Just read the Kickstarter Veronica Mars project page, although WB are to distribute it, it is actaully not their idea, but the creative team trying again to get the project going (which has broken it's $2million goal), they tried a while ago but WB was unsure of the market responce, so unlike firefly, people have voted with their wallets, but you do have to spend $35 to even get the movie as a digital file.

When it is the creative team trying to get it going either back on the air, straight to DVD etc, I do not mind if they crowd fund a movie/TV studio name project.

[blas87]

If CW really wants to show off, use Supernatural. That's probably one of their most popular shows.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think if you allow a corporation a method to take on as close to 0 risk as possible, they will not only take it but will attempt to move more projects into the pipeline in the manner that gives them the least exposure.

So I don't actually like this, because I feel that if I were a studio and I could get a group of investors I don't actually have to pay residuals to, I would do it on every project I possibly could.

I'd actually like to see a new method in kick starter introduced in which for certain projects the funding actually does result IN an investor status. Because this system will encourage green lighting fewer projects IF a studio feels it can get the fans to pay for it relatively gratis.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think this would encourage risk-taking for studios, since they'd be able to basically have to pay nothing to produce niche films. For a studio, not paying to produce a film would be a very nice situation. A lot of films don't get greenlit because the studio thinks there's not enough interest to win back their investment. If their investment in the film is, say, a few thousand dollars to make it known that they're making a movie, instead of several million dollars for actually making that movie, I imagine that we, as consumers, will see more niche movies.

Edit: I mean, consider the number of people in the viewing public paying upwards of $100 on this Kickstarter, (20,900)

Then consider the number of people in the viewing public paying upwards of $100 to see this movie in theatres, blu-ray, or DVD (0)

Those 20,900 people would probably have contributed, at most, $522,000 off those people (if they bought blu-rays, which as best I can tell are about 25) and at least $313,000 (theatre tickets around here are about $15)

Instead they make upwards of $2,000,000.

No, that money doesn't go to the studios, it goes to the guy making it. But importantly, the studios are not trying to MAKE BACK those $2,000,000 dollars. The three-five hundred thousand that they'd get from those dedicated fans goes purely into profit for the studio.

Well, studio, distribution companies, etc...

Point is, it's money that the studio does not, personally, need to make back.

This seems good to me.