C'mon Hollywood: Why should we pay you to make movies?
Mar. 19, 2013
This past week we witnessed a new evolution of crowdsourcing. The campaign to greenlight a VERONICA MARS movie, based on the short-lived TV show starring Kristen Bell, was able to raise more than it’s $2 million goal in less than 24 hours, making Kickstarter history and sounding the war drums for fans all over the world. It felt like a glorious victory for the show, which has a loyal and dedicated fanbase, fueled by the show’s creator, Rob Thomas. For his part, Thomas has remained committed to seeing the show return, which lasted for three seasons before petering out due to low ratings.
As of this writing, the Kickstarter campaign has garnered $3.6 million, which is well above the proposed goal and still with 25 days to go, while expanding into more international markets. It sounds like a dream come true, right? The fans have spoken with their wallets and now their dreams of seeing the show continue will come true! Everyone wins!
Or do they?
Let’s first consider what Kickstarter (and others like it) is: Kickstarter is a funding platform for creative projects, such as films, games, music, art, design, and technology, brought to life through the direct support of others. Now, who would need such a thing more? Big-name studios or new filmmakers?
The majority of film projects that are successfully funded via Kickstarter fall in the $10,000 or less goal. So, what does that kind of money say about those raising money for their film? It says that it’s mostly independent filmmakers trying to make their way into the medium; people who don’t have a major studio property or Hollywood connections. They’re simply ambitious artists trying to make a career in a very tough industry, with the majority of the money probably coming from family and peers.
Now, guess how many film projects have raised $1 million or more via Kickstarter? Only one: VERONICA MARS, a well-established property owned by Time Warner., a billion-dollar a year corporation with its hands in film, television, books, Internet, etc. Yes, a company with plenty of damn money to fund a feature film of a cancelled TV show.
Here’s the first issue (and what I see as the biggest): Crowdsourcing a major studio film immediately steals the wind from the sails of lower budget indie projects that are trying to take flight. There’s no proof in numbers on that yet, but it’s what I suspect will happen if this becomes a trend. By taking the spotlight away from new filmmakers trying to make their first feature and giving it to a group of well-established creatives and big-name studios, it makes it that much harder for them to take advantage of the Kickstarter phenomenon, which best serves the starving artists who have yet to garner any kind of recognition that could net them that kind of support.
If VERONICA MARS’ success creates a flood of campaigns by well-established filmmakers then you suddenly have a rush of people tossing money into nostalgic-minded or creator-centric projects (think GHOSTBUSTERS 3 or Scrubs: The Movie, etc.), leaving the new guys back to square one, their new window of opportunity gone, like a bully stealing lunch money on the playground. “Sorry dude, I already pledged $85 bucks for a sequel to SERENITY. Good luck with your indie flick, though.”
Then, there’s the common sense factor: Why should we pay studios to make movies? Don’t we already pay when we buy a ticket? Consider that the studio isn’t funding VERONICA MARS’ budget at all. The budget is whatever is raised on Kickstarter. Warner Bros. is picking up marketing and distribution, but that’s it. I mean, really, could we have made it any easier on them? It’s the most risk free investment they’ve had since Nolan ushered in THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy.
And, here’s the kicker; there’s no guarantee that VERONICA MARS will be successful! Fans pledging $3.6 million isn’t small potatoes, but it doesn’t guarantee that the final film will generate any more than that at the box office (or VOD, which is where the film is headed). Warner Bros. could easily have funded the film themselves after seeing the level of interest, but instead they’re going to allow the film to proceed with your money as the budget. The risk of a flop remains the same, whether they fund it or not, but why take on the budget if they can just use your cash? Not only that, but get you to pay twice (or more) with DVD, digital downloads, and rentals.
I’m more than happy to see the fans have a project they love come to life again. I think it’s great. I think the pledge support alone has proven that the desire is there. However, it feels like abuse when they’re paying the budget for the film when there’s a billion-dollar studio that is well within its means to fund it on its own. There’s a whole generation of filmmakers scraping things together to make their own projects, which are underfunded and without the benefit of big-name stars and studio support. These are the creators who will usher in the future of TV and cinema; fresh voices and new ideas that will create the next VERONICA MARS and the like.
Fans can support what they want and do what they want with their money. If a cheap t-shirt and a “signed” DVD is worth paying to have a movie made and then paying to see it, then so be it. But, think about every shit movie you paid to see in theaters; Would you want to pay that twice? Would you want to be responsible for it? Let the studios take the risk, just like any other business. Your ticket purchase is enough. You want to invest? Do it for those that are hungry for a first chance, rather than those wanting another risk-free gamble on a past failure. The choice is yours.
| Extra Tidbit: | What do you think? Should studios have the right to muscle in and use Kickstarter? Do you think it's fair? Is there enough room for big studio projects and smaller indie fare? Let's hear what you think about this! |
|---|
| Source: | JoBlo.com |
|---|
Getting what we want out of it
It's my money. I'll spend it how I want.
It's my money. I'll spend it how I want.
But whatever. People waste money on all kinds of things. Going to the bar, smoking, clothes, etc... I actually feel like I'm getting something worthwhile in return for this. WB won't be seeing a huge profit from this. They're paying marketing and distribution costs. They just didn't want to lose any money on it.
Enough with this stupid backlash. People need to get over it. If you don't want to contribute to the project then don't. I and other fans had mentioned on Facebook for like the last year that we'd gladly help fund the film if WB would just agree to make it. When it was announced that they agreed it was one of the happiest days of my life. Can't wait for the movie.
Complete, unabashed 100% agreement
There is no "correct" way to use kickstarter
Depends on the project
The rule of thumb when creating ventures of this nature is to avoid, at all costs, putting your own money into it. These are Hollywood veterans who know the game and have played it well with this Kickstarter campaign. I wouldn't worry about the future, unless all these fans expect a return on investment.
As for the people paying twice, I don't think I'd do that but who cares? It's not my money they're spending, it's theirs! People work hard for their money, they shouldn't be prevented from funding a movie if they feel it's what they wanna do.
This could change everything
It's ridiculous
sorry for double post
CONGRATS: This is THE dumbest C'Mon Hollywoods I've read (and i read when Sturdy was a regular)
Here's the problem: the studio would never 'take the risk' Wanna know why? Because the projected return wouldn't warrant it. Why would WB make a VMars movie when it could focus its resources (exorbitant as they may be, they are still finite) on Batman and Superman and billion dollar returns. Big studios stay big by playing in the major leagues. The unfortunate truth is that owning the rights Veronica Mars allows them to
Here's the problem: the studio would never 'take the risk' Wanna know why? Because the projected return wouldn't warrant it. Why would WB make a VMars movie when it could focus its resources (exorbitant as they may be, they are still finite) on Batman and Superman and billion dollar returns. Big studios stay big by playing in the major leagues. The unfortunate truth is that owning the rights Veronica Mars allows them to collect royalties without even thinking about bringing these characters back. For one, it's free money with NO work; for two, considering all of the coordination and effort that would go into resurrecting a series like VMars, the profits would be insignificant when you can just fart out another Green Lantern movie and reap the benefits of the big box office, the six flags cross-promotion, collateral animated flicks (all, of course, bolstered by the studio-fellating joblo dot com).
Sure, it sounds stupid that we have to help fund our own movie but without Kickstarter we'll NEVER see these characters again.
I mean apparently $35 gets you a copy of the movie. Spending $35 to help get a movie I'm interest in seeing plus a physical copy of it is WAY better than spending $12 on a movie that was just ok.
I mean apparently $35 gets you a copy of the movie. Spending $35 to help get a movie I'm interest in seeing plus a physical copy of it is WAY better than spending $12 on a movie that was just ok.
I can see two pros and two cons to big studios having Kickstart campaigns.
On one hand, studios are businesses. And, by necessity, businesses must be somewhat risk adverse. They cannot just repeatedly "piss away" four million here and four million there. Such losses might add up. Therefore, fans need to speak the studios' language in those fans' negotiations. If fans want a niche movie made (e.g.
I can see two pros and two cons to big studios having Kickstart campaigns.
On one hand, studios are businesses. And, by necessity, businesses must be somewhat risk adverse. They cannot just repeatedly "piss away" four million here and four million there. Such losses might add up. Therefore, fans need to speak the studios' language in those fans' negotiations. If fans want a niche movie made (e.g. an unrated exploitation wide theatrical release), if they want to see a cult classic revived even on DTV, those fans might have to convince not only their fellow fanboys at the studio but also the money-grubbing suits who could give two shits about a fan's beloved Veronica Mars, Swamp Thing, horror character, or any other property. Big studio Kickstart can at least get a desired movie made. Furthermore, fans are not foolish for giving money to a big studio. Generally, big studios have established talent. Any project's cast and crew really know what they are doing. And, a fan's investment might be likely well used. In contrast, some independent film-makers, especially if neophytes, make great films, and others certainly do not. For entertainment, the big studio movie is the surer bet.
On the other hand, big studio Kickstart is a lousy idea. People should not send their hard-earned cash to the big studios. For one thing, as you point-out, studios have plenty of money. So, they should use their competent abilities to make good movies that will surely return an investment whether four million dollars or two hundred million. For another thing, as you point-out, fan funds are finite. Fans need to close their checkbooks at some point; they cannot fund everyone. Therefore, who needs the money more? The big business, corporation, with plenty of money to manage wisely? Or, the independent "small" business that might not have much start--up capital at all. As you point-out, any endeavor's future relies often upon supporting the new guy. Finally, I would like to ask. If a fan supports a big studio financially, just how much INFLUENCE does he think that he buys? Does he believe that the studio will let him review the script before shooting? Will he get to pick the cast and director? Will he get to decide whether the studio releases a work that is respectful of the work upon which it is based? Just how much does the investing fan get to also play producer? Granted, some studios will make someone give someone an executive producer credit if the person provides enough money. However, fans (a.k.a. movie consumers) should think about whether the studio provides what the fan hopes and expects. In other words, are the generous fans going to get what they paid for?
Don't Forget
It's going to be irrelevant soon
Studios definitely have the potential to abuse this model, but it won't take
Studios definitely have the potential to abuse this model, but it won't take much to kill the goose with the golden egg. I also think it might be overlooking the intelligence of a potential kickstart donor. I personally have been very selective about what I've donated to. (Veronica Mars: no. Helping local independent movie theater stay in business by switching to digital: yes). That actually brings up a potential C'mon Hollywood topic - The Studios bullying of theaters to go digital. It's a 6 figure cost being thrust upon all theaters - whether its a megaplex, or an arthouse. And it's really the last thing these small cinemas need right now - not to mention putting projectionists out of work (and a real projectionist will tell you there's a lot more to it than putting the reel in the projector and hitting "play.")
However, I'm completely behind this idea. Rob Thomas clearly has a story left to tell in this world, otherwise he wouldn't have A) started this Kickstarter and B) secured all the major players from the show to join him. Is it odd seeing a video blog
However, I'm completely behind this idea. Rob Thomas clearly has a story left to tell in this world, otherwise he wouldn't have A) started this Kickstarter and B) secured all the major players from the show to join him. Is it odd seeing a video blog of millionaires begging me, Joe Blow, for money to help produce their movie? Yeah. But it was clear that the only way for a VM movie to happen was with a grand gesture by the fans. People can send all the peanuts they want to a studio in hopes of getting Jericho back on the air, but Kickstarter has shown there is a different way to go about it. It's a way for the fans to feel invested moreso than just mailing in complaint letters and wondering if anyone receiving those letters actually gives a shit.
The studio told Thomas, "If you get x amount of money, we will go along with it." I don't see the big problem with it. I've never watched VM, but I respect the passion from fans when someone says put your money where your mouth is. Is this going to work for every show that was cancelled? Absolutely not. Serenity 2 would require a budget five times that size to conceivably make it look respectable on the screen. But for shows like VM where the budget isn't enormous, this could work.
As to the point that this takes away from the smaller, independent movies Kickstarter has been financing up to this point, my counter argument is this: If someone wants to fun both a studio and indie movie through Kickstarter, they will. If someone can't spare extra cash to an indie because they already spent x amount on the VM Kickstarter, they probably shouldn't have spent that money anyways in the first place.