Currently at $2,335,670 with 37,676 backers and 29 days to go.
There are some really creative and interesting rewards for higher contributions. Personalized video message from the cast, personalized video message from Kristen Bell (much more expensive, obviously!), voicemail recordings, name a character after someone, have a local theatre rented out for a private showing possibly before the screenings, after-party tickets, be an extra, or even have a speaking role.
I presume that ultimate reward means this movie is outside the purview of SAG-AFTRA, as any speaking roles in SAG productions absolutely, positively must be performed by SAG guild members. This is going to be an official Warner Brothers product, and I wasn't aware WB was not fully in bed with SAG-AFTRA.
EDIT: What's up with Bell? She doesn't seem to understand the concept of Capital Letters aNd WHerE thEy bELONG In A Sentence. Or she's just being coy.
> What's up with Bell? She doesn't seem to understand the concept of Capital Letters aNd WHerE thEy bELONG In A Sentence. Or she's just being coy.
Good question, actually. The only actual weird capitalization she used, "LoVe to you ALL", is actually an in-joke-- "LoVe" refers to Logan/Veronica shipping[0] in Veronica Mars fandom. She's maybe hinting at a possible romantic plot to the movie, maybe just playing around.
"All new members pay a one-time-only initiation fee, plus the first semiannual dues at the time of joining. The national initiation fee rate is currently $3000.00 (initiation fees may be lower in some states). Annual Base dues are $198.00. In addition, work dues are calculated at 1.575 percent of covered earnings up to $500,000."
The Kickstarter page notes that some rewards require additional paperwork (presumably including becoming a member of SAG for the speaking role). Since only one (1) person claimed that reward, it seems reasonable that they could get them into SAG.
Also, Bell may have just made a typo re: capital letters. If you are expecting perfect grammer from the internet, you'll cry yourself to sleep every night.
You just make the person a producer. I'msure something like this will result in a court fight, but SAG are going to look stupid trying to explain why they should be able to stop a picture being made in defiance of a willing cast and a prepaid audience.
1000 prints in an hour is about 3.5 seconds per signature, not too far off my mark, and I imagine you'd need to take more fatigue breaks if you had to sign seven times as many prints.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I pray that Joss doesn't do something like this for firefly, because I'm worried about how in debt I would go to assist in funding a reunion of that series...
I'm not sure that he would go this route. Based on what he's said in interviews, I get the sense that although he loves the Firefly characters as much as us, he DID get a chance to make the movie (Serenity) to wrap it up. VM fans/Rob Thomas didn't get that chance, hence this Kickstarter.
Also with the huge success of Avengers, Joss is going to be busy directing big budget sci-fi/fantasy/awesome movies for a while.
My biggest fear is that Community will get cancelled and that their fans will turn to Kickstarter in order to get Dan Harmon back on board to get their six seasons and a movie.
He's stated clearly that he's out and done with Community, for the good of the show and his own mental health. And he's on to other projects. That's probably healthier than holding on to your baby, but then Harmon was treated like shit by the production company that owns the IP so it's not a similar situation to Veronica Mars.
The problem with creative content that is funded primarily by ad-revenue is that you break a key part of the feedback mechanism between creators and fans. Revenue becomes a matter of the intersection of lucrative demographics with eyeball counts. And because it's cheaper and easier to make content which merely titillates and draws attention such content tends to be what dominates. In a way it's surprising that anything of quality has been made under that system. Fortunately crowd funding helps reforge the link between fans and creators but it'll be a long, uphill battle before that sort of connection is the norm.
And there is the next step on the road to obscurity for the major distributors. Right now, WB sees it as a way to vet market interest, which is great for them. But in a few years, as the market optimizes around this, the actual people who make the movies will see less and less value from the studios.
It is directly analogous to the writer/publisher world. It's not to say distributors won't exist, but the part they play will be significantly different.
I've never actually seen the show but there's obviously a strong cult following for it.
The Kickstarter article is well written and there are some very interesting pledge rewards on the table.
"You will get a speaking role in the movie. Here’s the scene — Veronica is eating with the man in her life. Things have gotten tense between them. You are the waiter/waitress. You approach the table, and you say, “Your check, sir.” We guarantee you will be on camera as you say the line. Unless you go all hammy and ruin the scene and we have to cut you out, but that would be a sad day for all of us. Just say the line. Don’t over-think it. You’re a waiter."
This gives me hope that some day animation projects in Japan will be initiated by kickstarter-like platforms, resulting in profits going to the actual production studio / animators rather than the TV studios which don't do jack all for the creation of the shows.
(animators in Japan typically make below minimum wage as a result of being paid per drawing, which in turn is a result of the tv stations taking an undeservedly huge cut of the revenues)
Wow, some of the rewards people snatched up are incredible for a Kickstarter campaign. $10,000 for a speaking role? $1,000 to be an extra? I'm surprised people made that kind of purchase decision so quickly. This could be a whole new era of movie funding (not that Kickstarter hasn't already changed things significantly).
The co-founder of XE.com (Alexa 500) doesn't have to think too hard before dropping ten dimes. He's not even a huge fan of the show (though he is a fan) and might not be able to play the role due to scheduling.
"I'm surprised people made that kind of purchase decision so quickly."
Is it really surprising? Wouldn't you pay 10K for a speaking role in Star Wars? I imagine there are many people who would pony up for the opportunity to have a speaking role in a movie (regardless of the movie), and certainly most hardcore fans of Veronica Mars would want a chance to be part of the movie.
Well Star Wars is now a cultural icon, so that's a decision I'd obviously make in hindsight. However we have no idea what this movie will be like or even if it will satisfy the fans.
Also I wasn't surprised so much by the transaction of a speaking role for $10k as I was surprised that someone dropped that kind of money on Kickstarter and made the decision to do so within hours of the campaign's beginning. That's an intense impulse purchase.
Technically, you can change your mind for the duration of the kickstarter. So you reserve the spot and if you get cold feet after a few days you can change the $10.000 pledge into $10 or so.
VM was one of those smart shows that died an early death, kindof like Arrested Development or Firefly. For the longest time fans of movies and TV have been able to buy DVDs, tickets to cons, posters, action figures, etc., but all of that is a proxy for what fans really want to buy: MORE CONTENT. Glad to see this working.
But it seemed to me some idiot somewhere who worked on the second season saw it had a strong female lead and thought that meant she should be a dick and wrote the later seasons like that.
It amazes me how Hollywood just doesn't get strong female characters.
Sorry for the off-topic/ pedantic, but since when has VM stood for Veronica Mars, and cons stood for conferences?
To me VM == virtual machine, and cons==convicts. I realize context changes that, but I like browsing from the https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments section of HN, and I find it rude that many HNers feel the need to use common Reddit acronyms not found anywhere else. For people that find Vim shortcuts so simple, one cannot easily fathom the time savings is worth the confusion (however temporary).
To you cons = convicts, to the rest of the cons is a command line tool, which arguably is closer to the "HN" standard (whatever the fuck that means) than yours.
I find it rude that you would choose to use such an irrelevant definition of "cons" on HN given the general subject matter of this forum.
Just kidding - who gives a shit? The extra 0.5 seconds it took to parse the contextual meaning of an acronym I am not going to sweat, and I am certainly not going to call someone rude for daring to use a subculture-specific word in a way I would not normally.
>To you cons = convicts, to the rest of the cons is a command line tool, which arguably is closer to the "HN" standard (whatever the fuck that means) than yours.
While I agree with the spirit of your answer, a command line tool? Really?
If anything would be more aligned to the "HN standard", it would be the Lisp "cons" (functions / cells).
Interesting. And what would you estimate is the time loss of that 0.5 seconds multiplied by 5x per day translates to in a year?
I suppose this is a bit of the curmudgeonly attitude I fear I am acquiring (i.e. get off my lawn), but I do take offense to people mangling the language and the lingo (like talking about a blog rather than a blog post, which seems to be on the rise).
As a rather poor typist, among people I perceive to be great typists, this bothers me. Perhaps I was just looking for other curmudgeons or pedants to show me how they deal with this issue. I also try to proofread my comments, and I appreciate the same.
P.S. I also do not understand, "to the rest of the cons is a command line tool."
[Edit to clarify:
I estimate I spend 1 hour and half on this type of thing per year on HN; normally, I just downvote, and move on. I just found out ITMS == if that makes sense. I thought it was Itunes Music Store.
Instead of mentioning Vim, I should have said most people on HN appear to be able to treat the keyboard as an extension of their body. I cannot, maybe I'm abit jealous there, but if typing is so simple why save a few keystrokes at the risk of confusing those with whom you wish to communicate?
I did preface my comment with an admission that it was both pedantic and off-topic (on an original post from variety.com concerning a topic with which I'm completely unfamiliar).]
> "but I do take offense to people mangling the language and the lingo"
What language and what lingo? Do we need to establish a canonical "this acronym means exactly and only that" definition?
It's one thing to get mad at bad grammar or poor spelling, it's quite another to get riled up over a legitimate use of a word simply because that's now how you normally use the same word.
The English language is messy, your borg-like desire for millisecond-level perfection is hard to understand, but not so objectionable until you started calling others rude for not living up to your standards.
OP wasn't spelling poorly, nor did he/she use poor grammar - you're literally complaining about someone using an acronym in a way you do not normally use it.
I agree. You make a good point (even though I will never accept that cons==conferences). Next time I will just silently downvote, and move on. I apologize to all for expressing this pedantic feeling.
It's not pedantic. Pedantic would imply that your complaint has an iota of validity to it, which it does not. You literally cannot exist as a functioning member of society if you are opposed to using context in interpreting communication, or to the evolution of language.
Look, I am completely out of my element on this one, and apparently, the people attracted to this entry feel very strongly about it. I've only ever been to industry and academic conferences, and I would actually characterize these other things as festivals.
Browsing HN via /newcomments inherently places every comment out of context, and I realize it is my choice to browse that way. I also strongly disagree that my complaint is without "an iota of validity." As to your last point, I am pretty much a loner, so that's not off base.
Reading your comments, and not wishing to cause offense, I would guess that you're not neurotypical. Communication is messy, and being outside the neurotypical territory may explain why it's frustrating to come across these things.
I apologize for being insensitive to this possibility.
> And what would you estimate is the time loss of that 0.5 seconds multiplied by 5x per day translates to in a year?
I don't even have to estimate. It's less than 16 minutes in a year. I spend more time washing dishes every day.
The word "con" being used for convention is so widely used (PyCon, ComicCon, GenCon) that it's almost approaching "con is short for convict"-level popularity.
You are complaining about not being able to understand an acronym out of context because your preferred feed is a low-context feed. This is your problem, not other people's.
"cons" is not just not a "reddit acronym", but is also a common term for "conventions" and "conferences" that has been in use for at least three decades. I haven't lived longer than two and a half but I wager it's older than I am.
You're not entitled to your own ignorance, and not everyone uses language the same way you do. Please lighten up, open your mind a little bit to that, and grow a thicker skin.
No, it honestly has a very widespread and global usage. Probably 90% of SF and gaming conventions have a name ending with "Con", or some obvious pun on that. The roots go back at least to the 1939 NYCon I (possibly a retroactive name) or the 1940 ChiCon I.
Science fiction, comic book, and anime conventions often use "con" in their names or as puns. WindyCon, Conclave, MegaCon, Worldcon, CollossalCon, ... Referring to media conventions as "cons" is pretty common in fandom.
Veronica Mars doesn't fit strictly into those categories, but the fanbase seems to have substantial overlap with genre fandom. It's jargon, but not particularly uncommon in its area of relevance.
Almost every single lexical object is overloaded with multiple meanings, so it is incumbent upon an addressee to put in a modicum of effort to use context in interpreting communication. There's really no other way to get by.
It's even more impressive when you consider that this is effectively U.S. only, as they will not ship anything (apart from a digital copy of the script) to overseas backers.
from the kickstarter: "The most common donation amount on Kickstarter is $25. Surely, 80,000 of our three million viewers would find that price-point viable!"
True, my comment was more to the fact that all of the previous record setters (e.g. Torment: Numenera, Double Fine Adventure, Ouya, and Pebble) have been open world-wide, so this has had a much more limited potential backer population and still was a roaring success.
Were the country breakdowns released for those and other multi million dollar projects? I wonder whether those projects would have hit the 1M mark from just the US contributors
I was replying to the remark: "It's even more impressive when you consider that this is effectively U.S. only"
For a show with a 3M fan base, of which I would guess most are US based, its not hard to imagine that a few percent of those viewers (or their parents) would chip in $25
Just to be sure, this is a marketing technique, not a method of funding a movie. The actual movie will cost around 20x more just to cover production, talent, editing, and distribution costs.
Consider Kickstarter marketing that pays for itself.
This just put a huge smile on my face (that should last a month).
And then I read this : " This reward will ship to backers in the US only". Sadness sadness... I would have paid more if that meant I could have received anything for backing them up.
A Kickstarter campaign wouldn't come close to covering it.
Your average cable TV drama costs upwards of $2M/episode, with Game of Thrones costing $4-$10 million/episode. Harry Potter has a big following, so it might make $10M all up - enough for a set and a pilot, maybe.
I'd pay $10 to watch a new episode of Sherlock right now. Even if I have to wait 6 months for production. They can have $100, if I get 10 episodes. And if you can ONLY get episodes by paying for it, I think it'd scale.
Right, except what are the odds we can raise $150 million a year, consistently, year over year?
My point is that the price that people are willing to pay for content decreases as you create more content. People might be willing to pay $50 to revive a movie from a long-dormant property, but would they pay the same $50 for the equivalent amount (2-3 episodes?) of a regular-run show?
My bet is on no, at least for now - this may change in the future.
This applies to more than just shows IMO - Chris Roberts (of Wing Commander fame) was able to raise a tremendous amount of money for his revival of the space sim genre - would he be able to raise even close to that amount if he went by, say, a yearly release?
I don't agree that people are willing to pay less over time.
Even if they did, that's EACH person you're talking about - if the content is popular, its base of consumers has gone up dramatically. If you double your viewers, but each is willing to contribute 40% less, that's still a net gain.
Sure, it's made $2M in it's first day. It'll likely top out at about $7-10M, because that's how Kickstarter projects which receive early publicity go in terms of growth - they receive about 1/3 of their total funding in the first 24 hours - see below.
$10M doesn't create a TV show. It certainly isn't going to create a movie with well know actors like Veronica Mars - there are definitely other parties kicking in for this.
> $10M doesn't create a TV show. It certainly isn't going to create a movie with well know actors like Veronica Mars
...I somewhat disagree. If you're financing a film of an existing property with a lot of goodwill around it (i.e, Veronica Mars), with a short shooting period (2-3 weeks, which is what they're talking about here), then you'll probably be able to get your cast to work at union rates along with points/profit participation.
US TV tends to be on the expensive side, but that doesn't mean you can't produce quality TV for less. In the UK the BBC tends to budget around $750,000-$1,000,000 per episode for prime-time drama, which gives you a good ten episode season for your $10 million.
I don't know how accurate this [1] is (because the citation link is dead), but Wikipedia claims Veronica Mars cost about $1.7 million per episode ($2.1 million for the Season 1 finale). Each episode is 1 hour, so double that, and you assume that the movie would cost about $4.2 million if it had the same quality as the show. And that's not even taking into account that the director and Kristen Bell probably will do the work for less since it seems to be a pet project of theirs. Overall, it seems like it'd be really easy to make back the investment on this one.
Currently at $2,335,670 with 37,676 backers and 29 days to go.
There are some really creative and interesting rewards for higher contributions. Personalized video message from the cast, personalized video message from Kristen Bell (much more expensive, obviously!), voicemail recordings, name a character after someone, have a local theatre rented out for a private showing possibly before the screenings, after-party tickets, be an extra, or even have a speaking role.
I presume that ultimate reward means this movie is outside the purview of SAG-AFTRA, as any speaking roles in SAG productions absolutely, positively must be performed by SAG guild members. This is going to be an official Warner Brothers product, and I wasn't aware WB was not fully in bed with SAG-AFTRA.
EDIT: What's up with Bell? She doesn't seem to understand the concept of Capital Letters aNd WHerE thEy bELONG In A Sentence. Or she's just being coy.