
$2 Million for ‘Veronica Mars’ Breaks Kickstarter Records - waterlesscloud
http://variety.com/2013/more/news/veronica-mars-kickstarter-reaches-1-million-in-funds-1200194274/
======
ComputerGuru
TFA does not have a link to the Kickstarter project page:
[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-
veronica-m...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-
mars-movie-project)

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.

~~~
ars
I wonder if the posters are going to be individually signed, or printed that
way.

7,000 signatures is a lot of signatures. The cast will probably be spending
every free moment writing their names.

~~~
vacri
I was thinking the same thing - at five seconds per signature, you're looking
at nearly 10 hours solid work per cast member that foolishly agrees.

~~~
nasalgoat
I think you're over-estimating the time required. I've signed 1,000 art prints
in less than an hour. You just need a system.

~~~
vacri
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.

------
pasbesoin
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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
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
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
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.

------
ghshephard
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...

~~~
kevinconroy
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.

~~~
qohen
_Joss is going to be busy directing big budget sci-fi/fantasy/awesome movies
for a while._

With low budget Shakespeare/awesome movies mixed in between,

e.g. his just-released _Much Ado About Nothing_ , briefly reviewed here (and
the trailer's embedded):

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/03/08/173808228/joss...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/03/08/173808228/joss-
whedons-much-ado-about-nothing-gets-a-snazzy-teaser-trailer)

(Firefly fans: Nathan Fillion is in this one.

As is Clark Gregg (aka Agent Coulson from The Avengers) and other actors from
other Whedon projects).

------
InclinedPlane
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.

------
SoftwareMaven
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.

------
aidos
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."_

------
hkmurakami
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)

------
alanfalcon
Smart, entertaining show if you haven't seen it. Right now you can stream it
online from thewb.com:

<http://www.thewb.com/shows/veronica-mars/>

------
habosa
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).

~~~
niggler
"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.

~~~
habosa
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.

~~~
booruguru
Veronica Mars already has a fan base. So hindsight isn't required. Fans are
supporting this because they love it just as much as geeks love Star Wars.

------
mistermcgruff
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.

~~~
18pfsmt
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).

~~~
potatolicious
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.

~~~
18pfsmt
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).]

~~~
potatolicious
> _"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.

~~~
18pfsmt
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.

~~~
nollidge
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.

~~~
18pfsmt
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.

~~~
nollidge
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.

------
thelibrarian
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.

~~~
niggler
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!"

I assume those viewers are predominantly US.

~~~
thelibrarian
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.

~~~
niggler
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

------
jpxxx
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.

------
baby
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.

------
ck2
I loved the series and was angry when it was canceled but I am not sure I
could get into a movie at this point, it's so far gone now?

------
hydralist
who wants to back a kickstarter for the tv version of harry potter, game of
thrones style. the way it was really meant to be!

~~~
batiudrami
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.

~~~
VikingCoder
Why wouldn't it come close?

38 K people just raised $2 MM in 12 hours.

I think you're thinking about this all wrong.

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.

~~~
potatolicious
38K people just raised $2MM in 12 hours after waiting literally years for one
of their favorite series to come back in some form.

There's a difference between exploiting this pent up demand in a one-off, and
trying to fund a long-term regular series at that kind of cost.

You might be able to get $10MM to produce said Harry Potter show, but I don't
think the support base is there to repeat it week over week over week.

At a lower budget level, definitely.

~~~
waterlesscloud
You'd raise it a season at a time. $150 million this year, $150 million next
year.

I think this could very easily be done directly from the fans.

The main obstacle in the case of something like Harry Potter would be that big
funding sources would be stumbling over themselves to fund it anyway.

Somewhere in there, there's a crossover point to where the venture's
profitability is obvious even to those not interested in the content.

~~~
potatolicious
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?

~~~
VikingCoder
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.

