Everyone's favorite tiny blond detective is back. As a Marxist, Veronica Mars was exactly the type of television show I struggle daily to find. The series was set in the town of Neptune, California, a town of the very rich and the very poor. It featured snappy writing and subversive mysteries, investigated by teen detective Veronica, the titular character. But it's been off the airwaves since 2007, and after early talk about a reboot or a movie, all had gone quiet for some time now.
Enter Kickstarter. Series creator Rob Thomas (Dawson's Creek, featuring break-out character Pacey; Party Down) has launched the most ambitious Kickstarter pitch of all time, asking for $2,000,000 to fund the movie. In less than a day, that goal has been met.
In a Time article entitled "Why the World Needs a Kickstarter Veronica Mars Movie," James Broniewozik writes:
Now I’m not in the business of telling you what to do with your money. But I will say that this is an important experiment, not just for this particular movie but for the movies (and TV) in general. Yes, I’d like to see Veronica Mars get a chance to come back. (And I say this as someone who doesn’t always think movie versions of TV shows are a good idea; but Veronica Mars’ mystery format and unfinished business make it a good candidate.)
The bigger deal, though, is what a successful Mars mission could mean for supposedly lost causes, niche stories, and tough-to-finance projects in the future. Getting a movie (or a TV show) made successfully isn’t just about pleasing a home audience; it’s about crafting a pitch that convinces a smaller audience of studio executives or investors that the show is worth their money. You may really want a certain movie to be made, but you are only going to buy so many tickets (or, later, DVDs). In other words, in movies as in TV, there’s an assumption that you have to satisfy a broad audience to succeed.
The potential for projects like Kickstarter is that they provide a way to monetize depth, not just breadth, of interest—which is something that has helped creative diversity in the larger entertainment world. Netflix, HBO and Showtime make series that couldn’t be made 10 years ago, because they have a way of monetizing TV fans who like the shows so much they’ll pay. Likewise, established artists like Louis CK have been able to retail their art directly to fans.
In the same sense, the traditional movie business doesn’t really monetize intensity of interest. I mean, you can decide to see a favorite film ten times, but beyond that, the ticket of an intense fan generates no more money than that of a casual fan. Kickstarter can change that, even more than direct-pay models like iTunes or indirect-pay models like pay cable. Do you really want a Veronica Mars movie? Well, you can now literally set a price on how badly you want it. If this project fails, of course, others may think twice about trying again. If it succeeds, though, who’s to say we can’t pay for more non-TV-based movies, or iTunes-style downloads of entire TV seasons?
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/03/13/why-the-world-needs-a-kickstarter-veronica-mars-movie/
And Alan Sepinwall on hitfix.com writes:
This could, indeed, be a huge moment for beloved cult series and movies. If it works, this could change the game for fans of canceled shows with a similar profile, where the overall audience wasn't big enough to keep it on the air, but passionate enough to fund some kind of follow-up project like this. (Before Dan Harmon was fired from "Community," he had several Twitter discussions about the idea of financing additional seasons — or, at least, a movie — in the event NBC didn't renew the show.) This has been tried on a smaller scale — Jane Espenson raised $60,000 to help fund the second season of her web comedy "Husbands" via Kickstarter — but if Thomas can get his $2 million (or, he hopes, much more than that) than it's easy to imagine others trying to follow his example.
Yes indeed, folks, this could be a gamechanger. This could revolutionize the entire entertainment industry. What's next? How about that Firefly revival you were hankering for? Underneath my brown coat, my pants just tightened at the thought.
But of course, all great things have some concern troll detractors. Along comes liberal Atlantic Wire writer Richard Lawson to rain on everyone's parade.
This morning, television writer Rob Thomas launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie based on the cult teen detective show he created, Veronica Mars. If they get to $2,000,000, they'll make the movie and Warner Bros. will distribute it and everyone will win. Right? Wrong! While I'm a fan of V. Mars and her sleuth gang, this Kickstarter strikes me as a bit problematic. And you know what? So does a lot of Kickstarter.
In Veronica Mars's case, they're asking you to pay for what will ultimately be a studio movie. This is not some independent film, financed on credit cards and bake sales. Nor is this an investment that anyone who donates will ever see a return on; essentially you'll be a pro bono producer. There's even a joke in the campaign's introductory video about giving donors an associate producer credit, the joke being that the title is itself a joke. Aside from some assorted rewards that only get good in the really high donation brackets, the only thing you get in return for your investment is the movie, which (depending on the size of your investment) you'll have to pay for anyway. And that movie will be based on a little-watched television show that's been off the air for six years. It's hard to see how the juice is really worth the squeeze. If this was some little indie movie it'd be different, but again Warner Bros. will be the ones distributing it and, theoretically, pocketing any extra money that comes in. Basically you're donating money to a movie studio. Is that something anyone should be asking you to do?
Which brings up the larger issue of Kickstarter as a whole. Most of these campaigns aren't people who need the money, they're people who just want it. The same could be said for lots of actual charities, sure — if you boil the word "need" down enough, nothing but food, water, and air is left. But here in the bourgie, comfy confines of wealthy Western society, we're talking about people like the indie musician Amanda Palmer, who raised $1.2 million on Kickstarter to make and distribute a folk album. That's all. Amanda Palmer, who is married to successful author Neil Gaiman and has been a prominent musician for a decade or so. Handed $1.2 million because she asked for it. People are free to spend their money however they want, but there's something so unseemly about the asking, isn't there? Maybe that reaction is owed to some overly reserved New England quality in me that I should fight against, but I can't help but feel that Kickstarter campaigns for stuff like this, that is stuff people are having no trouble selling elsewhere, are a bit gauche. Plus it's too easy.
Sure there might be some campaigning to be done on, I dunno, Twitter or whatever, but mostly Kickstarter is a passive thing. You set up the page, set certain reward levels, and then sit back and watch the dough roll in. Well, that's if you're prominent enough, I guess. Anyone can start a Kickstarter for just about any reason. I guess my ire is really directed at the famous and semi-famous people who, rather than hustle around town drumming up the money from proper backers and investors and then hoping money from their fans will roll in, just make some cutesy video instead and figure their work done. There's an arrogance to it that I find extremely unbecoming. You need look no further for evidence of that arrogance (in the guise of doing a Super Cool thing) than the reward for a $400 donation to the Veronica Mars movie: "If you kick in $400 to the cause, we will love you so much that Kristen (@IMKristenBell) and Rob (@RobThomas) will follow you on Twitter for an entire year."
ilmdge note: maybe an idea for @manyfestoeditor or @rhizzone to get our story out?
I mean ugh, right?? This is the kind of thing that Kickstarter facilitates. It's the height of tacky.
Another part of my revulsion is, yes, likely to do with the simple fact that art-related Kickstarter campaigns strip away the pretense that art and commerce aren't inextricably linked. Money has always been part of the commercial art game, but the budgeting and haggling is usually done out of view, by a few select professionals. Kickstarter, though, puts the economic reality right out in the light for all to see. Someone like Amanda Palmer is essentially telling us that she doesn't want to work on spec, so if we want to hear something new, we have to pay in advance. At a moment when we're discussing the complexities of for-pay creativity, Kickstarter openly democratizes the compensatory system. I intellectually know that's probably a good thing, but my gut still finds all the upfront money talk to be a bit unrefined, let's say. Art should exist for art's sake! Crassly bringing money into the conversation sullies everything.
So, I know that part of my distaste is silly. But there's still the problem of that tackiness, the self-indulgence posing as community bartering. That would be more palatable if there was some return on the investment beyond the production of a thing that people giving the money were going to buy anyway. I realize it's unrealistic to propose that Kickstarter figures out some kind of reciprocity arrangement. That would defeat the whole point, really. And I realize that were it not for an outrageous thing like this, the Veronica Mars movie could very likely never be made. (Maybe that would be a good thing though? If you think about it?) It's pessimistic to rain on everyone's "we can do this" parade, yes, but wealthy celebrities drumming up consequence-free cash for their next projects just doesn't feel like the proper use of a site like Kickstarter. Want to start a campaign to, I dunno, send a dying person on a nice trip? Sure, go right ahead. It doesn't even have to be as serious as that. Use Kickstarter to get a sports team some new equipment, whatever. But when it's used to pay production costs for a Warner Bros. movie, the system seems abused.
Clearly I'm in a minority here. The Veronica Mars campaign has shot past a million dollars in less than a day. (Of course, studio economics being what they are, they are still nearly a million dollars short of their goal.) So people are into the idea of funding this movie. And that's fine, it's their money. What annoys me is that the campaign's success might embolden other essentially corporate interests to do the same thing. It's free money and they pocket all the profit! It's a great arrangement for them, so why wouldn't they try it? As charming as the Veronica Mars crew is, some darkness lies behind their big idea. Which is why it might ultimately be better if it fails. There, I said it. Corporate opportunism posing as empowerment of the masses is not something we should encourage. Sorry, Logan.
But hey, Mars crew. When you do make it, because you will? At least put all the names of the people who donated to the movie in the closing credits. The largest Kickstarter in history probably deserves the longest movie credits, don't you think?
I think this John Rogers tweet responds to this article best:
"...but there's something so unseemly about the asking, isn't there? " It's called capitalism, you fuckwit.
— John Rogers (@jonrog1) March 13, 2013
But let's play devil's advocate for a second. That last bolded bit does scare me just a tad. Hey, we already got Community season 4, and we already got Fringe for five seasons. But what if the networks had held out? What if they started Kickstarter campaigns? This poster would have only been too happy to throw down a decent chunk of change to get that television made. In hindsight, however, we know these seasons were made regardless, without Kickstarter. Is the very concept of funding these projects akin to corporate subsidization? Actually, no. Therefore, what we are witnessing is the democratization of entertainment, the birth of a new way of doing art.
cleanhands posted:Is the very concept of funding these projects akin to corporate subsidization? Actually, no.
yes, uh, i sure wrote those words? not to be a dick but are you gonna snicker like a schoolkid in the back of class or are you actually going to respond to my arguments?
Crow posted:Hmmmmm, I'm getting an idea on how to get our political party funded..
producing through kickstarters is the most Marxist 2.0 way of reproducing yourself and a hip new internet party should reflect that
ilmdge posted:cleanhands posted:
Is the very concept of funding these projects akin to corporate subsidization? Actually, no.
yes, uh, i sure wrote those words? not to be a dick but are you gonna snicker like a schoolkid in the back of class or are you actually going to respond to my arguments?
i can confirm that a coalition of people fronting seed money for a corporate product in order to make said product less risky while making no claim of ownership on said product is a corporate subsidy, yes
as to the rest, kristen bell's moved on and the rest of the cast have great careers playing to type as suspect/patient of the week in the many, many cops 'n' doctors shows america now produces
cleanhands posted:ilmdge posted:cleanhands posted:
Is the very concept of funding these projects akin to corporate subsidization? Actually, no.
yes, uh, i sure wrote those words? not to be a dick but are you gonna snicker like a schoolkid in the back of class or are you actually going to respond to my arguments?i can confirm that a coalition of people fronting seed money for a corporate product in order to make said product less risky while making no claim of ownership on said product is a corporate subsidy, yes
Actually, no. I thought I already tore this claim down in the OP.
After I saw the incredible way “Veronica Mars” fans rallied around Kristen Bell and her show’s creator Rob Thomas, I couldn’t help but think (like I'm sure so many other independent filmmakers did) maybe there is a new way to finance smaller, personal films that didn’t involve signing away all your artistic control.
this Kickstarter strikes me as a bit problematic
catch phrase
donating money to get the movie made is no more insidious than paying hundreds of dollars a month for a cable subscription for 3 years to see the original series in the first place. Actually, its far far less insidious, because the bulk of your money isnt being used to subsidize a thousand other entertainment products you have zero interest in
look at this line from Th Atlantic.
"The short version: giving money to famous rich people to do something creative is silly and irresponsible. "
imagine if someone said that about political fundraising. or the entire banking system. idk.
edit; agreed that braff is a pretty hateable guy though
Makeshift_Swahili posted:the more cynical part of me is thinking maybe it has to do with the way media movers-and-shakers see their golden goose dying. if this sort of funding is viable (?) then what use are producers/financiers, critics, test screening and so on? why not cut all the fat?
well all the studio money's been going to big cgi comic book movies and they don't finance $10 million dramas any more. most of those people have gone to tv
Makeshift_Swahili posted:imagine if someone said that about political fundraising. or the entire banking system. idk.
i believe i speak for the average american when i say that there's a big difference between fundraising for a political campaign and fundraising for a movie.
tell me enough lies + promise the destruction of another political party / their ideology / plans and i can see my donation having an effect.
tell me you're going to make a rly good movie and welp there's lots of those already
This is a Kickstarter by a rich and famous person: dude got $4m for making 11 episodes of Scrubs in one year alone, but try to make a movie that costs half that one year's salary, and he needs fans to pay for it? So the rich guy's risk is zero, his contribution is zero, and who gets the profits at the end?
By the way, either of the two major parties soliciting political donations from ordinary people who need the money is gravely sinful.
The likeliest possibility is that Veronica is going to either start her own PI company or keep working with her dad. Now, if you remember the end of season three (SPOILERS) Keith was fighting off a recall election for sheriff from Vinny, and his decision to protect his daughter probably cost him the election, although that outcome was left undetermined. This leaves open the possibility that Keith will have to return to being a PI and Veronica will go back to helping him solve cases. Veronica pissing off The Castle and Jake Kane definitely sets up a potential antagonist (could Clarence Weedman and Duncan be coming back?
) and would bring it back around to where the TV series started. The other big question mark: love interest. I don't anyone believes in a lasting Veronica/Piz relationship, but it would too easy to put her back with Logan for the billionth time just to satisfy the shippers. IMO Wallace should get a crack at that unless he wants to earn a rep as a down low brother lol.
MadMedico posted: