Star Trek Luminaries Behind the Fastest Funded Film Project On Kickstarter

Writers that don't own the show by tepples · 2012-05-27 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe with direct communication, sci-fi fans can rest easy and not have to worry about their favorite shows being cancelled like FireFly.

That would work only if the writer actually owns the copyright in the show's setting. If the publisher owns it, and the publisher wants it canceled, no amount of crowd funding is going to bring it back.

Re:Writers that don't own the show by Tapewolf · 2012-05-27 02:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

That would work only if the writer actually owns the copyright in the show's setting. If the publisher owns it, and the publisher wants it canceled, no amount of crowd funding is going to bring it back.
I think what they mean is that this project is not beholden to a publisher.
Re:Writers that don't own the show by Mitreya · 2012-05-27 07:34 · Score: 1

If the publisher owns it, and the publisher wants it canceled, no amount of crowd funding is going to bring it back.
That's true, but I am assuming that publishers are self-interested entities. FireFly was not cancelled as a result of vendetta but because it was too expensive to produce.
Perhaps if they had all or most of the costs pledged and available, they'd film the 2nd season? I can't wait for this to become an option for shows. All those DVD-buying campaigns were too indirect.
Re:Writers that don't own the show by zippthorne · 2012-05-27 07:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's true, but I am assuming that publishers are self-interested entities. FireFly was not cancelled as a result of vendetta but because it was too expensive to produce.
Not saying you're wrong, but when half the episodes took place in the southern californian woods and were about people riding around on horseback through old west towns, and half the remaining episodes took place entirely within a single five-room spaceship set, It's hard to believe that it was particularly expensive to produce....
I suspect the real reason is that it just wasn't watched in big numbers, in part because people want their sci fi to be sci fi, and not 83% "old west shanty town"

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Writers that don't own the show by cpu6502 · 2012-05-27 07:55 · Score: 1

I don't agree with the "legendary writer" characterization.
He wrote episodes that were some of the weakest in the TV shows, incsuidng Sliders 5th (and most boring) season.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Writers that don't own the show by cnettel · 2012-05-27 10:43 · Score: 2

I think that Firefly contained quite a bit of digital post-production, especially considering its age. Doing that on a per-episode basis, with the additional requirements on aligning shots etc to do composite could easily drive up the costs. Riding around in nature is also more expensive compared to work on a soundstage. You need to build the stage, but you don't exactly go out and shoot in unchanged nature anyway. And shooting outside limits your access to proper conditions regarding lighting etc.
Re:Writers that don't own the show by Svartalf · 2012-05-28 02:32 · Score: 1

I think that's the point. In most cases, before they got the publisher involved, it was typically the producer's idea to begin with (The publisher had to be SOLD on the idea for them to buy it under contract...) - and many of the shows wouldn't be produced the way that they are right now if we had the ability to bankroll them ourselves.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Writers that don't own the show by max847 · 2012-05-28 04:55 · Score: 1

I liked the flavor of Firefly it was real and gritty and the charactors were deep, diverse and interesting and the scifi and special effects wernt "in your face" like so many shows tend to be. to me this show is alot like the first coffee.

Sci Fi Luminaries? by Narrowband · 2012-05-27 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I hope they succeed, but... all that talent, and they couldn't think of a name better than "Space Command?"

Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Tapewolf · 2012-05-27 02:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

I hope they succeed, but... all that talent, and they couldn't think of a name better than "Space Command?"
Given the 1950s atmosphere in all the concept art, I'd guess that's deliberate.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by kenh · 2012-05-27 02:59 · Score: 1

Well, Missle Command was already taken...

--
Ken
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by MsWhich · 2012-05-27 03:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Agreed. "Space Command Ninja Cops" would have been better.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by zippthorne · 2012-05-27 03:10 · Score: 1

Frankly I'm confused that they couldn't scrounge up $100k amongst all those names...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by sribe · 2012-05-27 03:14 · Score: 1

Agreed. "Space Command Ninja Cops" would have been better.
Space Command Mutant Ninja Turtle Transformer Klingon RepliCops.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by wytcld · 2012-05-27 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Spending their own money, they wouldn't be creating advanced buzz. This way when they take their product to market they can say "See, we've already got all these people invested in it." And every investor will make sure to see it ... with friends.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Dock · 2012-05-27 03:33 · Score: 5, Informative

"Stark Trek Luminaries?" was my first thought. Best I can tell, Marc Zicree only wrote two treatments (a detailed outline) for all of Trek. One episode for TNG, and one (bad) one for DS9. He didn't write the script for either. That means he was a freelancer, not a staff writer, and the writing staff didn't like his treatments enough to let him write the scripts. He only has one credit for Babylon 5 and his five credits for Sliders came at the end of the show, when it was garbage.
I wouldn't bet on much quality coming out of this "legendary sci-fi writer". That's a joke. Did Marc Zicree send this in himself or something?
Doug Drexler's resume is hardly legendary either.

--
http://about.me/paultenny
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by IICV · 2012-05-27 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

I hope they succeed, but... all that talent, and they couldn't think of a name better than "Space Command?"
Yes, and it's a perfect name. Did you watch the video? They're hearkening back to Asimovian science fiction stories (there's even a theremin in the background music!), when things were simpler and more optimistic. Just look at the semi-retro style of their spaceships; they scream 1960's scifi, and they look exactly like the kind of ship that would be built by an organization named "Space Command".
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by owlnation · 2012-05-27 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Frankly I'm confused that they couldn't scrounge up $100k amongst all those names...
Yes... that's exactly what does not make sense here.

These guys aren't civilians. These guys aren't naive students, fresh out of college; arrogant, idealistic, and with unrealistic dreams, with no sense of demographics, and no experience of making motion pictures -- i.e. your typical kickstarter client.

Getting funding for a motion picture is very difficult if you have no industry connections. However, it is surprisingly easy if you do. In this case, all you would need is a script written by someone with experience (check), some directorial or VFX experience would be good (check), and at least one B-List named actor who has signed a letter of intent. That might not get you all the money you need, but it would definitely get you enough to get started, you could easily get a million or so that way.

Considering they've worked on shows with plenty of actors who are not exactly busy right now, you'd think there's at least one person they can call to get them interested. Admittedly as a writer and vfx designer they'd have little contact with on-screen talent. However, they MUST know people who know people.

If you have experience and some sort of name in the industry you can sell to people who have real money, just as easily as you can sell to some guy on the net with $10.

Ergo... something does not add up here.

Plus the fact, I'm pretty sure most professional distributors would look down on any kickstarter funded project. I would seriously doubt the ability of any kickstarter project to ever get into cinemas. I assume none have as yet, I doubt many ever will.

Admittedly, I am of the opinion that kickstarter is just another parasite that looks to suck the dreams out of the desperate, idealistic and naive. There's no shortage of similar parasites in the industry. And there's no shortcuts to success in the industry. You have a sellable product, or you don't -- it's a business, and that is what most new filmmakers forget. (along with demographics -- it's only teenagers that go to the cinema in enough numbers to make real money from a movie. If your movie doesn't appeal to teens, kiss your profits and distribution deal goodbye).
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by phrostie · 2012-05-27 04:26 · Score: 5, Informative

so was Space Command. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045439/
btw, guess who was in the original?
either way, i hope it works out. even B scifi beats ghost hunting and wrestling.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

naive students, fresh out of college; arrogant, idealistic, and with unrealistic dreams, with no sense of demographics, and no experience
You mean like these guys or these guys?

If you have experience and some sort of name in the industry you can sell to people who have real money, just as easily as you can sell to some guy on the net with $10.
Yes, and may be you don't want to sell to people who have real money, because they want to buy you to make product, not to buy the product you make. That was a big part of Fargo's motivation to go to Kickstarter.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by owlnation · 2012-05-27 04:53 · Score: 2

so was Space Command.
Doesn't really matter -- you can't copyright a title. Although, you could register it as a trademark, perhaps.

There's plenty of movies with the same title. As long as the content, concept and characters are unique, there's no legal issue.

However, you DO run the risk of confusing your audience and making it harder to search for your movie on the internet, etc., if you use a previously-used title. It may also upset distributors for just that reason.

Having said that, the target demo for this kind of movie does not seem to be one that would respond well to a movie named "Space Command". Do you really think that would impress and interest a 14 year old? Because your distributor will be expecting you to target that demographic, and dropping you like an hot stone if you don't.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Svartormr · 2012-05-27 05:03 · Score: 2

Agreed. "Space Command Ninja Cops" would have been better.
...who will obviously have to face off against Space Pirates... >:)
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by kamapuaa · 2012-05-27 05:24 · Score: 1

He also was a big part of "World Enough and Time," which even though it's basically a video fanfic, is actually quite watchable and done on a very low budget. I don't think it's realistic to compare this to a top-end science fiction show, but I'm definitely looking forward to this.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:29 · Score: 0

meh, Lets see your Scifi Resume....
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-27 05:30 · Score: 1

I'm actually a tad concerned about that, too—I don't think they quite realise that we're talking about an audience that predominantly grew up on the optimistic side of science fiction from the past three decades, rather than the fifties. It would really suck if the movie series failed to continue because fans felt it the first one was too campy.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:40 · Score: 0

That's an awful lot of griping directed at the people standing in front of their cabinets full of Emmy's, Hugo's, etc.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by MsWhich · 2012-05-27 06:10 · Score: 3, Funny

If Marc Zicree is standing in front of a cabinet full of Emmys, he better move out of the way, because he's blocking the view of the person who actually won them.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by jamstar7 · 2012-05-27 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

First rule of Hollywood. NEVER use your own money.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:18 · Score: 1

I don't think he was standing in front of Drexler and his multiple Emmys, Oscar, Saturn awards, etc. Zicree had the Hugo. Well, and 30 years of writing sci-fi for TV.
It's an impressive team and I hope they do well.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Genda · 2012-05-27 08:00 · Score: 2

I dunno... could be they wanted to go straight to the people who would pay for this in the first place, and cut the whole felating an executive at Paramount to get funding part. Personally I think its creative and interesting, and if it works might be a great way to get a whole bunch of independent productions created. Or not. Only time will tell.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by FrootLoops · 2012-05-27 08:31 · Score: 1

One episode for TNG, and one (bad) one for DS9. He didn't write the script for either.
You're talking about TNG: First Contact and DS9: Far Beyond the Stars. The DS9 one was certainly different, but I'd hardly call it bad. For instance, Memory Alpha quotes the actors who played Sisko, Quark, and Odo as calling it their favorite or one of their favorite DS9 episodes. The TNG one was certainly interesting. Maybe the writing could have been better (somehow I was never sold on the injured Riker idea; too convenient?), but the basic plot was a very good idea, and the episode is at least memorable.
But certainly "Star Trek Luminary" is pretty silly. I had never heard of him.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by LordLucless · 2012-05-27 10:11 · Score: 1

These guys aren't civilians. These guys aren't naive students, fresh out of college; arrogant, idealistic, and with unrealistic dreams, with no sense of demographics, and no experience of making motion pictures -- i.e. your typical kickstarter client.
They may not fit the demographic of your typical kickstarter client, but they do fit that of the typical kickstarter success story - see Doublefine, Wasteland, Shadowrun, Banner Saga, etc. Kickstarter isn't just for people who can't raise capital the traditional way - it's also for people who don't want to.

Admittedly, I am of the opinion that kickstarter is just another parasite that looks to suck the dreams out of the desperate, idealistic and naive. There's no shortage of similar parasites in the industry.
A large number of whom are the publishers that you seem to consider so essential.

it's only teenagers that go to the cinema in enough numbers to make real money from a movie. If your movie doesn't appeal to teens, kiss your profits and distribution deal goodbye
Who cares? You're under no obligation to earn back profits for your investors, because you have none. If you're kickstarter funding covered your costs, you're golden. If it covered even a significant chunk of your costs, a modest return will be sufficient to break even, you won't need "real money". And unlike traditional means of funding, "breaking even" isn't a bad thing - the people funding care about the quality of your work, not it's monetary return (because kickstarter backers aren't entitled to any of that return).

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by lennier · 2012-05-27 10:52 · Score: 1

"Stark Trek Luminaries?"
Good lord, I hope nobody lets Tony build a starship. That's the last thing his ego needs.
Besides, S.W.O.R.D. might have something to say about S.H.I.E.L.D. muscling in on their turf.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Eskarel · 2012-05-27 12:34 · Score: 1

What doesn't add up is actually really really simple to understand.
If you fund your project through industry connections, those industry connections actually expect you to provide them with some kind of financial return. If you get your project funded by kick starter all you have to do is send them some merchandise which costs you virtually nothing. This goes doubly so if you're nominally famous in geek circles or attached to something which is nominally famous in geek circles. If they can get this thing off the ground and it does even moderately well at the box office that's 100 grand they don't have to do anything for.
I'm just waiting for the first bright spark to work out they don't even actually have to have a project to run a kick starter project. You could get someone like Summer Glau starting up a project to product signed pictures of herself and geeks would line up around the block donating to fund it, keep the reward brackets right and you could walk away with a tidy profit.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Vegan+Cyclist · 2012-05-27 14:16 · Score: 1

Exactly...i like the idea of making a statement as people, and showing that we're sorely lacking on this front in the TV world. I'm reminded fairly regularly that there are barely any scifi shows on, yet it's such an amazing platform for storytelling. And maybe the studios will perk up if they see that many people actually want this as well (although it's practically been a sledge hammer of an effort telling them this anyway..) Either way, i'm happy to see something on its way.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by McFadden · 2012-05-27 15:03 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter anyway. They're going to need at least 100 times what they've raised so far to even make it to B-grade standard, so even the "fastest funded" isn't fast enough given their timescale. Never gonna happen. It'll be interesting to see what will happen if a studio steps in and makes up the shortfall then reaps a lion's share of the profits leaving all these small investors looking like a bunch of schmucks.
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Svartalf · 2012-05-28 02:35 · Score: 1

Optomistic?
Blade Runner?
Alien? Aliens?
Sphere?
You keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means...

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Svartalf · 2012-05-28 02:37 · Score: 1

What makes it add up is that it's more something that'd be a good movie but the money people would consider too much of a risk because it doesn't fit any of their formulae for such movies.
The money people are more interested in strip-mining culture for all the money that they can and then changing the formulae for the movies so they can go do it again.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Sci Fi Luminaries? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-28 02:55 · Score: 1

Optimistic side of the science fiction from the past three decades. Reading comprehension! Star Trek spinoffs, Babylon 5, and countless written works. It's not all doom and gloom! (Also, Alien is 33 years old now, so ha!)

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by StormyWeather · 2012-05-27 02:56 · Score: 1

I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit, and if the person leading the project blows all the dough on ale and wenches you can't interject any authority right?

Sounds like its for suckers sorry. Why not find a bright young person and partner with them to try and get something great done? Is it just because kick starter is easier to fire and forget some cash on?

Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by MsWhich · 2012-05-27 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's because Kickstarter allows you to get $10 each from 3000 people (as an example) rather than trying to hit up one person for $30k. Or two people for $15k each or whatever. Yeah, if I throw down $15k I'm going to maybe want a say in the final product. For ten bucks, though, the dude can do whatever he wants. If he spends the cash on hookers and blow, well, I won't contribute to his next Kickstarter project. (Unless the Kickstarter project was for funding hookers and blow, of course.)
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:08 · Score: 0

It's the lottery ticket principle.
You put a buck into a lotto ticket, for a potentially but unlikely payoff.
Well, so what? It's a buck, you gamble, you lose, you expected that.
Now if you did that with some other product, you'd be more upset.
That said, they do have SOME verification and credentials, but as they said about Preston Tucker, it's not a crime to take investments to build a car and fail.
Can you see the difference?
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:09 · Score: 1

I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit, and if the person leading the project blows all the dough on ale and wenches you can't interject any authority right?
Sounds like its for suckers sorry. Why not find a bright young person and partner with them to try and get something great done? Is it just because kick starter is easier to fire and forget some cash on?
Investment always have to do with how much you trust someone with your money. Even when you invest in something the 'traditional' way there is always the risk that they didn't actually know what they were talking about or that they ust were a scammer that ran away with the money.
What makes Kickstarter work is that a lot of people go together and invest very little each, this means that they don't have to trust the proect maintainer as much.
In the case of movies kickstarter pretty much is something like a pre-paid ticket but with the difference that the movies that get made are the once that the audience thinks will be good, not the one that the publisher thinks they will make the most money from.
Actually it sounds more like movie tickets and rental are for suckers and that kickstarter is for those who know what they want. (It also cuts out the middle man so you get more bang for the bucks.)
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by zippthorne · 2012-05-27 03:09 · Score: 1

Yes. You're pre-buying the product (and swag), not investing in the company. There is still the risk of the second thing you said, but the contributions are also very low, so your liability is limited in that case (and you probably will still get the swag....)

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:16 · Score: 0

This is true of pretty much any investment, in that they could just run off with the money and if smart, not even be found.
Or they could make it look like they spent money, but really never spent a thing.
This could either go towards a project that outright failed or something that had already been worked on previously and they just wanted to make some free dosh.
Also, I'm pretty sure that if enough people got together, they could sue.
The courts don't give a damn about laws, remember. They make shit up as they go. Enough money and you could outlaw the ability of people to say "and", probably.
It is a gamble, a lottery. You could get something pretty neat after it, such as a game, a useful food storage container or something to help you lucid dream.
Or you could get nothing.
Scams have been found out before and blasted.
And most people are smart enough not to just fund random people straight out of nowhere without a little research in to the companies.
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by sribe · 2012-05-27 03:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit...
Kickstarter would absolutely love to be able to allow users to offer a share in profits in return for funding. However this is prevented by all the regulations around public ownership of companies. Recent (or in-progress?) rule changes will substantially lower the compliance bar for small investments in small companies--whether the regulations will be relaxed enough to allow Kickstarter projects to offer shares, I don't know.
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by drinkypoo · 2012-05-27 03:43 · Score: 2

I don't understand kick starter.
Perhaps instead of complaining and characterizing the people funding these projects as "suckers" when you don't know jack about shit, you should visit the site and glance at some of these projects. Next to the donation amounts, it tells you what you get. Some projects never give you anything other than a warm feeling. Some projects will put your name in the credits. Some projects are there to make a thing, and you get parts for the thing for some donation levels, complete kits for some donation levels, and complete products for other donation levels. Some projects only offer kits, some only complete products, some only plans, etc etc. There is usually plenty of information about the developer and their qualifications online, so you can make a relatively informed decision like any other investment. And unlike taxes, there's no reason to bitch or complain or make ignorant statements, because no one is forcing you to participate.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:44 · Score: 0

I don't get what's so hard to understand. You're not investing in anything. You're chipping in a few bucks for a project you support and, in turn, you are usually also pre-ordering the finished product (videogame, board game, video, album, piece of clothing or furniture or art, etc) and for a little extra you usually get some recognition in credits of some sort and special experiences, like having a say in the project or having lunch with the people involved or special limited edition items just for certain backers.
Also - the problem with this particular project is THERE IS NO DIGITAL DOWNLOAD OF THE CONTENT. Sorry, but I was all ready to pledge some cash for the project, until I had scanned through every level of every backing option and NONE of them offered more than a copy of it on a physical disc. Meh. I'd have chipped in $20 for an HD download.
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by StormyWeather · 2012-05-27 04:03 · Score: 1

But the project is still getting the 30,000 but because they are possibly stealing from 3000 people instead of one they get away from the fiduciary obligations of a direct investment. I'm a capitalist and I don't see any problems as long as the contract is well defined whatever the amount raised. I don't think its for me, but I guess if someone was wanting a product in the market that didn't exist this might be a good way to show market demand.
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-27 04:30 · Score: 4, Funny

I won't contribute to his next Kickstarter project. (Unless the Kickstarter project was for funding hookers and blow, of course.)
I may have an exciting investment opportunity for you.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by Artifakt · 2012-05-27 04:41 · Score: 2

When a Kickstarter project is for a physical device, it generally aims to take advantage of economies of scale. I saw one for an aluminum bodied flashlight with a hexagonal cross section (presumably to make it less likely to roll when laid down). The creator showed how much cheaper it would be to make if he had precommitments for at least a thousand units, and if I recall, for 5000 and so on. This suggests to me that people who don't understand the kickstarter approach would be saying the same thing about all sorts of newer economics related ideas, such as print on demand, or selling excess solar power back to the grid. There's a difference between saying "Don't believe a stranger offering to sell you the Brooklyn bridge!", and "Don't believe bridges have any economic utility!".

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by UttBuggly · 2012-05-27 05:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit, and if the person leading the project blows all the dough on ale and wenches you can't interject any authority right?
Sounds like its for suckers sorry. Why not find a bright young person and partner with them to try and get something great done? Is it just because kick starter is easier to fire and forget some cash on?
I have coughed up $$ to 4 different projects on Kickstarter and don't regret any. One of them is the TouchFire flexible iPad keyboard. I thought it was kind of neat and since I own an iPad2 and an Apple KB, it appealed to me personally.
Another project involves some local folks in my area, so again, I had a personal interest. A side note is that a brief talk with the project director led to me getting directly involved. I'm jazzed, they're pleased, and it was unlikely to have happened without the Kickstarter catalyst.
So from my POV, this is a great idea!

--
I am my own gestalt.
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by pubwvj · 2012-05-27 06:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Kickstarter is not about investing.
Kickstarter is somewhat about supporting a project you believe in.
Kickstarter is mostly about buying a product. Most successful projects offer a 'reward', a product, for the 'pledge', payment, by the 'backer', customer. Kickstarter just likes to call it Backers, Pledges and Rewards. They try hard to avoid the term investment as that is dangerous. See below.
In return for pre-buying you get product and you get some satisfaction with helping to be an early buyer that helped make something possible. But it is really a transaction in most cases, a payment for goods or perhaps services.
When you buy a Pepsi you don't expect to get a share in the profit. You're buying a product. With Kickstarter the product doesn't usually exist yet so it is different in that it is a pre-buy.
An example is our family raises pastured pigs. We're building our own on-farm USDA inspected butcher shop (http://smf.me) and as a part of raising funds we pre-sold our product, pastured pork. We did this initially locally through CSA Pre-Buys and then this spring we did a Kickstarter project that raised an addition $33,456. When we finish construction and have our licenses we will then ship product from our farm to customers, some of whom joined our adventure via Kickstarter.
In our case the product already exists, we've been raising pigs on pasture and selling our pork for almost a decade. What is new is we're bringing the meat processing on-farm. This resolves a major bottleneck and helps to keep more of the money on-farm while also providing more humane handling for the animals and better quality for the customers. 369 people thought that was worth doing so they backed our project on Kickstarter. About a hundred more had already backed us prior to that. We provide product for backing. This is different than going to a bank for a loan (they aren't lending) or giving away a share of the business to investors (we're rather small for that as the project is only about $150,000).
Until recently it was illegal to solicit investment such as on Kickstarter which is why it is not an investment angle. With the new law that just passed there may soon be other web sites like Kickstarter that do offer investment opportunities. Alternatively, if you want to own the project and get profits then start your own business. That also gives you control.
With any project that's buying on the future, pre-buy or investment, you need to carefully consider if the project creator can deliver. Kickstarter says about 50% of the projects succeed. What they mean is 50% get successfully funded. As anyone with significant investment or business experience knows, not all funded projects will get to the production stage or be sustainable businesses. I have seen several Kickstarter 'successes' that never produced. It happens. But I think that most do succeed once funded. Caveat emperor.
Our project already successfully completed its Kickstarter run. Check it out at http://smf.me/
Cheers,
-Walter Jeffries
Sugar Mountain Farm
Pastured Pigs, Sheep & Kids
in the mountains of Vermont
Read about our on-farm butcher shop project:
http://sugarmtnfarm.com/butchershop
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by zippthorne · 2012-05-27 08:05 · Score: 1

And compare the above description to Kiva, the "micro loan" program that has a very similar example about a farmer expanding their operation (by purchasing a tractor, iirc) in their sales pitch as well.
Except your donation is actually given to loan sharks to lend out at usury rates and you don't get anything in return at all, unless you really love the feeling that some of your money has increased the wealth and power of third world moneylenders...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by tragedy · 2012-05-27 10:23 · Score: 2

I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit, and if the person leading the project blows all the dough on ale and wenches you can't interject any authority right?
That's right! You should only put your money into good, solid, traditional investments. May I suggest Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC?
Re:Am i just too stupid to understand kickstarter? by chrismcb · 2012-05-27 21:25 · Score: 1

I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit, and if the person leading the project blows all the dough on ale and wenches you can't interject any authority right?
What is there to understand? Kickstarter is about donations. DONATIONS. Sometimes they offer something in return for those donations.

Not quite... by kenh · 2012-05-27 02:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Maybe with direct communication, sci-fi fans can rest easy and not have to worry about their favorite shows being cancelled like FireFly."

"(C)ommunication" isn't the issue, it's having demonstrable ratings that appeal to advertisers - TV is not an entertainment medium, it is a mediumm for conveying advertising. They attract you by offering you some entertainment, but until you realize the networks don't really care what they show, they just want an audience to watch the commercials in it.

The best thing a Sci-Fi fan can do is get themselves a nielson box and then set their TV to watch all their favorite shows.

--
Ken

Re:Not quite... by dmbasso · 2012-05-27 03:10 · Score: 2

Communication is the issue. If you have direct communication you don't need TV neither ads. The best thing is Bittorrent and VODO.

--
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Re:Not quite... by bryan1945 · 2012-05-27 03:18 · Score: 1

"TV is not an entertainment medium, it is a mediumm for conveying advertising."
That is both the most correct and saddest thing I've read in a while. The talent (actors, directors) want to entertain, and the producers just want money (well of course the actors and directors want money, too). Which I can understand, since they are in a business, but what chaps my ass is how quickly shows will get cut if it's not a producer/studio's "favored child" and it doesn't do well in the first 2-3 episodes.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:24 · Score: 0

Who are you kidding? Most sci-fi fans are the paranoid freaks against such things as services that monitor what you watch.
God forbid your viewing habits will be known, you might get advertising about THINGS YOU LIKE! THE HORROR.
Worse, your favorite TV shows might actually survive! DAMN THAT WILL SUCK, all this awesome TV I will get to watch.
You're honestly better off trying to troll-teach children in to thing all colors are something else. Just shift the entire visual spectrum a major unit forward and teach that.
You'd likely get more success than getting people to manually allow for people to know what they watch. To hell with society.
The worst part about those stupid Nielson ratings is exactly this.
Yet entire companies base their funding on the awful things.
THEY DON'T WORK.
Neither does watching chit-chat about shows online.
Certain shows get more chit chat than other shows.
Reality TV, for example, gets far more people talking about stupid inane crap than an educational show, for example.
Why do you people not want a TV monitoring service?
Are you scared that you might be labeled as someone who watched an awful show for 5 seconds?
Or do you think you actually have any privacy in modern society?
Why are you killing good TV shows?
Re:Not quite... by drinkypoo · 2012-05-27 03:37 · Score: 1

yeah, they don't give ratings boxes to just anyone, they give them to the people that fit their economic profile. just another subtle form of social manipulation. I mean, it's not especially subtle, but they're not shouting about how discriminatory their policies are, either.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:53 · Score: 0

Let me add a detail. Conveying advertising to targeted groups. Harry's Law was cancelled not because it had low ratings, but because it had undesirable ones.
NBC the new Fox which was the old CBS.
Re:Not quite... by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-27 04:35 · Score: 2
I disagree. I want to watch enjoyable and entertaining shows. Writers, producers, and actors want to produce things that they enjoy working on and they want to get paid. There are two possible business models:
- Studios produce something I want to watch
- I pay them money.
Or:
- Studios produce something
- TV networks buy it
- TV networks sell advertising space on it to cover their costs
- I (possibly) buy something that's advertised on it, which justifies the purchase of advertising, which justifies the show.
Now, from the perspective of a studio, do you think the business model with zero or two intermediaries between the people who want their product and them makes more sense? Which is more likely to result in long-term funding for their project?
--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:31 · Score: 0

you might argue that this is manipulation, but I'll argue that they know that that they can't generate ad sales revenue from this demographic like the kind of revenue they can from other demographics. Minority loses in this arrangement. Of course our demographic isn't much different than others that complain about being underserved but think they are special.
Re:Not quite... by LordLucless · 2012-05-27 10:26 · Score: 1

"(C)ommunication" isn't the issue, it's having demonstrable ratings that appeal to advertisers
You're right that it's not communication - but wrong about it necessarily being ratings. Kickstarter isn't about direct communication, it's about direct funding. If something can be made entirely from fan contributions, then having good ratings is unnecessary - you don't need advertisers, because you don't need to earn back the investors money, because you have no investors. You have backers, whose only form of compensation is the product you produce yourself.
I'm under the impression that each episode of Firefly cost about a million USD. The highest grossing Kickstarter project is $10 million (Pebble watches). The next highest is Doublefine Adventures, at $3 million. How much do you Joss Whedon would raise if he put Firefly Season 2 on Kickstarter? Because (excluding the issue of rights to the franchise) $14 million would be enough to entirely fund the first season without recourse to advertisers, and any returns beyond that (from selling DVD sets to non-backers, say) would be a return for the creators not the publishers.
And personally - as someone who's backed a couple of million+ kickstarter projects, and seen the sort of community that build up around them - I'd say $14 million is low-ball.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Not quite... by kenh · 2012-05-27 10:46 · Score: 1

And the actors, director, technical crew, editor, scriptwriter, and the special effects people will all bask in the warm glow "communication" with their fans?
That's great, until the rent comes due, or the transmission in thier car needs repair, or they get hungry, their kid needs to go to doctor, etc.

--
Ken
Re:Not quite... by dmbasso · 2012-05-27 11:09 · Score: 1

It sounds like you are deliberately denying the existence of an alternative. I mentioned VODO because I already donated to several projects, including Pioneer One. I also backed the Double Fine's Adventure on Kickstarter. I'm pretty sure my money contributes to pay for

the rent comes due, or the transmission in thier car needs repair, or they get hungry, their kid needs to go to doctor, etc.
And it all comes to reducing the "men in middle". Direct communication. Open your eyes.

--
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Re:Not quite... by Trahloc · 2012-05-27 12:19 · Score: 1

Maybe that's why they need the cash and aren't doing it for free? The cash goes somewhere, it doesn't just cease to exist when it hits kickstarter. Not every actor expects a seven digit salary, some guys are willing to work anything to pay the bills. If they can find a way to work on something they enjoy AND it pays the bills? Well that'd be just awesome.

--
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
Re:Not quite... by chrismcb · 2012-05-27 21:29 · Score: 1

"(C)ommunication" isn't the issue, it's having demonstrable ratings that appeal to advertisers - TV is not an entertainment medium, it is a mediumm for conveying advertising. They attract you by offering you some entertainment, but until you realize the networks don't really care what they show, they just want an audience to watch the commercials in it.
Communication is the issue (or part of it)
Look, you have a product you want to sell. Would you rather sell it to the masses, and hope some want it... Or would you rather sell it to someone who wants your product?
The networks DO care what they show. They want to show something that people will watch. Because the more people that watch the show, the more they can charge for advertisers. Hence they have to cater to the people watching the shows... or they lose their "product."

Marc Zicree by MsWhich · 2012-05-27 03:10 · Score: 4, Informative

I was a bit surprised to see Marc Zicree listed as being a Babylon 5 writer, because my vague recollection was that J. Michael Straczynski wrote the entire show. But some quick research revealed that Marc Zicree wrote one of the 18 episodes (out of 110) not personally written by JMS. It's legit to list it as one of his writing credits, but I'm not sure it really contributes to his "legendary" status.

Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:19 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Just to clarify, before the crazy racists jump in, what I meant was I hope they *didn't* make some lame association between the Klingons and black people. I love NG but it can be painful to watch at times. I also love Firefly, but I am so tired of scifi where every other woman is a prostitute. Prostitution is gross. And I don't know any prostitute. They are not common among the lives of most people. And they are sad and unsexy. But you would think from the writing of creepy old school scifi writers that they were as common and great at offering useful advice, enjoyed their jobs and always quite attractive. I prefer the depiction of prostitutes in Breaking Bad to that of Firefly or Game of Thrones. I love Game of Thrones, but it bums me out that it has this flaw.

Re:Great by kenh · 2012-05-27 03:19 · Score: 0

To prove what? Star Trek is formulaic entertainment, change the formula, risk losing the entertainment. If they took a random star trek episode and swapped a female captain for Kirk with all the same lines and directions, do you, for a moment think it stands a chance of being as good as the original? Now, take that same random episode and not only swap a femalecaptain for Kirk but also re-work the Kirk part to be more feminine - how could you even consider calling that Star Trek?

Want an all (or mostly) female crew on the space ship? That has been done to death, but because of the obvious lesbian overtones, those films have been relegated to the porn industry... Or so I've heard. ;^)

--
Ken

anyone else here think. by Truekaiser · 2012-05-27 03:23 · Score: 1

That star trek and star wars stuff should stop being made, as in movies and tv shows? they had their run and there really isn't much new they can offer. even more if there is a star trek show or star wars one they seem to crowd out other sci-fi shows even if those shows are better. babylon 5 only became successful be was out in between major star trek tv shows. firefly died because it had the bad luck of being out at the same time a star trek show was out despite how horrible that star trek show was.

Re:anyone else here think. by drinkypoo · 2012-05-27 03:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is that really why you think firefly died? Because I know from experience that sci-fi fans are perfectly happy to watch multiple sci-fi shows at "once" (provided they don't occupy competing time slots.)
Babylon 5 would have been successful regardless of what else was on the air because it is different from anything that has been on before or since, despite its failings. I am far more interested in rewatching B5 than Trek, and I own pretty much all of both. (Literally all in the case of B5; I might be missing some TNG or something still, and maybe one or two movies I don't want to watch anyway.) I have a bunch of box sets etc. I don't want anyone to think I'm just a B5 fanboy, I'm a sci-fi fanboy in general. I like almost all of it, except BSG ;)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:anyone else here think. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:38 · Score: 0

"That star trek and star wars stuff should stop being made, as in movies and tv shows? they had their run and there really isn't much new they can offer."
Is that why there are no more lawyer, cop or hospital shows?
Re:anyone else here think. by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-27 04:50 · Score: 1

It also helped that the (region 2, at least) DVDs of Babylon 5 were cheap. At launch, play.com had each series for about £20. £100 for the whole set, spread over a few years (I think they released one series every 9 months) was a simple choice for anyone who enjoyed the series. They now sell the entire series (5 seasons) for £42 - £1/disk. In contrast, the original series of Star Trek is £41 (for 3 seasons, 23 disks) for £42, and TNG is £111 (7 seasons, 49 disks), although you can get them for about £70 if you buy one season at a time. I was actually quite surprised by the TNG prices, as they were about £35/season last time I looked - at launch they were almost twice the price of B5. The BBC seemed to be having a laugh when they released Blake's 7 on DVD - something like £2.50/episode (I remember paying about £6/episode to get about half of them on VHS as a teenager, but it still felt overpriced).

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:anyone else here think. by Truekaiser · 2012-05-27 06:19 · Score: 2

it took me a while to admit this, dedicated scifi nerds/fans(fan is short for fanatic after all.) are a minority. too small to through traditional means to keep a show alive.
it's the main stream and / or the casual watcher's that are the determining factor. with star trek or star wars still around they will always pick them over another scifi show despite if the other show is better.
the movie studio's and the tv studio's know this. this is why they kept pumping star trek all the way down the drain to enterprise. and then did that bad(sci-fi wise) reboot movie of star trek to try to restart it.
these franchises need to stop, they are drowning good talent and good shows simply because they are viewed as less risky then a new sci-fi property. the sad thing is due to the sheer amount of money needed to produce either a movie or tv series in the traditional sense. no studio is going to risk that on a unknown franchise. the new one may turn out to be a hit like babylon 5(i loved it too). they just simply WON'T take that risk unless they are garenteed a return.
that is why babylon 5 was a success, there was no star trek to draw the more main stream crowd away if you wanted sci-fi it was basically the only show on. and it's why firefly died. enterprise despite how bad it was, was backed by the star trek name. when people in this group only have a short amount of time to watch a show, they go for the one with name brand recognition.
Re:anyone else here think. by jamstar7 · 2012-05-27 06:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

In my opinion, B5 was great because of the 'flaws'. Humans weren't depicted as the oldest and wisest race around. Compared to the Vorlons and the Shadows, they were kids playing with capguns. Even the Mimbari had them out-teched. Londo was certainly seriously flawed, feelings of inadequacy due to his career peaking late in his life (in his opinion), after being punted off to a 'joke assignment' just to get him out of the public eye. And Garibaldi's personal flaws are many. All this contributed to one hell of a storyline.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:anyone else here think. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:04 · Score: 0

that is why babylon 5 was a success, there was no star trek to draw the more main stream crowd away if you wanted sci-fi it was basically the only show on.
According to Wikipedia:
Babylon 5: February 22, 1993 – November 25, 1998
Star Trek: The Next Generation: September 28, 1987 – May 23, 1994
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: January 3, 1993 – June 2, 1999
Star Trek: Voyager: January 16, 1995 – May 23, 2001
Voyager premiered the year after TNG went off the air, so there wasn't much of a gap there. Even then, B5 premiered after DS9 and ended before DS9. In fact, the dates there are slightly misleading. DS9 started its first season on January 3, 1993. Babylon 5 aired its pilot episode on February 22, 1993, but didn't actually start airing the first season until about a year later: January 26, 1994. So DS9 was well-established before Babylon 5 started airing.
Are you claiming that neither Voyager nor DS9 got name recognition as a Star Trek show? (Or that they weren't sci-fi?)
Re:anyone else here think. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:58 · Score: 0

I don't think he was talking character flaws. Flaws like cut-rate digital effects, stilted acting and poorly written dialogue cut deep. Very rarely did any character act or speak in a believable, human way. It was like a show written by 'spergers, for 'spergers—a universe devoid of jocks, cool kids, or anyone with a Social IQ above 89. Ivanova wis a great example; clearly written by a man who had little understanding of women, and they tried to excuse it by saying she was just raised by her father so she's a tomboy, or something.
Which is sad, because the setting and the major plot points were awesome, and I never watched it when it was on because I couldn't get through an episode without laughing.
Re:anyone else here think. by Randle_Revar · 2012-05-27 11:47 · Score: 1

Presumably the GP is talking about failings in the show itself, not about failings of any races or characters depicted in the show. Everyone knows that flawed characters can work fine, even be better than a superhumanly perfect character.

--
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Re:anyone else here think. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 13:50 · Score: 0

That's funny; I said the same thing this morning, and now my comment's gone. Not even hidden; just gone. Guess that's what I get for knocking Babylon 5 and writers with a tenuous grasp of believable character interaction. Or maybe 'cause I called them 'spergers.
Re:anyone else here think. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 13:54 · Score: 0

Test comment
Re:anyone else here think. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 15:29 · Score: 0

You're a retard -- your "by 'spergers, for 'spergers" comment is right there in plain sight. Either you're blocking it with a threshold over 0, or you forgot to load all the comments (/. only loads 100 at first, selected by score).
Re:anyone else here think. by chrismcb · 2012-05-27 21:31 · Score: 1

People seem to enjoy watch Star Wars and Star Trek, so why stop making movies, tv shows?
Firefox died because Fox failed to market it properly. A friend of mine watched the first episode and while he loved the show, he felt it had too many characters. He said it would last long. And Fox showed the shows out of order, on the wrong night.
Re:anyone else here think. by drinkypoo · 2012-05-28 02:08 · Score: 1

Flaws like cut-rate digital effects, stilted acting and poorly written dialogue cut deep.
I agree with you about the acting (in the first TWO seasons it was often unbearable) and some of the dialogue (although some of it was fairly brilliant — these are great people doing great things, not your neighbor the plumber, they're going to be speaking fairly differently) I don't agree with you about the digital effects. It's easy to be jaded today about how "bad" they look because the average video game has better graphics, but if you compare the effects of Trek shows of the day, the effects are clearly in the same ballpark, and if they could have afforded to render them out nicer then many of them would actually have looked better.
I know some women who act more like we expect men to act than like women, who aren't even lesbians. So frankly, I think you just don't know very many people, or perhaps interesting people simply avoid interacting with you.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:anyone else here think. by Coren22 · 2012-05-30 08:35 · Score: 1

Firefly? Or are you talking about some other show named after a cute animal instead of an insect?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Impressive - and yet, not by QuasiSteve · 2012-05-27 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know it sounds impressive... fastest funded (a claim made), blowing past their $75k goal, etc.

But does anybody actually remember the average cost of an episode of Firefly? Low estimates - and I do mean low are $500,000. Per episode.

Now, I know.. they don't need seasoned actors. They don't need expensive VFX firms. They don't need extensive sets. Perhaps they don't need people for wardrobe, catering, location scouting, etc. etc. etc.
And yes, I did see Star Wreck. But if that is the sort of result that one can expect*, it's entertaining enough but certainly not nearly as good as most of the TNG or DS9 episodes, Firefly, BSG, StarGate, or even Red Dwarf.

* I actually have, or had, higher hopes for Pioneer One. But Season 2 still seems very much up in the air, with the crew behind it admitting that they'll have to secure far more substantial funding first.

Still, best of luck to them.

Re:Impressive - and yet, not by Kagato · 2012-05-27 04:31 · Score: 1

You have a lot more overhead for a network show. Starting at the top with studio management and producers. Add to that the various guilds and unions that actors, writers, directors and other creative staff might belong to and it can really balloon. Even at minium scale the labor costs for a two week production would hit about $400K for 70 people @ 2 weeks.
These productions trim costs because they don't have studio overheads, and have much cheaper costs for creative staff. In particular if the creative staff if willing to do something like Dr. Horrible, where they are looking for a paycheck based on DVD royalties, not upfront costs. It's a different market and I think the creative community is willing to trade the guaranteed paid check for more creative control and a stake in the final production.
Re:Impressive - and yet, not by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:15 · Score: 0

I bet they could get a few hundred thousand to make a few more episodes of Firefly. I know I would put up some money.
Re:Impressive - and yet, not by Hentes · 2012-05-27 05:23 · Score: 1

Yeah but that figure is with Hollywood accounting.
Re:Impressive - and yet, not by TrekkieGod · 2012-05-27 07:03 · Score: 1

Yeah but that figure is with Hollywood accounting.
You don't see much of that with television series, it's mostly for movies. Besides, $700,000 does sound a bit low. Scriptwriter scale (absolute minimum they are required to be paid) for a tv series episode script is roughly ~$14,000 for the story plus ~$22,000 for the teleplay (sometimes those are not the same person, so it's separated). Minimum for major role performer (pretty much everyone who gets listed in the title sequence) is ~$7,000 per episode. For firefly, that's 9 actors, and I doubt every one of those was earning scale. The director minimum for a primetime network show is ~$40,000 per episode. So far, we've already gotten to $139,000 per episode for salaries only, while assuming that everyone got paid absolute minimum the networks are allowed to pay them, without including the salaries of the producers, actors playing non-recurring characters, extras, non-performing crew members...then you've got to consider the cost of building the non-permanent sets, paying the special effects company...
$700k per episode sounds positively cheap...

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:Impressive - and yet, not by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:43 · Score: 1

But does anybody actually remember the average cost of an episode of Firefly? Low estimates - and I do mean low are $500,000. Per episode.
Well, if "Space Command" can gather 100K+, imagine what actual Firefly can do. With Joss Whedon behind it, rather than some people who (apparently) wrote a VERY small number of Babylon/DS9 episodes
Plus it doesn't have to be fully covered. Perhaps 50% or even 30% of a season pre-funded would have been enough to motivate another season of Firefly into life.
Re:Impressive - and yet, not by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 17:19 · Score: 0

Remember Star Wars has never made a profit...
Re:Impressive - and yet, not by QuasiSteve · 2012-05-29 10:01 · Score: 1

They did imagine what Firefly could do - petitions, money promises, and till no renewal.
So they did the next-best thing.. they made a movie. Not just TV, not just straight-to-DVD, but a theatrical release. They had "Done the impossible".
But as the documentary with that same name makes very painfully clear, the people behind that effort were disappointed by the low turnout despite the petitions and money promises, and that some fan reactions hurt their effort.
I honestly don't see a 'crowdfunded' Firefly working. Time to move on to a different show. Right now zombies, vampires and middle-ages-y stuff with subtle borderline soft porn seem to be able to get funding.
Those who prefer sci-fi may just have to wave money at the Pioneer One people.

*sighs* Ah, Firefly ... by arisvega · 2012-05-27 03:33 · Score: 4, Funny

" [..] and not have to worry about their favorite shows being cancelled like FireFly."

Yea I am still not over that either ..

But there was this follow-up movie, where all of it was wrapped up, right? *ducks*

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.

Re:*sighs* Ah, Firefly ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 12:32 · Score: 1

I never did see Flyfly on TV in Australia, the only reason I was ever introduced to it (late) was via certain online downloading techniques which allows me to view such material.
Honestly, the only reason I paid to see the movie in the cinema was because I had seen (and was hooked on) the episodes. Outside of the few that watched downloaded copies, I don't know of (I only know about 3 people) any others in Australia who have seen either the show or the movie.
And they say pirating is *always* bad..

Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:44 · Score: 1

Heilein is a legendary sci fi writer. Who the @#$% are these people?

Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:11 · Score: 1

Don't be silly, "writer" means someone who scripts TV or movies. Heinlein wrote books, which makes him not a writer, but a historic curiosity.
Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:15 · Score: 0

Wouldn't it make him an 'author'?
Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 08:53 · Score: 0

Don't be silly, "writer" means someone who scripts TV or movies. Heinlein wrote books, which makes him not a writer, but a historic curiosity.
Wouldn't it make him an 'author'?
Like I said.

Someone please bring a better story to big screen? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Re-run after reboot after re-run.

So many more great novels exist in the world that would be incredible on big screen.

Isn't it time to give some other hugo award winners a chance on the big screen?

My personal vote, tho not hugo class is the amber series.

Be careful what you wish for... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-05-27 03:51 · Score: 1

> "Maybe with direct communication, sci-fi fans can rest easy and not have to worry about their favorite shows being cancelled like FireFly."

And the downside, which they may learn the hard way? They may end up with something exactly like FireFly.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:59 · Score: 1

So, captain James Kirk making out with scantily clad alien chicks on a spaceship with an all male crew stuck there for months (hallo, sailor!) doesn't have porn overtones, but captain Jane Kirk making out with scantily clad alien hunks on a spaceship with all female crew does?..

Re:Great by _KiTA_ · 2012-05-27 04:45 · Score: 0

So, captain James Kirk making out with scantily clad alien chicks on a spaceship with an all male crew stuck there for months (hallo, sailor!) doesn't have porn overtones, but captain Jane Kirk making out with scantily clad alien hunks on a spaceship with all female crew does?..

Yes. Because the former is a power fantasy for most of Star Trek's audience, the latter is the same exact thing (as you are quick to point out) but -- and here is the rub -- it's no longer a power fantasy for the adolescent or socially and emotionally stunted geek crowd that would find the former satisfying.

Now, having said that, I would love to see that show, if only to see how uncomfortable it would make the average geek feel.

Or how about this: How about a Star Trek where the Captain is married, with children. (No Al Bundy jokes, please -- although hell, I'd watch it.) That would be an interesting dynamic, I think -- seeing how the Captain balances the needs of his crew vs the needs of his family, his work and home life, etc.

Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Did you not see DS9 then, or something?

Sliders by El_Muerte_TDS · 2012-05-27 04:59 · Score: 1

So this guy, Zicree, saved sliders? Or at least, that's what they claim in the kickstarter video.
In that case I have little trust in the quality of this kickstarter project. Sliders pretty much went to shit in the season Zicree came on board.

Re:Sliders by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:54 · Score: 1

Sliders went to shit in Season 3, when they ditched exploring alternate histories for spoofing alternate genre flicks. Zicree pulled it back to alternate histories in seasons 4 and 5, making it mediocre instead of actively bad. While I wouldn't say tbat speaks well of bim, I can't hold the mediocrity against him, either -- it's a bad mess all around trying to recover a show from failure, while fighting off the demands of clueless execs who caused the failure in the first place.
Re:Sliders by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 17:52 · Score: 0

Alternative histories. Alternate history would be a state that ocsillates between two options.
Car indicators ( flashers ) alternate on / off.
Alternative indicators would be a flag that you stick out of the window to indicate turning intention.

Re:Great by El+Torico · 2012-05-27 04:59 · Score: 3, Funny

You're the racist, stereotyping Klingons that way, you Federation petaQ! [raises bat'leth]

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.

Director: Neil Johnson?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:01 · Score: 0

Wasn't this guy credited with making one of the worst low-budget scifi "movies" in recent memory? ... A straight-to-Youtube kind-of deal?

Re:Director: Neil Johnson?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:27 · Score: 0

Zicree has a long history of screenplays nobody can remember, including for Smurfs!
Re:Director: Neil Johnson?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:47 · Score: 0

Could you share the name?
Re:Director: Neil Johnson?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 08:25 · Score: 0

Battlespace?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0937388/

Re:Someone please bring a better story to big scre by Mybrid · 2012-05-27 05:03 · Score: 1

+1, Mod up! Make sticky! and all that!

Well said! The should also make Lord of Light!

Re:Great by El+Torico · 2012-05-27 05:03 · Score: 1

To clarify my previous post - I meant "stereotyping Klingons that way" to mean stereotyping them as violent, not as black.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.

Please let firefly die finally, by mallyone · 2012-05-27 05:20 · Score: 2

It's like watching a poor soul on life support begging to be let go. Slashdotters, do the right thing, pull the plug and move on with your lives. Sticking to the topic though, I'm very interested in seeing this movie.

Re:Please let firefly die finally, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:32 · Score: 0

You don't pull the plug on someone that could still live.
Re:Please let firefly die finally, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 08:06 · Score: 0

You don't pull the plug on someone that could still live.
You do if you're a Fox exec.
Re:Please let firefly die finally, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 18:21 · Score: 0

Please let the "Please let Firefly die finally" comments die.
Some of us thought it was really good, and that it was ended much sooner than it should.
I could stand to see a little more.

Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:30 · Score: 1

Fastest funded for getting 75K in 3 days? the Double-Fine Adventure project reached 1.000.000$ in 24 hours!!! and they reached the 400.000$ they wanted in the first 8-10 hours.

Re:Bullshit by hawkinspeter · 2012-05-27 08:38 · Score: 1

Fastest film funding.

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe

Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:42 · Score: 0

Now, take that same random episode and not only swap a femalecaptain for Kirk but also re-work the Kirk part to be more feminine - how could you even consider calling that Star Trek?

You mean like Star Trek: Voyager?

Re:Great by u17 · 2012-05-27 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

You don't know any prostitutes? You are very lacking in knowledge. But you are right that the depiction they get in sci-fi TV series is misleading. Here, let me show you what real prostitutes are like.

Re:Great by bjwest · 2012-05-27 06:15 · Score: 1

The Klingon species is a warier species. While I highly doubt a species that warlike would survive long enough to advance that far, war and battle is part of who they are, it is not "stereotyping" them. 99.9% of interactions shown with a Klingon are with one from the military or Warier Class, so even if they weren't so aggressive as a whole, you'd not see it anyway.

Not to mention it's a made up fucking species that was written to be aggressive. Saying you wish they wouldn't stereotype them as violent is like saying you wish the media wouldn't stereotype cars as squarish boxes with windows and tires.

--

--- Keep the choice with the user..

Re:Great by El+Torico · 2012-05-27 07:14 · Score: 2

Yes, Klingons are wary. With sneaky, dishonorable Romulans and the annoying Federation as neighbors, of course they are wary, and yes, they are aggressive and violent.
Of course they are fictional too, but I was trying to use humor to make a point. What's Klingon for "whoosh"?

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.

Re:Great by Genda · 2012-05-27 07:26 · Score: 2

Takes it away!!! It burns, it burns precious!!!

Re:Great by Genda · 2012-05-27 07:29 · Score: 1

I hope you know, I could sue for the eye damage alone... Now that's kinky. The mind reels, collapses, crawls across the floor, vomits then goes comatose!

Re:Great by zippthorne · 2012-05-27 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

DS9 was not about a married man balancing the needs of his family with the needs of his job.

It was about a single father workaholic who was barely present in his son's life....

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Re:Great by Genda · 2012-05-27 07:46 · Score: 1

So apparently you didn't see the episode of Star Trek where the captain is forced to exchange bodies with Dr. Janice Lester? Or perhaps you also missed the episode of STNG where Riker spends a little quality time on a planet where the female/male roles common on earth are reversed and he is now some kind of sexy Amazon to the local female inhabitants.

As for the conversation regarding the homoerotic aspect of Star Trek, I'm sorry, but the whole conversation is left wide open, with a society that appears to have become civilized about so many things, I'm just guessing sexual practices and acceptable behavior had come a long ways by the 23rd century, though (from the comment made by Lieutenant Ilia), it seems even in the 23rd century that human beings are a sexually immature species.

Hating the current TV network business model by FridayBob · 2012-05-27 07:49 · Score: 1

Of course, I'm not the only one who feels this way. It looks like the current TV business model has changed little over the past century (since the dawn of commercial radio), with consumers now being asked to buy packages from their local cable TV providers that are more expensive than ever despite the prevalence of broadband Internet connectivity.

What it comes down to is money and monopoly power. All I want to see probably adds up to a maximum of 10 hours a week, including the news, some sporting events and one or two TV series. Yet, the only way for me to gain access to that specific content legally is to buy a cable subscription, along with one or two supplemental packages, that include dozens of other channels, and hundreds of other program items that I have no interest in. Yet, my only choice is all or nothing, and on top of that those few shows that I am interested in are regularly interrupted by advertisements, which makes the experience a lot less enjoyable.

On the other hand, many people would be more than happy to pay to watch just those shows they want to see via their broadband Internet connections -- and without any advertising. That way also, more of the money would go to the show's producers, who in turn would have a much better idea of how many people were actually watching their show every week. We know consumers want this, because of the huge scale on which TV shows are being pirated and distributed via the Internet. Nevertheless, the only things that consumers can expect to receive directly from the studios today are personal lawsuits regarding their involvement in file sharing networks.

Perhaps getting what we want as consumers will depend on the success of sites like fora.tv, although the prices they ask for access to their content can be pretty steep (e.g. $5 to $25 to watch a single program) -- hardly a strategy likely to make much of a dent in the numbers of people watching Game of Thrones illegally. It seems to me that if an entire season of that series costs $60 million to produce, that HBO could double their money if, at 10 episodes season, 10 million Internet viewers would be willing to pay $1.20 per episode to see it. However, none of the big U.S. studios seem willing to even entertain the idea of giving consumers a choice like that. How come?

Re:Hating the current TV network business model by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 13:19 · Score: 0

10 million Internet viewers would be willing to pay $1.20 per episode to see it. However, none of the big U.S. studios seem willing to even entertain the idea of giving consumers a choice like that. How come?
Because it's a shitty business model that mostly exists in the course of discussions rationalizing piracy?
Because stealing things isn't some inherent right, and HBO would still like to exist in a business culture where you don't rely on stealing?
Because consumers value their time, and there's no reason to think that they want to have to go to some website and micro-finance every fucking show they watch on TV? Especially if it gets to be pitches, where there's hundreds of shows vying for commercial dollars. Are you going to sift through endless Youtube videos looking for the show you want to micro-finance?
Because the shows are already beings sold, it's called wait 4 months and just get it on DVD?
Because this whole business model relies on novelty - established names doing this as a one off? Are pirates really going to stop pirating because they want to micro-finance everything?
Because kickstarter projects don't have anything that can be called a track record of quality products, and is basically a great unknown?
Re:Hating the current TV network business model by chrismcb · 2012-05-27 21:35 · Score: 1

What it comes down to is money and monopoly power. All I want to see probably adds up to a maximum of 10 hours a week, including the news, some sporting events and one or two TV series. Yet, the only way for me to gain access to that specific content legally is to buy a cable subscription,
Why? Are you too far in the middle of nowhere to get it over the air?
I pay for cable because I like ESPN, and I think it is simpler than any other way. But are the 10 hours you want to watch available on abc/nbc/cbs.com? Or are they on one of the pay networks like HBO?
Re:Hating the current TV network business model by FridayBob · 2012-05-28 02:34 · Score: 1

Why? Are you too far in the middle of nowhere to get it over the air?
Over the air? Wow, do you mean like, with an antenna? I should have mentioned: I live in the Netherlands and for us that option completely disappeared in December 2006. All that's left now are the local cable companies, each of which is a monopolist in its own area. In my city, a basic cable package currently costs $21.61 a month.
To make matters more expensive, some of my favorite programs are only on Comedy Central (part of an extra package that costs $16.34 month) and HBO (another $18.77 a month), which adds up to a total of $56.72 a month. This is almost as much as I pay for my monthly 8/1 Mbps ADSL broadband Internet access ($44,34) and my cheap-o mobile phone subscription ($12.81) combined.
But, maybe whether you think that's cheap or not depends how many hours of TV you watch. At 40 hours a month, that means the privilege of watching my favorite shows legally (including several news programs) costs me $1.42 an hour. That doesn't sound too bad, right?
Perhaps. But my point is that I'm not being offered much choice in this matter either. The local cable company has maneuvered me into paying for their most expensive product package. This about six times as much as we used to pay two decades ago and gets us access to 119 channels with probably thousands of different programs.
However, I'm only interested in maybe 25 programs on 10 different channels over the course of an entire year. Why can't I just buy access to those shows only, and then be allowed to watch them whenever I want? If done properly, this should not have to cost me $1.42 an hour either.
Yet, this scenario seems to have about as much in common with reality as world peace: many of us find it all too easy to imagine, but those in power appear to be dead set against it. Of course, with the Internet in place and all of this being just information, it's no wonder that piracy is so commonplace.

Re:Great by Grimbleton · 2012-05-27 09:55 · Score: 1

Voyager was the second best Star Trek, behind DS9.

Double-taxed, if not getting ticket discounts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 11:25 · Score: 0

Do you mean we have such "addicted" Star Trek junkies,
on the planet, who are prepared to chip-in to make a film
that could make its producers, et al. rich[er], but NOT
share the profits with their crowd-sourced investors?!?

The latter should expect - at least - free, or highly dis-
counted ticket prices, & possibly a BlueRay disk of the
resulting film for their seed funding.

Nice is nice... but Fair is fair, as well. ;-)

Re:Double-taxed, if not getting ticket discounts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 18:20 · Score: 0

No ticket discounts (which would be silly to promise, when at this stage it may not get a significant cinema distribution deal, just be direct-to-disk), but if you add $8 to your pledge (or pledge $1000 or more) you get a Bluray copy.

Better way to attract serious funding by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 13:40 · Score: 0

If they're serious about attracting funding for a relatively independent TV series, then why not create a series of webisodes. This is the way Sanctuary made into the SyFy channel. Sanctuary is a relatively novel and watchable series as far as, well, TV is concerned.

Also, why not go down the more traditional path the Wachowski brothers took to secure funding for The Matrix? I'm sure the first half a dozen episodes of their series won't cost that much.

Re:Great by kegon · 2012-05-27 19:51 · Score: 1

It would be nice if finally they made a Star Trek that wasn't male dominated for a change. Or use all black actors to play the Klingons

Oh you mean like Lursa and B'Etor the Klingon sisters ?

How about Gowron ? The actor who played him, Robert O'Reilly is white; in fact all these actors are white.

Re:Great by oPless · 2012-05-27 22:15 · Score: 1

I believe the correct spelling is "Warrior", by the way.

Re:Great by MRe_nl · 2012-05-27 22:22 · Score: 1

"I don't know any prostitute(s)".
"Prostitution is gross".
"They are not common among the lives of most people".
"And they are sad and unsexy".

Wow, that's quite a lot of opinions about people you don't even know a single one of.
Are you always this prejudiced?

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

Kickstarter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 23:54 · Score: 0

What a pile of dog cock

Re:Great by hackertourist · 2012-05-28 00:13 · Score: 1

Did you not notice the Miles O'Brien arc? It may not have been the major focus, but it sure was one of the recurring subplots.

Re:Someone please bring a better story to big scre by Sigg3.net · 2012-05-28 00:16 · Score: 1

Foundation novels by Asimov could be a great Game of Thrones like experience if done proper.

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research

Re:Great by Svartalf · 2012-05-28 02:29 · Score: 1

While I highly doubt a species that warlike would survive long enough to advance that far,

We've managed to get as far as we have on it...

Besides...the gp poster was making a joke...you missed it.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Re:Great by trimpnick · 2012-05-28 03:17 · Score: 1

Don't forget the black Christopher Lloyd in one of the movies!

Re:Great by kegon · 2012-05-28 03:38 · Score: 1

Yeah, but he wasn't black he was Klingon.

Re:Great by bjwest · 2012-05-28 06:39 · Score: 1

Yeah, he told me that as well. I still don't get it though.

--

--- Keep the choice with the user..

I won't accept it unless... by DanielBMS · 2012-05-28 11:52 · Score: 1

I won't accept it unless they adhere to #3 on: http://www.cracked.com/article_17392_6-sci-fi-movie-conventions-that-need-to-die_p2.html

erhan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-28 19:56 · Score: 0

zakta onu alr! Yakar, bu deerli yakar! Salk Personeli

Re:Someone please bring a better story to big scre by Coren22 · 2012-05-30 08:43 · Score: 1

Ender's Game: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/
Neuromancer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/

Unfortunately they take so long to get approved I am afraid the stories will be a bit dated.
There are more in the works that might be along the lines of decent Sci-Fi, but just remember, they did base I-Robot on Asimov, even if it wasn't a direct translation of a book.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Great by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-06-04 04:25 · Score: 1

Miles O'Brien was another workaholic barely-there father. In fact, most of the fathers in Star Trek seem to be such. In fact, one of the things that burns up most conservatives who actually still believe in the concept of defined gender roles in this world, is that EVERY father in EVERY Hollywood movie is a workaholic barely-there father.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Great by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-06-04 04:28 · Score: 1

Every Hollywood father I've ever seen in a show current in my 41 year lifetime has been a workaholic who is barely present in his kids lives.

It is one of the things that makes authoritarian social conservatives like me angry at Hollywood.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Slashdot Mirror

Star Trek Luminaries Behind the Fastest Funded Film Project On Kickstarter

158 comments