Slashdot Mirror
Ask Neil Gaiman and Amber Benson About Their Kickstarter Vampire Movie
Writer and novelist Neil Gaiman and Amber Benson of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame have teamed up to star in a new vampire movie called, Blood Kiss. Kickstarted by ST:TNG and Emmy-winning writer Michael Reaves, Blood Kiss is a film noir vampire movie set in Golden Age Hollywood. Of his acting debut Gaiman says, "I'm willing to pretend that the prospect of acting doesn't terrify me in order to help Michael Reaves make his film." The trio have agreed to take a break from the blood and answer any questions you have about the new project or their past work. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one per post.
Given the plethora of vampire-related media in recent years, do you believe there is still a market for this type of film? What will you bring to the table that has not already been done?
what are the vampires like? are they cool like masquerade, goofy like buffy or just plain retarded like twilight?
yes this is intended to sound like buffy and twilight are uncool/stupid and that masquerade is cool/interesting. if their faces change to bad masks like buffy then gtfo and if the thing is like twilight then gtfo. don't care about the story. blade style is ok as well, it's somewhat akin to masquerade anyways(the basic stuff minus the "special" shit).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I'll only watch if the main character is a popular dead president.
Somebody didn't get the memo that vampires are over.
You can track this at a Barnes and Noble store by noting how many bookcases in the teen section are devoted to a subject. At peak, there were four cases of "Teen Paranormal Romance" and two of "New Teen Paranormal Romance". That dropped to three cases total, then two. "Survival" books are big now - there are two cases of Hunger Games imitations, not including the table of Hunger Games merch.
Household names teaming up with an industry award winner? Leave the crowdfunding for the people without deep pockets and industry access/connections.
Hmm. I'm in two minds about this:
0. If you get paid to do work, then Kickstarter funds are payment for that work and should reduce the end cost to consumers. Work totally funded by Kickstarte? Distribute it for "free" since we paid you to do work. You want more money? Do more work for us, like a car mechanic, home builder or any other labor market in the world not trying to sell ice to eskimos -- er, bits to folk with computers...
1. Let the big guys legitimize Kickstarter and other crowd funding. This is the transitionary period that can finally spell the eradication of publishers. Each time they Kickstarter it's another nail in the coffin of Publishers trying to make mony via artifically scarce information. (What's scarce is the ability to do work, market that, not the infinitely reproducable bits). Everyone should crowd fund 100%. Completely eliminate all piracy and copyright law would be moot -- Only work when money is garaunteed, then you don't need to monopolize your work (you have your monopoly over your work before you do it, not afterwards).
What I want to know, is which of these are they aiming to further, and if they've talked to their Publisher about how this, and if they're OK with you trying to kill the Publishing business model via leveraging Kickstarter?
What are your thoughts on Vampire rules; such as classic vampires vs sparkling?
Over the decades we've seen Vampires (and Zombies) change and evolve from the classic rules and mythology to a whole plethora of variations. Powers, weaknesses, origins, turnings, etc. Such transitions have been slow, but now we have sparkling vampires made of stone. Do you feel that we should stick more with the classic mythos? Or are you in favor with your own spin.
Didn't Twilight ruin Vampires for generations to come?
With Michael, Neil and Amber on board, this project has a very intriguing pedigree and I think stands a good chance at being something original and fresh. At the same time, the vampire story is feeling a little worn-out at this particular time, which might make it a hard sell for some. My question is, will Amber Benson marry me?
--- Math illiteracy affects 8 out of every 5 people.
Thanks to both of you for this interview!
Who is your favorite vampire ?
I'd be cool with the crowdfunding if the movie was released to the internet for free OR if the kickstart investers get a return on their money. Otherwise, this is bogus.
Will Amber be singing? Some of us have been waiting a long time for the debut album but will take what we can get.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Your logic is completely faulty here.
First, being famous doesn't preclude you from using Kickstarter. Even someone could get funding from a big studio, it means the'll have to cede some of the control over the movie to the studios, who would change it to get more commercial appeal. Kickstarter allows the creator to maintain creative freedom.
Second, it doesn't suck funding from indy projects. Actually, it works just the other way around. More big names bring more public awareness to kickstarter, and as a result, those small indy projects get a chance to get more money, NOT less.
And third, this is not a Neil Gaiman movie. This is a Michael Reaves movie. Neil Gaiman agreed to play in this movie to help a friend.
I'm founding Kickstopper.
Because they can mentally separate the concepts of "fiction for entertainment" and "reality"?
Without spoiling the plot, what separates Blood Kiss from the Vampyres of Hollywood series of novels?
...ANOTHER vampire film / franchise!!!
I know, "But this is Neil Gaiman!!!" /facepalm
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The Kickstarter page asks for $50K, but considering the apparent costs usually involved in making anything other than the smallest-scale movies, as well as the references in the text of your KS pitch regarding venture capital, I'd like to know how much you *actually* need to get this film made and distributed.
You assume this is a zero-sum game, but it's not. The pool of potential funders is not fixed. When a well-known creator starts a Kickstarter project, it attracts a new wave of fans who come to help the specific project they are interested at, and then some of them stick around and help funding other projects. It's a win-win.
Besides, its up to the funders to get their priorities right. Personally, I wouldn't fund a Rolling Stones album because I believe they don't need my help. I would rather spend my money helping some small indie band, and help some project that couldn't happen without my help, and I'm sure many others will do the same. So I'm not worried Rolling Stones or George Lucas would dry the funding for those smaller indie projects.
Wait, since when are vampires considered supernatural?
In fact, please define "supernatural". Preferably using something else besides "things I don't understand" or "things I can't explain with the currently known science".
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
A few (two or three) variations of Dracula.
And "An interview with a vampire".
Oh, well if you are hardcore you might want to see Nosferatu.
Market? Yeah sure, there is a market. The stupid idiots watch everything that is marketed right.
I for my part can not stand vampire movies, most zombie movies (except "Brain Dead") or horror movies in particular.
The audience around me is submerged into the "story" and "feared". I see no story as nonly see the flaws in the "chain of events" ... obviously for the brain dead masses some effects that "scare" them are enough to make a movie "exciting".
Disclaimer: I never saw a vampire movie in the theater (except that movie with Pat Britt and Tom Cruise)
Hey but Neil writes nice books and I hear Amanda or is it Amber is a nice singer ... perhaps they have an IDEA!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
My question:
Don't you think celebrities should get the hell off kickstarter? Having both achieved success and fame in your chosen fields, why don't you use your undoubted influence and contacts instead of taking the lazy option of asking fans to shoulder the risk and provide project financing for you?
Kickster is a fantastic opportunity for unknowns and people with good ideas, who otherwise would find it hard to raise capital, to get their small projects off the ground through crowdfunding. I find it pretty shabby that it's now become a playground for individuals to use their celebrity to further their own ambitions and careers, thus making the pot available to those who don't have your name recognition all the smaller. It's not like your idea even has anything original or inventive about it. Neil Gaiman in particular - you're an international multiple best-selling author, so I doubt you're short of a dollar or two. Why go cap-in-hand to people considerably less affluent than you to pursue your hobbies and side projects?
What do you have to say to this?
Wait. Will characters fall in love or sleep with each other, eventually or otherwise? If so, count me out.
The Buffy series was awesome but starts to lose its shine when every character 'buddies' up.
Series I can think of right now that do not do this are Sam Raimi's Hercules and maybe, Xena.
Neil Gaiman gave an interview in 2009 to Entertainment Weekly : http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20301186,00.html
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
In a 2009 interview with Entertainment Weekly, Neil Gaiman mentioned his opinions on what vampires represented, and the published interview concluded with:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
As it says we're allowed to ask about past work --
Should we still hold out hope for a Good Omens movie, or is it just dead in the water?
(it's still one of my favorite books of all time ... I think I'm on my 4th copy as I've loaned it to over a dozen people over the years and don't always get it back)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Well, even going back to Brahm, Dracula was less powerful in daylight but didn't necessarily kill him, it just reduced his strength and made him unable to use some powers (such as transformation, etc).
Still, he certainly didn't freakin' sparkle in the sunlight.
You first. Please detail the inner workings of vampires that have been empirically and rigorously researched and studied using scientific methodology. Oh wait...no such thing as vampires as they are imagined creatures of supernatural origin, so there is nothing to study.
OR if the kickstart investers get a return on their money
Yeah, I never understood the Kickstarter model of taking all the financial risk while giving all the reward away.
Hi Neal - first off I want to say I'm a huge admirer and I can't wait to see you in Nashville this July! That being said, the tour is billed as the "Last US Signing Tour". Say it ain't so!
My question:
With the upcoming "American Gods" project for HBO, how much creative control do you have over the direction of series? Is there a firm beginning and an end to the story arc, as with the novel, or do you have to keep things open for possible future seasons?
Blood Kiss sounds interesting due to the sheer creativity pool involved, although I think the vampire genre is getting a bit washed thin and fraying at the cuffs lately. Hopefully this approach will be sufficiently unique as to revitalize it (entendré completely intended).
"Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
I think that a kickstarter such as this should have a funding level that the film is released entirely free digitally in addition to their pre-production level. Place this level somewhere around the profit they estimate to make with moderate dvd sales and theatrical release. Then, offer for sale the DVD\Blueray for a reasonable price and release to theaters. This way people can help lower the risk of producing something that might not be super popular and people can still support the effort after the fact by purchasing the dvd\blueray or seeing it in theaters.
---
OK, so you're using my #2 example "things I can't explain with the currently known science".
I'm not saying vampires are real, I just don't like term "supernatural" as it's being thrown around without any sensible definition. Go back a few hundred years, and lightning didn't have a scientific explanation; many people probably attributed it to divine powers. Yet it was clearly a natural phenomenon.
I guess my point is that something either exists or it doesn't. "Supernatural" is a rather loaded term for something that simply doesn't exist. (Of course, I'm not perfectly sure that vampires don't exists, but if they did, there would be nothing supernatural about them.)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Somebody didn't get the memo that vampires are over.
The vampire thing has been ongoing for more than a century and a half so far and probably will never be over. Before Dracula, there was Lord Ruthven who every author made their main vampire. The 19th century was full of books and plays about vampires. Thing is that vampires are allegories for sex, death, and even sometimes romantic love which people have tended to dwell on since they started telling stories. They may be over used at times, but will never be over until something else comes along to replace them.
A lot of recent movies have kind of ignored sub-plots and development of non-lead characters in exchange for stunts and effects.
I'm a big Gaiman fan for his thoroughness in crafting worlds (the world is a character, the reader's view and understanding expands as the story progresses). His interest in this movie (... as an actor?) implies that the movie will also have this element.
What kind of movie will this be, action (effect) or plot (story)? Will there be the level of depth and plots within plots that can fuel the imagination beyond the story that unfolds within the movie, or will it be an effects-driven flick that keeps us at the edge of our seats?
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.