Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is Crowd Funding the Future of Sci-Fi?
First time accepted submitter TBNZee writes "Mainstream TV has has for a long time under-served the sci-fi loving viewers, but with declining production costs there seem to be two potential sources of alternative production/distribution: digital content (e.g. Netflix, Hulu) and crowd funded projects. There's still not a lot of sci-fi shows that are being produced by the major streaming services, but we'll probably see more with the success of Hulu's exclusive U.S. distribution of Misfits or Netflix's success with Buffy and Doctor Who. On the other hand, you have many enthusiastic upstarts on Kickstarter that look novel and engaging, while having a surprisingly professional look to them. Which do you think will ultimately be more successful? Will either be able to replace network content?"
What I have noticed with main-stream sci-fi is that it doesn't involve actual science. Oh, it might have a shiny, modern or even futuristic veneer, but it is really just fantasy. Firefly was really a western set in space in a very different solar system. Even Star Trek seems to often resorts to magical thinking and the "lone hero" narrative, devolving into a morality play or social drama with a futuristic backdrop and technobabble.
The biggest offenders are the modern science fiction movies. Think about how often in science fiction movies the plot is "clueless mainstream scientists ignore dangers and the warnings of lone genius who spent his whole career pushing an unsupported theory leading to impending disaster requiring said lone genius to do 'science' and save the day".
I think the closest thing I have seen to an actual science fiction movie in the last 30 yeas is "Deep Impact".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Neither Buffy nor Misfits is Sci-Fi. ...
No idea about Dr. Who, never saw it.
I mean: come on, get at least a single simple thing right in the article
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"No"
I'm not saying we won't see (crappy) sci-fi movies or TV show pilots funded by kickstarter. We might even have some kind of sci-fi scene champ that starts as a web series, gets a kickstarter, makes a pilot, gets picked up for a season, etc.
Books or comics might happen too...but again it will mostly be a space in the industry that is of less quality.
That all **might** happen...but my point is, crowdfunding is not the "future" of sci-fi.
We need to get real sci-fi fans producing sci-fi films!
Hollywood has fucked up sci-fi in the last decade or so...the JJ Abrams Star Trek, the new 'Alien' movie, the new 'Predator' movie....they all have dumb fucking titles...the list goes on...heh...Avatar...the only really awesome sci-fi has been from Independent Hollywood...ex: Moon
Cheap Computer Effects (thanks to ppl like /. readers) are what helped make sci-fi financially viable for Hollywood...go tech industry!
However, shitty producers & executivces...the guys with the money to make these films happen....**we have been giving them our money for far too long**
The argument used to be, "We have to go see the [beloved sci-fi franchise] even though they have [idiot hollywood directory] making it...I know it looks like they butchered [fan favorite storyline] but the special effects look great & we need to prove that [scifi franchise] can make money so they'll make another better one"
It's a feedback loop of shitty sci-fi
We need to stop going to see these films, and support indpendent films, including crowd-funded ones...but not as an end, but a means to access better factors of production and more capital
Thank you Dave Raggett
It is possible to raise some impressive amounts, e.g. Wayside Creations raised $130K for Fallout: Nuka Break season 2, Zombie Orpheus raised $400K for The Gamers: Hands of Fate, and Far From Home raised $125K for Star Trek Continues. By comparison, a top-of-the-line production like Game of Thrones costs $6 million per episode, so one cannot assume similar production values from a crowd funded project. On the other hand, the projects mentioned earlier are of a decent quality. As noted by the submitter, the price of reasonably good visual effects is falling, which will make it a lot easier to produce on small budgets while still making it look okay. I'm not sure that crowdfunded TV will displace the networks, but it is a good alternative for independent film makers to raise money for their projects. Hopefully, we will get a lot more brave and high quality TV from that.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
If Kickstarter would accept Space Bucks, Flanian Pobble Beads, Jangles, bitcoins, and other fictional currencies, the projects would get fully funded overnight.
There's still not a lot of sci-fi shows that are being produced by the major streaming services, but we'll probably see more with the success of Hulu's exclusive U.S. distribution of Misfits or Netflix's success with Buffy and Doctor Who.
Since you couldn't come up with a sci-fi show that actually is being produced by a major streaming service, is that because there aren't any?
All of those shows were produced for TV. They may well be successes as far as Hulu and Netflix are concerned, but they didn't have to pay to have them made. And for every Buffy or Doctor Who, there's a Flashforward or The Event clunking their way to first- (or even mid-) season cancellation.
That said, if throwing money at someone will get a second series of Outcasts made, sign me up.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Whatever happened to JMS ? Babylon 5 was the best SF on TV IMHO
And also what happened to the creators of the Stargate series's . I admit SGU wasn't as good as SG1 or SGA, so I wasn't that surprised to see it cancelled, but it would be nice to see some more of Stargate.
I don't watch anything on the PsyPhy (or whatever they are calling it these days) channel. The only channel with SF on is the Beeb (BBC America), they even have ST:TNG although what that has got to do with the BBC I am not sure.
Maybe the best thing will be if some of the Amazon produced stuff gets popular. (I subscribe to Prime)
That's a network produced show. There are examples of equally high quality shows produced on a much more modest budget.
Furthermore, if you want to get really cheap you can just pull a blair witch project...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yea, remember that failed scifi show, Terra Nova?
Thing cost $2million an episode.
Game of Thrones?
$6million for the first season episodes.
Short of something unprecedented with Kickstarter it's won't be crowdfunded. While the cost drops over time, you still need a ton of money to get it off the ground and sustain it for several years.
They don't *HAVE* have to be expensive. The expensive is a side effect of the massive Hollywood egos.
TV shows are expensive because of:
Producers, Directors and actors all demanding huge salaries.
Multiple Producers, Assistant Producers, Executive Producers -- I've seem 8 or more "Producers" listed in the credits for various TV shows. Then there are Directors, Editors, etc.
Everybody -- EVERYBODY -- has an assistant ( or several ) because God forbid they might have to get their own coffee or wipe their own ass.
Sets and special effects are all outsourced to various companies who charge the TV studios the same way that government contractors charge the government for their work.
The Tonight Show (Jay Leno ) which is nothing more than a guy sitting at a desk talking to people has a staff of over 100.
OK Mr. Do-it-yourself. Grab a copy of Blender and see how far you get attempting to create a broadcast quality 30 second CGI clip. By yourself. All of those 'Producers' and 'Assistants' don't make all that much money. The screen credits are to pad your resume and stroke your ego.
Sure, you can save money and there are a couple of low budget / high quality movies out there (Monsters), but it's much more expensive than you think to create a 30 minute show with a dozen or so people in it.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Short of something unprecedented with Kickstarter it's won't be crowdfunded.
Not so many years ago, Kickstarter itself would have been unprecedented. I'm not sure whether it's The One, but the funding model is one of the first genuinely interesting alternatives to up-front production and relying on copyright to bring in sufficient revenues, because it might actually work at a larger scale if awareness rises and increases the size of the potential funding pool. They've had a few projects raise high six or low seven figures already, and obviously this method of finding/funding shows is nowhere near as well established today as "I saw it on TV" or "It's on Netflix".
Also, your examples are a little contrived.
Terra Nova was a decent show, but they were centred on a huge mostly-outdoor location that was always going to be expensive to depict, and they had dinosaurs. The show's premise would probably have worked just as well with a slightly less ambitious version of the settlement and the surrounding hostile environment, and it would have cut the budget significantly. This is the kind of thing that actually works pretty well on Kickstarter, because you have a "we'll make the show" target, and then if you raise significantly more funding you can have stretch goals of the type "with a more detailed and varied setting".
Game of Thrones has a huge cast for a TV show, both the principals and the extras. Obviously this comes mainly from the scale of the books that the series is based on, but if you look at most sci-fi and fantasy shows, you rarely have as many as a dozen regulars in an ensemble cast or more than a couple of recurring roles featuring in any given episode. If you look down a cast list for Game of Thrones ordered by number of appearances, you're still finding major roles 50 people in. Again, if you were making a similar show but without trying to be faithful to an established series of books, you could tell the same style of story with far fewer players and save a fortune (and arguably that would make a better show anyway).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They don't *HAVE* have to be expensive. The expensive is a side effect of the massive Hollywood egos.
And there is "Hollywood Accounting" (I read someplace all Harry Potter movies lost money. Distribution costs ate up the profits so movie makers didn't have to pay taxes). I also wonder if there are some that make lots of money, others not so much except bragging rights. Perhaps going OT, an article about music piracy/studios losing money, etc. someone posted a link to an article written in 1990s about several musicians that have "sold" millions of albums but received meager amount from the studios. And some even owed money back to the studio. Author described how expenses are tallied to the gross revenue (all those expenses from production/distribution/promotion is "necessary") but end result is artists didn't get much to speak of. These accounting procedures were virtually like those portrayed in "The Harder They Fall" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
mfwright@batnet.com
They don't *HAVE* have to be expensive. The expensive is a side effect of the massive Hollywood egos.
Disney's Frozen "Let It Go" Sequence Performed by Idina Menzel
3 minutes. 38 seconds.
50 animators
30 hrs to render each frame of the castle.
Tony award winning writer and lyricist.
Tony award winning singer and actress.
Full orchestra plus orchestration, music direction, etc.
At least four new computer programs for animating hair, particle effects, and so on, are on display here.
Script, story and direction.
Concept designs. Set designs. Background art. Textures, Costumes. Props. Lighting...
Post-production, including editing and translation into 43 languages.
Try managing a team this size on the cheap and see where it gets you.
In production two years to seventy-five years depending on how you count every false start in animating "The Snow Queen." When Disney wants to get a character and story on screen it will move heaven and earth to get it done.
The Tonight Show which is nothing more than a guy sitting at a desk talking to people has a staff of over 100.
The key to success in late night television has always been in finding the right mix of guests and hosts and staging the show so they play off each other to the best advantage.
Five nights a week.
Dr Who isn't made by netflix, and the fact that netflix carries it has nothing to do with the production of the show
Dr Who is created using a third method that you completely glossed-over, which is government aid for the arts.
The BBC has been making great entertainment and news programs since the early days of radio, paid entirely by every Americans favorite dirty word: TAXES