Mogster wrote:Yoshimi wrote:Rab Florence was having a go at Kickstarter/Veronica Mars on Twitter earlier. His argument was that as a movie investor, you should be entitled to a share of the profits.
I don't see a problem with it. You're getting something in return for your money, and the project gets funded. Win-win. I really don't think the Veronica Mars movie would have been made otherwise, and no one is forcing anyone to contribute.
He does seem to get a little, let's say overly passionate about some subjects. I do see his point when you consider stuff like the one off $10,000 dollar tier to appear in the movie with a spoken line. That's literally paying to be an extra, when all the other extras will be paid. On the other hand it's clearly the kind of thing that big fans of the show would love if they have that sort of money to spare, so while technically exploitative, it's not like they're being tricked! For regular tiers it's certainly no worse than a pre-order offer, assuming the project is being run by reputable types of course and aren't likely to take the money and run.
Ultimately though Kickstarter is what it is. It's a site to raise funds in order to kickstart stuff, not a tool for investors. People pledge money for stuff willingly, in full knowledge of what they will get in return. Even the projects from people who blatantly don't need Kickstarter funding are fair enough really, as once again the backers are pledging their money in full knowledge of what they get from doing so. What's wrong with that? It's a bit like arguing that rich people shouldn't be paid to do their job any more, as if they don't "need" the money then why give them more, right?
Anyway, in the case of the VM movie I really don't think it would see the light of day without Kickstarter. It's the kind of thing that TV companies would look at and say, "nah, far too risky", and therefore perfect Kickstarter fodder. It might be risky for an investor, but not for a simple pledge from the same audience it's being made for. All they care about is that it gets made, not that it makes a profit.
It just seems a bit wrong that if the move makes a huge profit, it won't go to all the people who invested in the project. At the moment, people with lots of disposable money are willing to spend it on things like this, and maybe the popularity of kickstarter will die down in the future, maybe it'll continue providing enough people have the money. But it would be cool if it evolved into where it is agreed that in funding a project, depending on how much you give to it you get a very small percentage of the profit back. The thing you say about essentially paying to be an extra in the film is exploiting someone's [probably unhealthy obsessive] love for a show. They might have to sell half their possessions to be able to afford that, they might already be well-off. It's their choice, and on one hand it's cool but then on the other hand it's such a crass carrot to dangle in front of them....i think there's a better way of putting that, but you know what I mean.
