Open Forum Friday: Should Established Filmmakers Be Allowed to Use Kickstarter?

Posted by on October 12th, 2012   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

Over the past year or so we’ve seen a sudden surge in the popularity and success of crowdfunded projects on Kickstarter, most notably within the video game industry but also in other creative areas such as music and movies. Many independent artists are flocking to the idea of being able to work free of corporate commitments, and fans are more than happy to help support their favourite artists. In a way, it sounds like it’s too good to be true… but maybe it is. At what point does a Kickstarter campaign just become shameless begging for money and when are artists taking advantage of their fans? Is it time to establish some limits on its use?

The ethics of Kickstarter were recently called into question in the music industry when Amanda Palmer raised over $1 million to fund her new album. She was criticized for the fact that she would profit from the album while supporters would not get a return on their investment. It’s an interesting point, and although most fans are just happy to get a copy of the album, perhaps they should be entitled to more. With regards to David Fincher’s new Kickstarter campaign for The Goon, some people are also feeling a bit miffed that a rich Hollywood director is asking for their money instead of investing his own. Then there is the issue of all the money that gets lost when a Kickstarter project fails to deliver. What do you think? Is there anything wrong with established and/or wealthy people using Kickstarter? Should people be allowed to profit from crowdfunded projects? Do the benefits of Kickstarter still outweigh the drawbacks or is it eventually going to fall apart? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • mitch

    YES! i would give money to a project that was being helmed by a credible filmmaker over one being helmed by a guy that bought a camera last week.

  • Ian

    I think it depends on the nature of the incentive and the realistic goals of the project. To help a creator make something that I very likely will enjoy, and then to get that for the cost of my investment seems pretty reasonable. If Fincher says $25 gets you a copy of the Blu-Ray that seems fine. Might be a great and practical way to further democratize the production of popular art.

  • Gerry

    Investment in a film made by an established director should result in a share of the profits, just like if you’re a non Kickstarter investor in a film.

    For someone like Fincher if there’s no profit share it’s a win win situation.

    If the film bombs at least he got to make his film and it might be viewed favourably in years to come.

    Plus future blu ray, TV and digital sales might turn it into a slow burn but steady earner for the film maker.

    All at no cost to that film maker and all pure profit without having to share the proceeds with pesky financiers.

    If the film is a hit then the rewards all go to Fincher or whoever. They could concievably end up with tens or hundreds of millions for a personal outlay of zero dollars and zero cents, again, without having normal financiers take most of the profits.

    Kickstarter in this instance, without a profitshare, seems like a rip off for investors and a gift from heaven for the film maker.

    If I was Fincher I’d try and make as many Kickstarter films as possible and hope that Mel Brooks didn’t make a sequel to The Producers about the process.

  • Gerry

    I read this before the actual article re Fincher wanting to use Kickstarter money to make a promo for the film, but my point stands.

  • Film Ape

    When I contribute money on kickstarter I do so as a consumer, not an investor. As long as I receive the incentive that I purchased, then I could care less about where the money goes, and what it goes to. Does it really matter to me if Goon gets a full length storyboard, no, but it does matter to me that I get a Goon poster signed by David Fincher.

  • Jack Burton

    I salivate at the thought of a Charlie Kaufman stop motion movie with absolutely no big studio influence. If that means kickstarter, then okay.

  • With Hollywood Accounting, no film would ever make a profit.

  • Niklas

    I think its fine. I would never give him any money but, I’m all for less studio interference in movies. Its all voluntary in the end anyway.

  • I think most people would agree that having people support the work you want to do, without you having to put your own money in, is the definition/goal of any artist. It means you have built an acceptable following and appreciation for your work. young filmmakers that self-financing their films (even their family and friends) are working towards that same goal.

    I support the idea as it seems to be the strongest way to break the fact that a select group of ‘suits’ in LA conference rooms is telling US what WE get to see. F*ck that, it needs to go away.

  • people half to get past this artistic purpose vs profit debate. People like Hendrik are so flawed in the whole “art should be free” bullshit. Those people think any commerce associated with art destroys the artistic purpose. These statements come from obliviously non artistic people because any TRUE artist will tell you that they are working toward a truth, a meaning in their work. A true artist knows if they allow outside forces to creep in they will not find the goal they are seeking, they will find something.. but it will be different. Thinking a seasoned artist can’t separate these forces again shows a complete lack of understanding of what a great artist is; great artists can think on many different levels and have cultivated skills the average person has no understanding – don’t assume you know what affects a great artists because you don’t. Leave those worries to them, pay for their work that gives you joy, admit if you carry the “art separate from commerce” philosophy you are just a cheap loser.

  • Henrik

    ruds stop dragging me into shit I don’t want to be involved in.

    I think a millionaire asking people for 400.000 dollars is weird, but if they’re getting their moneys worth it’s fine? Shit like this is just absurd, I believe the saying is: “Only in America.”

  • Bas

    The way I see it, people like Fincher are one-man-kickstarters. Him using it seems like a way to get the fans involved, build up the anticipation, etc. So, a legitimate marketing tool, not a necessity for either getting it made or guaranteeing creative control – he can deliver on both fronts all by himself.

  • cap

    “if they’re getting their moneys worth it’s fine?”

    Pretty much, yeah. I don’t see where the problem is. If it was just “thanks for your money, we’ll put your name in end credits” I would understand the uproar. But you’re getting stuff back. What’s the difference between buyin a poster and a T-Shirt in a store, and getting a poster (limited edition one, with autographs) and a T-Shirt and some artwork on top of that through Kickstarter donation? You get bunch of cool stuff and contribute to something you believe in. Where is the absurd again?

  • I just think everyone will change their tune once the first major Kickstarter campaign fails to deliver and people get nothing back. The thing with investing is that you take a financial risk in order to possibly get a big financial reward. In this case the risk is sort of minimized because it’s spread across many people, but there are still people donating large amounts of money. If they get nothing back, they’re no longer “consumers” and they’re gonna be pissed.

  • Kasper

    I have a feeling Ouya won’t deliver. It’s going to be interesting to see what the reaction to that will end up being if that happens.

  • Steve

    I did feel a little bit weird when I first saw the promo video, but I don’t think the point is that Fincher doesn’t want to spend any of his own money. It’s to start developing an involved fanbase while still in pre-production. Now we have an animated film produced by David Fincher with a ton of buzz, and a week ago none of us had heard of it. I think that’s kind of a cool idea.

  • It will be really interesting when a disgruntled backer files a lawsuit against a failed Kickstarter project.

    I’m surprised the security commissions in Canada, the US, and Europe haven’t come down harder on these crowd sourcing websites. If you are a private company and want to take it public there are rules of disclosure that are extremely strident. Many of the Kickstarter projects face no such scrutiny or transparency.

  • Justice

    I think this is a ridiculous idea and a terrible precedent to set. But hey, there’s a sucker born every second. If he really believed in it, he’d put his own money up and make it a “pay what you want” situation at the end.

  • Liz

    I feel about Kickstarter the way I feel about PBS. Most of these films and project won’t make a major profit but I personally want to see them made. But I think its unfair for established filmmakers to use it because the quality and resources are completely different for a Fincher than it is for a student making his first movie. If Kickstarted wanted to have professional and amateur channels, one with benefits like name in credits and copies and another for true investments, I’d feel better. But right now, it does feel like an abuse by people like Fincher or Palmer. What if James Cameron used Kickstarted to raise funds for Avator?

  • “he’d put his own money up” – why is this attitude only attributed to art projects? if you said this in a design meeting for a new blender everyone would look at you like you’re juvenile. FINDING INVESTORS IS BUSINESS 101

    Why do people think this is “no risk”? As easily as it is to put up a page to get cash for a film, it’s just as easy for a creative lawyer to put up a website (a year later) for a class-action fraud lawsuit. “Everyone who contributed to this film project from so-and-so bigname director and bigname producer and got nothing promised, upload pay receipt and sign name to suit” DONE!

  • MalD

    I think the point is that he seemingly is unwilling to invest his own money. If we are talking about investing in a new blender every inventor has to trump up his or her own money or get a starter loan from a bank to get this new blender off the ground in other words to have a working prototype… I don’t know many Investers willing to give money on a concept without proof that the actual product works. The same principle applies here if he believed strongly in his own project he would be willing to invest in its future ie put his money where his mouth is and be an INVESTOR himself. Even if he put in the first 200k himself that would be showing some belief in his own proof of concept. There is risk in everything the point being he is seemingly unwilling to share in the majority of the financial risk if the project goes pear shaped.

  • Steve

    Why is everyone assuming Fincher hasn’t contributed his own money to this project? There’s already a bunch of material that exists for this film. There’s the trailer, all the concept art, etc. All of that had to be paid for somehow. $400 grand isn’t chump change; Fincher’s a Hollywood director but it’s not like he made the fucking Avengers. Give the guy a break.

  • Why do people put in their own money, get a bank loan instead of investors BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE A REPUTATION OF SUCCESS, THEY DON’T HAVE ANY CLOUT

    it’s a successful comic with a bankable director – they have the goods to draw investors. Putting your own money in when you don’t have to is “buying the cow when you get the milk for free”

    People seem to think directors aren’t putting their money in to these projects. You realize all the leaked drafts, animatics, comp art we see on these sites doesn’t come out of thin air, right? You think the 12months between film projects they are pulling a salary at some production house. they pickup commercial shoots but all the time developing projects is OVERHEAD. All Fincher is doing here is crowd-sourcing some of the overhead for a KNOWN project so he can spend his own money (unpaid time) on original stories and some other obscure property that doesn’t have a rep.

  • MalD

    Using your analogy of the blender Ros I’ve heard of many inventors using their own money to create new products even after they have been successfully brought to market and given themselves status and CLOUT. Its not unusual.

    I’m sure that this 400k will also include a stipend for his expenses or “overhead” for fincher overseeing the creation of this as a part of production creation costs so in reality he probably isn’t working for NOTHING. The rest of his salery or “time” will be recovered as director when the distribution deal is signed before filming commences. So if you like its a deferred payment scheme.

    In reality they are using Kickerstarter as a development slush fund to create a story they will sell for distribution at a later date.

  • Bas

    I wonder what would have happened if Snakes on a Plane had taken this crowd-funding approach.

  • throbber

    Open yer butts y’all

  • I like debating the topic, but truth be told after watching the kickstarter video and thinking about it Im pretty sure Fincher IS just part of the marketing effort and getting paid out of funds raised. You have a small company with the rights to this property and they need a bankable director to make the project seem real. Its not to dissimilar to Michael Bay being broughtn in (paid handsomely) to be part of this year’s Crash the SuperBowl contest (you watch that video and it makes your skin crawl thinking the bullshit fee he is getting) I predict Fincher will never be part of this project later on, it will be some up-and-coming (cheap) commercial director for a limited release second/third tier film. Fincher will be listed as one of several producers.

    What we should be talking about is if this crowd-sourcing idea is what it will take to allow more innovating stories and properties to get green-lit by studios. Thats the real benefit for all us film lovers.

    crowd-sourcing the Reed Story! subtitled “Is This Ok to Eat?”

  • Bas

    If I’m paying, I’ll decide what’s OK to eat!

  • Layne Freckleton

    I WANT TO WIN THE REVEAL GIVEAWAYPlease?!?! Gah I love aiden sososososo much