Blur, Goon, Kick Controversy

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10 October 2012   #1
Blur, Goon, Kick Controversy

Over on Cartoonbrew there was quite a stir when an article was written about Blur's latest attempt at getting a "Goon" story reel funded on Kickstarter.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-co...ject-71851.html

Last week, a Kickstarter was launched to fund an animated adaptation of Eric Powell’s Dark Horse-published comic The Goon. The project has a lot of high-profile names attached to it including live-action director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en), vfx/animation outfit Blur Studio, and actors Paul Giamatti and Clancy Brown.


Sounds nice...but

TNow, Fincher, Blur, et al., are asking for the largest amount yet for a Kickstarter animated project—$400,000. What’s especially noteworthy—and troublesome—about their campaign is that not a single frame of animation will be produced for that amount of money. Because they are asking for $400,000 to create a story reel for the feature film.


Some have raised concerned that high profile folks will drown out the rest of the Kickstarters and truly indie groups. While others have a hatred for all things Hollywood and feel that getting it funded this way is not cool. Espececially for a demo reel that no one will see.

Here is the following article for Tim Miller
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-co...ersy-72155.html

What are ya'lls thoughts?
 
Old 10 October 2012   #2
Here are some opinions.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthr...&highlight=goon
 
Old 10 October 2012   #3
Originally Posted by AangtheAvatar: What are ya'lls thoughts?


Kickstart is an open crowdfunding platform.

This means that both independent and more established filmmakers can use it to raise funds.

Its all up to the voluntary backers of a project, really.

If they want to throw money at a project, they can.

If they don't want to fund a project, then they can do that, too.

Nobody is being forced to invest in anything, so this is not a big deal.

I don't understand why somebody as established as David Fincher needs crowdfunding to get a project off the ground.

But Fincher may very well be seeing this as an early experiment in cutting his reliance on big studio funding, and trying the crowdfunded route instead.

In the end, crowdfunding is voluntary. As long as nobody is forced to invest in something, its all good, really...

At least that's what I think.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #4
But Fincher may very well be seeing this as an early experiment in cutting his reliance on big studio funding, and trying the crowdfunded route instead.


That's kind of how I was looking at it too. Especially when you consider the property they are trying to develop. It's one of those IPs where too much studio involvement could easily kill it. It will be interesting to see if this pays off considering they want so much just to cut a demo reel ...
 
Old 10 October 2012   #5
I have no beef with them attempting to source funding through alternate routes. Very likely the production has limited appeal, because of the mature content, and the questionable position the content takes on story. I did recently pick up a comic book on the goon, and I wasn't all that impressed with the story, although the short piece Blur did a while back was quite entertaining.

This can go two ways, but funding something that may not go anywhere would make me question the validity of the project. If anything, funders get a grab bag of stuff ... if that has any value.
__________________
Perry Shulak
Design, Illustration, writing and interactive media
www.criticalfusion.com
www.perryshulakcreative.com
 
Old 10 October 2012   #6
Originally Posted by DePaint: Nobody is being forced to invest in anything
This is the key point for me.

All of the people criticising The Goon Kickstarter seem to have the attitude that Blur/Fincher are pulling the wool over people's eyes. Firstly I don't see this being the case, I think the rewards are balanced and if it helps get a difficult project into theatres one day I'm all for it. Secondly, such criticisms are essentially saying "You are fools - only *I* am clever enough to see through their lies!", when it's entirely up to the backers to part with their own money.
__________________
SKETCHBOOK
MDI
moonjam.com
 
Old 10 October 2012   #7
Originally Posted by DePaint: Its all up to the voluntary backers of a project, really.
If they want to throw money at a project, they can.
If they don't want to fund a project, then they can do that, too.
Nobody is being forced to invest in anything, so this is not a big deal.



exactly!

I don't understand why somebody as established as David Fincher needs crowdfunding to get a project off the ground.


Because usually the guy who fund such projects want a say in it...
If your project gets funded on kickstarter, you can do what you want basicly.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #8
And if you get it funded on kick-starter, you don't have to pay the money back, such as a bank or an investor, if the project doesn't go anywhere.
__________________
Perry Shulak
Design, Illustration, writing and interactive media
www.criticalfusion.com
www.perryshulakcreative.com
 
Old 10 October 2012   #9
That link is locked down. Also i agree that's insane amount just for story.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #10
Originally Posted by calilifestyle: That link is locked down. Also i agree that's insane amount just for story.


Not if your story development process includes a serious previsualization effort. Previs is commonly used to help refine story in combination with an early editorial effort in prepro. This is a good way to pay for that process. Ultimately the results of this will be used to shop the project around for new investors because the we all know a project like this will cost millions.
__________________
Brian J. Pohl

Previsualization Society - Founder / Secretary
Independent - Sr. Previs & Layout Supervisor

Last edited by Vizfizz : 10 October 2012 at 06:15 PM.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #11
Honestly I can think of a few little things about it that bother me, but none of it matters in the end cause of that simple argument, it's voluntary. If people want to give money, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Overall I'm fine with it.
__________________
-Michael

www.MichaelSime.com
 
Old 10 October 2012   #12
Sounds like a lot of money for a short, but this is business logic..
400k is an aprox of the cost of blur's shorts.

Is there another way for making this demo, even if it takes more time? different deal with it's employees, etc. And using their own money, even if they have to wait a few years.. after all if they believe in the project, I would expect they themselves, to take the risk.. that would make the project more genuine (IMO)

But anyway, ignoring the money and all the complexity of making a short..
Blur is not really a dedicated animation studio, Their cinematics are great, but all game cinematics tend to be soul-less.. The quality of cinematics animated characters are quite low, 'in my eyes'. something does not fit.

People can do whatever they want with their money, but that wont avoid different points of views about this.
__________________
may not be following this thread.
.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #13
Originally Posted by Michael5188: Honestly I can think of a few little things about it that bother me, but none of it matters in the end cause of that simple argument, it's voluntary. If people want to give money, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Overall I'm fine with it.


In principle I totally agree, but in practice, there's something that really rubs me the wrong way about this. This is basically a commercial endeavor with no payback or upside for the investor (you). While some continue to hail this new business model as "bold" or "innovative" or "breaking from the studio system," this particular project appears to be none of these. They are merely asking people to pay for what a studio should pay for if they thought the project was worthy of development (i.e., potentially profitable), and that sets a bad precedent.

$400k to make a story reel (not a "short," as the unfathomably ignorant post above mentions) isn't so shocking, but if the movie ever gets made, it will still fall right into the iron grip of the studio marketing system. And honestly, this sounds like very much a niche project that has little chance of reaping the rewards of even modest comic book/superhero hits.

It's baffling to me that old pros like Fincher or Tim Miller think they can sell the movie on the strength of a story reel. Typically, movies fill a marketing niche for a studio and are not "quality driven." Someone posted a worthwhile podcast over in that "studio profits" thread and they are right: The production of a movie is a means to an end (appeal to wide audience, make $$$). They are not made because someone thinks The Goon would "make a cool movie." Making a story reel is not going to change any of that.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 10 October 2012   #14
I thought or wanted to believe, these would include more than a simple 'story reel', That it would prove some kind of final quality, like a short, now I definelly disagree. wow..
__________________
may not be following this thread.
.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #15
I think it's great. I hope lots of big name artists bypass the studio nonsense. Recently people posted that Ridley Scott was disappointed in his experience with the production and I think we will maybe see someone like this in the future using kick starter. Just because an artist is successful financially doesn't mean that they're still not an artist and I'm sure if they had options they would have used them and I think kickstarter is dream come true for most artists looking for to establish a project they don't have to "sell out" in order to please the studio. I just think of how many movies are made every year that look like they're made with some sort of Hollywood template that the studio demand so that they can squeeze as much they can have their artists. I think Hollywood needs a kick in the teeth and kickstarter could be that kick in the teeth, having big name artists saying "forget it I don't need you, I can get the money myself and make my own projects" is awesome. I think kick starter is the farmers market of movie production we can now bypass these middleman/distributers/stores/big-hollywood-studios and make movies directly for the fans paid for by the fans from the farmer/artist. Produce tastes better directly from the farm and movies I think will be sweeter without all the templates enforced by studios.

Are we happy with the current movie making hollywood model?

I'm not . . .
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.