›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Ridiculous Kickstarters

Comments

  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    edited May 2013
    I am happy to report that the video for this Kickstarter, which purports to raise funds for the production of a specialty string cheese, features not the details of the process of making the food but instead portrays a beautiful woman slowly playing with, then eating, the cheese in an extremely sexualized manner. Bravo

    I believe part of the incongruity of this pairing arises because, it seems to me, food is a commercial product that is relatively less likely to be promoted with sexual visuals, because the mere image of food is enough to cause within us a physical response of longing.
  • kdawgkdawg
    "Beer snack"
  • AndrewAndrew
    The depressing thing about this is that it really was funded by small donations. They had one $3,000 backer, but they ended up not even needing that to meet their goal.

    Another amazing example of Kickstarter turning consumers into venture capitalists who lose money on their investment but feel good doing it.
  • flossy_log_ladyflossy_log_lady
    I am a dummy - why is this so depressing? I mean, sure, dumb video, but aren't the backers just buying some cheese that looks/sounds interesting and getting that cheese? What's wrong with it?
  • YoursTrulyYoursTruly
    edited May 2013
    kickstarter represents this neoliberal trend in modern America that upholds capitalism as a natural, unavoidable, or even a moral system, certainly an unquestioned system, such that "consumers buying products," which is the definition of consumer capitalism, somehow becomes, via the rhetoric surrounding Kickstarter, "sticking it to the man." Like all you're doing is buying shit from somebody making shit, just like what you've been doing all along, but because it's couched in these terms of "independence" and "sustainability" and "anti-corporate marketing" or whatever it's supposed to be revolutionary. It disguises the fact that it's still just consumer capitalism, pretty much business as usual, in a grand sense.

    Also, there's now all these kickstarters for supporting what are essentially failing businesses, which is hilarious. Like now it is a revolutionary act to just GIVE businesses money, not even in exchange for products! Or for example how they raised millions of dollars to make another Garden State movie. It's pitched as being "consumer driven" and "grassroots" but really all that's happening is that we are PAYING THEM to make a movie that we will then PAY TO GO SEE.

    Anyway I think what's "depressing" is not that the product is dumb, but just the general rhetoric surrounding kickstarter as this thing that puts the power in the hands of the people or whatever. It's still just people buying shit. And how "revolutionary" or "grassroots" can something be if 10% of what it raises goes to Amazon or whatever that number is

    Like now we empower ourselves as activists to just GIVE MONEY TO AMAZON.COM in exchange for some unrelated person's shitty t-shirt they made with a marker in their house

    it's too complicated

  • YoursTrulyYoursTruly
    I am really turning into a dour sort of gently bonkers Debbie Downer/Mr. Show character, aren't I

    I AIN'T AFRAID O' NO ROLLY COASTER
  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    There is no gradation in the morality of capitalism? I think the goal of kickstarter is to feature projects that couldn't necessarily get business loans and that feel positive for mankind and are not destructive. Like some kind of beekeeping/honey thing or making driftwood shoes or some shit. I legitimately DO FEEL GOOD about some things that I have backed that I don't think would exist without kickstarter (Vanessa Renwick's career retrospective DVD project, Mikey Kampmann's Antarctica book, etc.) We made stuff, but it was BETTER STUFF.

    If there is no gradation in the morality of capatalism I will gladly take my lashings for every trip to the store cause BOYS BE SHOPPING.
  • flossy_log_ladyflossy_log_lady
    Ok, so it's a critique of kick starter, not this particular product.

  • flossy_log_ladyflossy_log_lady
    Of course kickstarter is still just people buying shit. But it provides a different way for people to access/promote shit. Same with Etsy. It's just a platform.

    I still don't think I understand why people suddenly hate it. So don't buy the dumb t-shirt that you don't want! Buy the CD from your musician friend when you see him next if you don't want to give money to amazon. But if you want the CD produced by some bloke in Alaska you don't know, and you want that transaction to be easy, pay a little bit to kickstarter/amazon for the convenience! What's the big deal?

    Again, it's entirely possible that I'm not seeing the bigger implications.

  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    There is a renewed interest in ethics of kickstarter in large part due to the big success of the Veronica Mars movie (raised 5.7 million) and the Zach Braff movie kickstarter (has raised 2.6 million) and the concern that now rich people are using kickstarter. Both of those movies are actually going to be produced through traditional Hollywood Studios but instead of getting financed by the studios or by individual rich people they have turned to the fans. It's kinda like the studios getting their cake and eating it too.

    The Veronica Mars kickstarter makes sense to me because there has been a rabid fanbase of that show calling for this project for 8 years or whatever and this was the only way it would happen (and i know that backers (at a certain level) get a digital copy of the movie at the same time as theatrical release).

    If kickstarter becomes mainly a tool for rich people/big companies/sudios to gauge interest in future products and not make any financial risk by having people pay in advance than i think it is a weird failure in its original intent, but i still think that more good and interesting small shit happens on there than this big iffy shit.
  • YoursTrulyYoursTruly
    edited May 2013
    MONEY
  • swamp_knobbler_mahanswamp_knobbler_mahan
    edited May 2013
    You've got to spend money to make money,
    You've got to stop calling me "honey".

    Great song.
    http://open.spotify.com/track/4vKavTLbRmbQWYXTLN98mS
  • flossy_log_ladyflossy_log_lady
    "Both of those movies are actually going to be produced through traditional Hollywood Studios but instead of getting financed by the studios or by individual rich people they have turned to the fans. It's kinda like the studios getting their cake and eating it too."

    I don't see what's unethical about this? Seems smart to me.
  • ManInTheIvoryTowerManInTheIvoryTower
    > It's kinda like the studios getting their cake and eating it too.

    I don't understand people's ish with Zach Braff. He wants creative control which requires more monies and also wants to promote his movie like any good producer, and can kill two birds with one stone on Kickstarter. And doesn't ponying up more capital mean that the studios make less profit? If so, not sure how that translates to cake for studios. Seems to me like he's contributing toward the credibility of crowd sourcing for capital-intensive art projects. Other folks with ideas for indy films they might have previously thought were too big for Kickstarter might now be encouraged to give it a go.
  • swamp_knobbler_mahanswamp_knobbler_mahan
    edited May 2013
    My ish with Zach Braff is that his movies movie and tv show are twee and shitty. Hated Garden State so much. Scrubs is annoying.

    But if people want to give him $$$ to make more shitty movies another shitty movie, that's their loss, not mine, and it's probably good for Kickstarter/indie film fundraising in general.
  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    I don't necessarily agree with everything I said, you just asked (@flossy_logs) why it was an issue now and I shared what i know about it.

    I think artistically and culturally it is problematic for the studios to go this route because most likely the things that will get funded are sequels and things by trusted names that people already know because generally people might have more trouble investing money into something/some talent they are unfamiliar with and we really do not need the studios to make more studios or more wary of new talent/new ideas.

    It is smart, business wise, but smart business is not always in the best interest of the consumer or the culture.

    It is possibly unethical by milking fandom for all its worth. Making fans pay twice for a product to ensure its production. Is it unethical for companies to not invest $$$ but make profit due to their advantage of being entrenched in a difficult to approach system (movie production, distribution, promotion)?

    Getting cake (name attached to movie with built in audience while investing little to no money) eating it too (profiting money without investment).

    Let's say the new Zach Braff movie is made and is a MONSTER SUCCESS. While kickstarter backers are given rewards (which generally are less valuable than their "donation") they will not see a dime back from their donation but the studio would make millions and millions. Why does the studio deserve that money without investment?

    One small correction, @Alex, we can't say that Zach Braff "movies" are twee and shitty. He's only made one!

  • YoursTrulyYoursTruly
    edited May 2013
    "It is smart, business wise, but smart business is not always in the best interest of the consumer or the culture."

    everything UBS just said
  • swamp_knobbler_mahanswamp_knobbler_mahan
    REDACTED!
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/309790545/kurt-braunohlers-cloud-project
  • flossy_log_ladyflossy_log_lady
    Yeah, but that's all the studios will fund/are funding, anyway! I would think that with the kickstarter route, other films/ideas (the ones that are good for culture) would actually have a stronger chance of becoming a reality. At least little subcultures can fund the ideas that are interesting to them, whereas a big studio wouldn't consider it profitable enough to make a film for a relatively small group of people. The way it works now, indie filmmakers have to convince a bunch of rich dudes/dudettes that their film is worth making. That seems really hard, because I think it's rare for rich folks to actually be a part of (and value) many subcultures.

    I've been bored at work lately, hence the overwhelming number of flossy posts. Sorry!
  • kdawgkdawg
    Calling Zach Braff twee is an insult to twee.
  • kdawgkdawg
    Kickstarter dudes say that big projects create more interest in the platform and the donors stick around and donate to other stuff. Possibly cool if true.

    I don't think I have ever given money to a kickstarter that wasn't by someone i personally know, but I am in the minority.
  • SchlabeSchlabe
    I've definitely donated to strangers' projects after donating to a larger project. I've had terrible luck with KS though - only three have actually come through with donor rewards.
  • 12341234
    "It is smart, business wise, but smart business is not always in the best interest of the consumer or the culture."

    Depends on how you define business! (I would say that...)

    I think if you take a longer term view (Jeff Bezos at Amazon) then you will sacrifice short term profit for long term sustainable growth.

    I think Doritos is a bad business.
  • YoursTrulyYoursTruly
    the american government is a bad business
  • 12341234
    The american government has lasted longer than any business it has allowed to incorporate... just sayin.

    (Brooks incorporated in 1818)
  • YoursTrulyYoursTruly
    depends on your definition of "bad" I guess
  • swamp_knobbler_mahanswamp_knobbler_mahan
    https://www.crowdsupply.com/bucket/the-portland-press
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    the real problem with the Zach Braff kickstarter is that HE IS LYING!!!

    It is absolute Bull Shit that he can't raise 1.5 million bucks without having to hand over creative control to anyone. and if he is that worried about he i'd bet he could actually finance the damn thing himself. he is not making some high-art-low-ticket-selling stuff. the fucker just wants free money and is lying to his naive fans. LAME.

    the one thing i will say is great about kickstarter for films, videos, softward, music in this day of internet piracy is that it is essentially a pre-order. pay for it now and you will get it when it's finished and i don't have to worry about being poor.
  • LelandLeland
    I prefer the longer term views of William Gates Sr. to Jeff Bezos. Just saying. I'm skeptical of the long term visions of anti-tax billionaires like JB.

    (Mmmmm. This bait is delicious.)
Sign In or Register to comment.