Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown … 
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Up … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
Cannes: Deadline Crashes Palais Forum With Costa Gavras, … 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $164.5M Global: Lower … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Charlie Kaufman and his producing partners — former Community showrunner Dan Harmon and Dino Stamatopoulos — do not want to deal with Hollywood, and now at least for one project they don’t have to. A stop-motion animation adaptation of the Kaufman-written play Anomalisa raised $406,237 for the film’s production in 60 days via the crowdfunding website Kickstarter. “We want to make Anomalisa without the interference of the typical big-studio process,” according to a pitch video that Harmon and Stamatopoulos’ Starburns Industries put up on the project page. The film raised more than double the money the producers were asking from 5,770 Kickstarter backers.
Kickstarter was launched in 2009 with the aim of letting creative people connect with audiences who want to finance their dream projects. The New York Times reports to date nearly 3 million people have helped 30,000 projects meet their fund-raising goals to the tune of $300 million in pledges. But while Whoopi Goldberg and a few other high-profile names have sought to use the site, the financing platform has not been embraced widely in Hollywood. “Right now there’s a little bit of hesitancy from people in the industry of using crowdfunding, because I know some people don’t like being seen asking for money in public,” Anomalisa director Duke Johnson says. “But as it gains momentum, and people see what it’s worth, and that they can do it on their own, that hesitancy is going to disappear.”
Production on the approximately 50-minute Anomalisa, based on Kaufman’s 2005 play about a man plagued by the banality of his life, is expected to start in November. Pledge levels for the film started at $5 which got donors a mention on the film’s Facebook page and a short clip to $50, which offered people a DVD of the film, to $10,000, for which five donors earned an executive producer credit and other rewards. Launched on July 10, Anomalisa’s request beat the second-most funded Kickstarter movie project, the sequel The Gamers: Hands Of Fate.
Starburns produces Mary Shelly’s Frankenhole for Adult Swim and was behind 2010’s Emmy-winning stop-motion Community holiday special.
Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.
Loading ...
This is all well and good, but for something like this, I think contributers deserve their money back if the work turns a profit. They are investors, after all.
They’re not investors. They’re giving the money away. It’s called “charity”. Not everyone is afraid to give it away…even some people who don’t have a lot.
It isn’t charity either, Kickstarter makes it very, VERY clear that the site is not to be used for charity or investment.
And the return on their contribution, is in the form of “rewards” (not to be confused with “incentives”).
Having run two successful Kickstarter campaigns, and having felt a tad bit queezy about taking so many strangers’ money each time, I am of two minds about the situation.
On one hand, a more idealistic sense, it is ultimately up to the donors, and therefore nothing we can really fault them for. Take the Amanda Palmer campaign, or the first big celebrity Kickstarter campaign, Colin Hanks’ Tower Records documentary, as example, and those who donated across the board mainly did so for the opportunity to be a part of something. They felt involved, and rewarded, for their contribution.
On the other hand, one can’t help but feel a bit dirty for seeing so many people flocking to the fund of someone just because they have the celebrity name-recognition, and enormous network of people to spread it around, something that most average kickstarter hopefuls lack.
Some might argue that a huge benefit for the site as a whole is name recognition and cross-pollination into other, smaller projects. I can tell you that this occurrence (someone finding another, small campaign through the site and donating to it) is negligible, incredibly rare and not a viable reasoning.
I personally feel that anyone starting a kickstarter campaign must have an ethical wrestling match with themselves beforehand. Kickstarter, and indeed any crowd-funding resource, should be seen as last resort financing. You have exhausted all other possible measures of getting money.
By this I don’t mean just assuming “hey my project is too crazy for traditional investors” but actually presenting it to said investors and them having turned you down, as well as you yourself not having any amount of money to put towards the project (the days of OPM are long since past).
That is the process by which both my modest kickstarter campaigns were put together and triumphed. We didn’t have the money ourselves (otherwise we would have used it) and traditional investment routes were all but closed to us (after approximately 2 years of attempting to circumnavigate them).
Lastly, I do feel that some of the seething rage over this dilemma is simply due to jealousy and envy, but not entirely unfounded. It is a bit of a smack in the face for the indie upstart (no matter if you are in film, music, video games, art or anything in between) that they must struggle so hard to push their campaigns out there and then these “celebrities” (read: people with name recognition and established fanbases) swoop in and grab hold of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of hours. I feel it too, I must admit, at times, but the difference is most of the people contributing to Colin Hanks, Amanda Palmer or Charlie Kaufman only arrived on Kickstarter to do just that. Much more elusive are the “Kickstarter moguls” who have a ton of spare cash and simply enjoy searching for and funding projects they find worthy for one reason or another.
Either way, there is no way to stop anyone from using Kickstarter and Kickstarter itself will never regulate who wants to use their site. They are a business after all and these big-ticket, big-name projects bring in big bucks.
Don’t be fooled, Kickstarter isn’t democratic, and it isn’t, as some might have you believe, meritocratic either. It’s all about marketing, presentation and pitching. If you happen to be a household name or have a pre-established fanbase, you have a leg up, if not, you have to work that much harder to get your idea out there.
Tell ya what Charlie and Harmon…now listen:
Take your goddamn Oscar, Charlie and sell it. Take your millions, Harmon and use it. Use your own fucking money instead of coming to the CROWDSOURCE which was NEVER meant for any of you who are:
ALREADY IN THE FUCKING SYSTEM!!
My God! I read this and start vomiting.
It’s bad enough the entire system is geared to those who
are adept at playing games of politics and personalities than real,
true and hard working talent, which will always save and push the industry forward, as opposed to industry cares more about how you “work” a room, instead of…doing the actual work
It’s bad enough that sexism and racism — discrimination
overall — still calls the shots from the highest studio seats.
And now…Charlie is begging for money from the same CROWD SOURCE, that the system won’t even acknowledge?
I swear to God, if the great JOHN CASSAVETTES was alive today and saw you millionaires begging for money from the same people who the system won’t even give a shot to?
Whatever.
You act like this story is about Brett Ratner and Michael Bay.
Dan Harmon and Charlie Kaufman are both talented artists looking for help funding a project that the powers-that-be have no interest in funding. Despite Kaufman’s Oscar successes, his movies have not been box office bonanzas… most failed to make back their budget during the theatrical run because Kaufman does not work on commercial stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that the guy’s not a multi-millionaire. Harmon meanwhile was kicked off his own show, so there’s no guarantee he has stashed away millions of dollars since he probably figured he would be running ‘Community’ until it went off the air.
What’s wrong with these individuals using Kickstarter if so many people are willing to fund their films? Did you ever think that these two and their fanbases might have brought new people to Kickstarter who have never used the platform before? Those same people might then take a look at other projects and provide funding, which they would not have done if this project did not introduce them to the platform…
I agree. Crowdfunding isn’t just about raising the money either – it’s about gauging interest in your project and building a fan base; a fanbase that cares enough about your project getting made that they’re willing to pay you in advance for it.
And that’s what crowdfunding is. It’s not “charity.” It’s not a gift. You’re buying something – not just whatever “perks” are being offered, but the finished product, whatever it is. You’re buying its existence. And anything that brings the artist and the public closer together and takes out the middleman is fine by me. I would love it if we lived in a world where people didn’t need MASSIVE ADVERTISING to know about something; where people were trained to seek out art that they like on their own, and be a direct patron of the artists they love in order to have that art continue. That would be awesome.
Not all working producers and writers are millionaires. If you have made any connections in the film industry, you would know that.
Many pros cannot afford to invest their own money. And we as struggling artists should be schmoozing with them, learning from them, not putting them down. It’s ignorance like what you are demonstrating that makes pros put down the struggling artists because let’s face it, when we start out, we didn’t have a clue.
We should depend on working professionals on our projects because they will give us that additional boost. Putting them down like that will only alienate you not only from Hollywood but also from other independent filmmakers as well.
Tony Young
I echo mark thomas and dicks and thewaitercliche…. these three posters are calling this like it is, a RIDICULOUS ABUSE OF CROWDFUNDING by guys for whom the whole concept was not intended in the first place. I can’t B–E–L–I–E–V–E the audacity of kaufman and the other guy because THEY ARE ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM. THEY ALREADY MADE IT!!!!!!!!!! This is the opposite of what kickstarter is all about in the first place!!! Argh!!! This is so frustrating to see something like this when i am a filmmaker here who can’t seem to get a break at all. and these folks have it all, already, and are now muddying the water. ARGH!!!
Almost all of today’s donation based crowdfunding sites will transition into equity-based funding portals (aka hyperfunding), first in the U.S., then in Europe and Asia. Worldwide, there is a massive amount of investment capital sitting on the sidelines waiting for a good reason for deployment.
Donation based fundraising via the web (aka crowdfunding) will all but cease to exist once the JOBS Act of 2012 allows for equity-based funding portals to begin (sometime in 2013).
There is a finite amount of capital to be deployed. Once equity-based crowdfunding (hyperfunding) launches and eventually gains mainstream traction, donation-based crowdfunding will die a slow death.
Sure, you’ll still see a few donation-based crowdfunded projects get funded; but this number will be a drop in the bucket versus what we’re seeing today. Why donate to a movie director or producer for an advance ticket to the show, when you can instead get a piece of the equity?
Time will tell, but I have very little doubt as to where this industry is heading – people are by in large, self serving when it comes to matters of money. Common sense leads me to believe that almost all donation-based portals (like Kickstarter) will be transitioning to equity-based funding platforms after the SEC gets the rules finalized sometime in the first half of 2013.
Kickstarter has already made clear they have no interest in transitioning as a result of the new law. The new law will have little effect on crowdfunding, which is built on $20 and less contributions. How much equity in Avatar does that get you? Nada.
Or even a “tiny” movie like “Beasts of the Southern Wild”…a $2 million dollar movie…$20 is no equity there either. People who have cash to invest for real equity in films are not the same people targeted by crowdfunding. Joe and Mary Sixpack may get a kick out of helping an indie or a B-level celeb fund a project…but equity investors are operating in a whole other financial playing field…so are the filmmakers seeking equity investors. Crowdfunding and equity investing will remain far apart.
“look — we don’t want to have any studio interference on this pet project of ours… ANd sure we HAVE milions… And Millions of our own money that we could invest in OUR pet project. But we’d rather the public pay for it so we can goof around with impunity and have all the creative freedom we want with someone else’s money and no accountability. How’s that sound to you? Good? Well then kick some cash our way and we’ll make this puppy. Hopefully it turns a profit and we actually add to our millions. We’ll be sure to thank you in the credits though. Cool?”
These are not the guys kickstarter was meant for. Absurd. But hey, some fools and starfuckers were clearly willing to give up the dough, so what’s that say about them?
Creative people deserve to be paid for their work.
You don’t decide what or who Kickstarter was meant for, people who invest do.
This is what will kill the opportunity for the small-timers who don’t have their level of success or contacts in the industry. Why do they need to crowdsource for this little amount of money? This is what took away opportunities for small-timers at Sundance when the big names started moving in on the festival. Same thing here. The nerve of some people.
I don’t understand why anyone would be against a Harmon-Kaufman collaboration. The rewards for contribution maybe aren’t clear in this article, but there are ample physical rewards beyond credit, from DVDs to T-shirts to the puppets to tours of the studio, etc. And at least you know you’re not gonna get something crappy out of the deal like with a lot of amateur Kickstarter projects.
I can’t believe how many people I know who barely can afford their rent thought this was an amazing idea and considered donating.
I don’t know what baffles me more, the fact that these clearly affluent guys had the nerve to ask people for money without putting in any of their own, or the fact that so many people gave.
I hope this doesn’t become a trend of the industry…
Too bad 5% of this goes to Amazon, who’s pretty much evil and has destroyed the books world.
Agreed. Why can’t millionaires spend their own money on film? I don’t get it, instead of scouring citizens for it?
Millionaires spend a whole bunch of money on film, then ask people to buy tickets, buy merchandise, buy DVDs, buy it on demand, buy sequels…
OR
Millionaires ask people if they’re interested in a project FIRST, and if they ARE to help make it happen. People do it, and then have purchased the above in advance in the process. The contributors are getting something they want, and the producers are delivering something they already know has a waiting audience.
Seems like the second is a smarter way of doing things for all parties concerned. What’s not to get?
Hey, maybe they can get Amanda Palmer to do the soundtrack – for free.
To the people complaining about people who donated to these guys… “Donating” $50 gets you a DVD, a digital copy, and a t-shirt (among other digital “goodies”). It’s basically like preordering the movie with a few other included swag items. Fans of these guys’ work would probably love any outcome of this collaboration, so for them it’s a no-brainer. It’s not just GIVING them a bunch of money when you get something back for it.
Obviously some of you people have forgotten the oldest saying in Hollywood:” Never use your own money”.
The oldest saying in old Hollywood doesn’t work anymore. Soderbergh and Channing Tatum made 7 million dollar film and it grossed over 100 million. They own it! That’s the new paradigm. It’s the wild west now. No rules…
Hollywood is slow to embrace the crowdsource funding model? Were you trying not too hard to laugh as this sentence was being typed? That’s why there are STUDIOS that produce films. The crowdfunding model was not built for them.
… They could have saved money (Kickstarter’s skim rate) had they just bothered to host their pitch on their own site and set up a simple transaction receipt service.
Heartfelt and earnest don’t do so well on Kickstarter. Ironic and sarcastic tend to get oversubscribed, as do first person shooter video games that publishers wouldn’t do for one reason or another.
The NYT goes into a lot more detail about the reasons projects thrive or die.
http://nyti.ms/ODqg0C
Things don’t always work out, as the piece notes.
The people on this thread who are chastising Kaufman and Harmon are literally saying, “If the big film companies don’t want to fund your project it can’t be any good.” Are you nuts? That would MAKE it good. Do you want those philistines to be the arbiter of everything you see? It’s like letting Texas dictate what textbooks get printed. This is the very model for circumventing the entrenched studio/distributors who embrace the philosophy, “If everybody doesn’t want it, then nobody can have it.”
First of all this is one of the most cogent comments thread I’ve ever seen. I come down on the argument this way: How is chipping in up front different than supporting Kaufman’s work by buying a ticket or a DVD? It’s actually better, because money goes directly to the artist and the project. And how is Kaufman spoiling crowdfunding for anyone else? Sure, name recognition drove more people to look at his page, but ultimately, the nature of the project, his pitch video, and the perks had to move those people to donate. It’s a meritocracy. Does anyone believe that a given contribution might have gone to someone else’s project, if only big bad Kaufman hadn’t been there sucking up the dollars? In fact, if people go to Kickstarter for the first time to look at a Charlie Kaufman project, or a Phil Tippet project, that’s potentially more eyes (and dollars) for the other projects there.
If I was some starry-eyed fellow with $1000 to give away on a film project, And I had to choose between giving it to an indie project written by John August with Johnny Depp signed as a cameo versus a digital feature written by Elmo Nobodyski from Kentucky featuring Jane Nobody, guess who gets my money? Which contribution give me bragging rights, Hollywood cache and a T-Shirt with a star on it? Pretty obvious choice.
High-wattage Industry operatives working the crowdsourcing system may drive more eyeballs to the site, but it just makes all the real indie aspirant’s requests look that much dimmer.
There is also the issue of the RESOURCES available to Hollywood pros versus true indies. Insiders can get meeting at studios, have agents to create dev packages, have access to limited partnership funding– and as a last resort dip into their own SIZABLE bank accounts. What resources are available to outsider indies? This is gonna wreck this funding model– Just like the studios wrecked Sundance.
Mark — Take it easy. First of all you’re right about one thing… Harmon and Kaufman are millionairs and they could easily pay got this project with thier pocket money. But you are wrong about everything else. Anyone who has ever heard or read anything about Harmon and Kaufman knows that they are hardly “adept at playing politics” or “know how to work a room.” Like them or not, there is no denying they are talented. And I’m pretty sure their success isn’t the thing keeping you out of the business. Just like thier success “source funding” isn’t keeping you from raising money for your project. My guess is that if thease two guys didn’t exsist, your career would not be any better or worse. That said, I think it’s disputable that they are asking for money. But no more disputable than you or anyone else doing so. At least in thier case, fans will be contributing of thier own free will as opposed to everyone else I know who guilt thier friends and fanily into contributing then force them to go watch the shitty movie at some make believe premier. I don’t fault you for following your dream, but don’t expect other people to pay for it, then get mad when people who had the same dream achieve it before you.
Crowd funding on these platforms is not an investment or a donation, it is an exchange of goods where one person pays money to gain a ‘perk’ which is frequently a pre-sale, merchandising, etc. When you pre-buy a DVD do you expect to then get a share of profits? No, so why should it be different on this platform?
Not to mention: the laws in most countries prevent people from being able to take investment from many people as you are suggesting – laws aimed to protect uneducated investors from being swindled prevent crowd investment.
If you don’t want to partake in crowd funding you needn’t, but those who do so do it willingly and knowingly without any such naive expectations.
The most notable aspect of this project for me is to see what will happen when this project is released under whatever form or format. If a project like this, made with such a small budget like this makes it money back and turns a profit with the filmmakers still in charge of rights it could be a groundbreaker.
Of course if the film is not a success then crowdfunding projects might recieve a kick in the teeth and it may become harder to raise money through them. If it didn’t work for Kaufman why should it work for a relative nobody?
People should hope this project is a success regardless of the ethical issues. This project is more likely a marketing scheme than a money raising scheme as Kaufman could easily raise his intended amount without kickstarter or a studio.
The trend for Hollywood credited creatives seeking Kickstarter funding seems to be more a move to affect the studio execs than to help artist who actually need the funding. I’m sure whatever the project is it will gain the funds due to an excellent reputation and a stop motion production other creatives can not compete with due to budget.
HMMM! I wonder how much coin Starburn Industries would charge a client for such production?
I wish Charlie and Dan the best and believe their 50min will get produced either way, with Hollywood or Kickstarter cash. The issue of established money, seeking crowd funding simply because they want more creative freedom, after having accepted established funds in the past just seems off in someway.