New Movie, Zenith, Distributed In Segments Via BitTorrent; Funding Needed To Release Next Segment

from the serial-distribution dept

Last week at SXSW Film, I moderated a panel looking at the role of P2P distribution for filmmakers. It really was a case study session, where we tried to look at different things that fillmmakers have done in embracing file sharing, including some things that worked, and some that didn't. You can listen to the whole panel on the SXSW website, including me with my nearly missing voice (SXSW will do that to you). The focus of the panel was really targeted at indie filmmakers who would likely have difficulties going a traditional route in getting their films out to the market. The panel consisted of me as moderator, Ray Privett, the founder of Cinema Purgatorio, Shahi Ghanem, the Chief Strategist from BitTorrent Inc., and Jamie King, the founder of VODO. Privett kicked us off with a preview of a film that he's helping release via BitTorrent and Vodo, called Zenith. You can see the preview below:
A couple days after the panel, the first part of Zenith was officially released, via Vodo and BitTorrent. There were a few very interesting things about the way this is being done. The first is that releasing it via BitTorrent really fits with the nature of the film. That is, the film is a bit of a conspiracy theory about a product that has been lost... and then found. So distributing it via BitTorrent really fit with the nature of the content of the film. On top of that, the film is officially by "Anonymous," trying to build into that sort of internet mythology.

The second part that's interesting is that they're trying to release the film in segments, where the latter segments aren't released unless there have been enough donations for the first segments. It's not clear what will happen if enough donations aren't raised, but it's still an interesting strategy. Others have done this on a production basis, where they say that they need a certain amount to conclude production of later segments. In this case, the entire film is made, but they're trying to release it in sections. I really don't know if this kind of strategy works for films, but it's worth watching.

With Zenith, they are offering typical tiered offerings for people who donate different amounts, including the ability to meet with a character in the film. At lower levels, donors can get their names on the future releases as either a thank you or as an Executive Producer credit.

Anyway, Zenith is another case study worth watching. I have no idea if it will succeed with its current strategy, but in a world where most people tend to think that a film has to be released as a full and complete work, it'll be worth watching to see if it works as a "serialized" film instead.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 7:37pm

    they're trying to release the film in segments, where the latter segments aren't released unless there have been enough donations for the first segments.

    Good lord.

    So the artist now has to hold his content back essentially for ransom.

    Thanks piracy.

    Pathetic, sad, and ultimately not where things are going to end up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 7:47pm

    Never work. Everybody knows bittorrent is never used for legal purposes.
    /sarcasm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 7:50pm

    Re:

    Gee, I'd have thought a money up-front business model was more like ransom...

    At least this way you get a taste of what you're paying for before you part with your money, and after all parts are released the content is free for anyone to enjoy without restriction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 7:51pm

    I've watched this, and I wholeheartedly recommend it. Great stuff, donate if you can.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    DMNTD, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 7:57pm

    Re:

    Seriously? He gave no incentive right? I mean, he can only control exactly how every part of the film is going to turn out. Not really any deadlines and you can find out what people really want to see.

    Thanks piracy? Get off your high horse(its an ugly colored horse too).

    Nope, still don't see the ransom part. FUD fail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Donny (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 8:32pm

    I'm confused

    This isn't a bad idea. But it feels odd to me that the whole thing is finished.

    If I'm giving money in order to help fund Part 2, then I'm all for doing so. If I'm giving money in order to show my appreciation for the finished art, then I'm all for doing so.

    But that's not what's going on is it? And it's not that I mind if the film-makers are just trying to demand a profit, hey if people pay more power to them. But...well is that what they're trying to do here?

    I'm confused.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Underground Zenith Rebellion, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 8:54pm

    @Donny

    @Donny good question. The film is finished, yes. However, funding helps us fund "The Next Zenith Tapes," which would come after.

    And it helps us fight off Zenith and fund the rebellion!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 8:54pm

    I watched the trailer, and what I saw was "high end student film", sort of like a final year project, with the standard horrible sort of off green coloration technique, a standard processing deal. I didn't get the urge to watch any more, and I certainly didn't have any urge to send them money.

    If they movie is so good, shouldn't they just put it all out there for free and hope someone buys some t-shirts or something? I mean, we can wait for however long it takes for all the pieces to be released, and watch it for free. What makes them think people will pay a ransom to see their (seemingly average) movie?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 9:12pm

    Re:

    Really? I found it good but not great, and a bit blathery to be honest.

    Not in the "TOO MUCH TALKIN' NOT ENOUGH DAKKA AN' BOOBIES" kinda way (although there is no dakka and very little boobies). There's a sort of self absorbed verbosity in the film that I found a little smug.

    That said, the production values are high, the acting is good and plot is interesting if a bit shrouded in heavy, clunky dialog. I'll be tipping money into their pot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 9:16pm

    Hmmm.
    Any innovative attempt to recoup $$$ from producing content should be applauded...yet - piracy is likely to send all indie filmmakers (back) to write for live theater - there at least it's accepted practice to pay before you see the show...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    DMNTD, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 9:20pm

    Re:

    "If they movie is so good, shouldn't they just put it all out there for free and hope someone buys some t-shirts or something?"


    No.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 9:48pm

    Re: Re:

    Why not? The movie is infinite, so it has no market price. So if they really want to make money, shouldn't they sell something truly scarce, like t-shirts or coffee klatches with the crew?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 9:52pm

    Re: Re:

    There is NEVER enough Dakka!

    There are NEVER enough...

    ...

    For the sake of not being slapped by all women everywhere, I won't finish that sentence.

    But I will have to watch this now. Excuse me...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 10:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The movie is not infinite when it's released in installments. There is no dilemma with scarcity in this case.

    BTW, why is it a go-to excuse for ACs to constantly attack the quality of not-traditionally-commercial work, no matter how good it actually is? They attack Nina Paley all the time. Anti-artist, I suppose?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 10:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The movie is not infinite when it's released in installments

    So a movie released in installments is scarce, but a Hollywood movie released only in theaters is somehow infinite because somebody got a copy or filmed it and put it online? I think you need to understand what artificial scarcity is, all these guys are doing is creating fake scarcity to try to drum up money. The movie is already completely. Just roll it out on torrents and let it be free.

    BTW, why is it a go-to excuse for ACs to constantly attack the quality of not-traditionally-commercial work, no matter how good it actually is? They attack Nina Paley all the time. Anti-artist, I suppose?

    I express an opinion because this is the sort of thing that is somehow suppose to replace "commercial" movies, you know the blockbusters that everyone lines up to see at the theaters every weekend and spend hours (and even days) pirating a copy of online. Based on what is in the trailer, I suspect that this movie just on it's merits are a movie would have a hard time getting much interest. It isn't particularly special or anything, the trailer is both predictable and forgettable, and I wasn't left with the impression of some great story I wanted to know about.

    If this is the sort of thing that is going to "save movie making", perhaps we should all just give up and quit kidding ourselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's all they have left.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Film School Survivor, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 10:54pm

    You, my friend, haven't seen very many student films.

    You also, clearly, have no sense of the financial stress involved in making films.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 11:02pm

    Re:

    Good lord.

    So the artist now has to hold his content back essentially for ransom.


    Good lord. Who said anything about what anyone "has" to do?

    Thanks piracy.

    Um. This has nothing to do with piracy.

    Pathetic, sad, and ultimately not where things are going to end up.

    Says the guy who refuses to change and who's band is failing, while those who have done similar things are succeeding. It's kind of amusing to watch you mock the success stories as your own boat sinks.

    Feel free to call us when you need a life raft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 11:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We can always have Bollywood save Hollywood.

    What's always amazing is that people don't see where the movie industry is going. It's not supposed to replace the Big Four. But it IS making the industry more personable by allowing ANYONE to be a film maker with damn near any tool.

    I've watched short stories about Halo, Pioneer One, and Bar Karma without worrying about the 3D fad that Hollywood seems to get a kick out of.

    I'm glad to hear more indies are trying new things. It reminds me of the 90s struggles with sex as the indie movies of that time seemed to suffer under the weight of the majors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 11:24pm

    Case relevant

    A bit of history for you folks. This has been done in a different medium. The only difference was he used his already established name to get us to pay up for it.

    The title was the Dark Tower Series.
    The author(pardon the fudge if not accurate) Stephen King.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 11:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Considering the creative class is going to be replaced by robots, well . . . .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 12:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    somebody got a copy

    That's the key. Nobody else has a copy of this, other than the filmmakers. And if it leaks, you can bet they're the ones that leak it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 12:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    BTW, why is it a go-to excuse for ACs to constantly attack the quality of not-traditionally-commercial work, no matter how good it actually is? They attack Nina Paley all the time. Anti-artist, I suppose?

    Yeah, this is the part that I find most amazing. The people who regularly attack us for being "anti-artist" are always the first to mock the "quality" of content.

    What it really comes down to is that they're elitists. They like the old gatekeeper system, because they don't actually *like* art. They want the gatekeepers to tell them who to listen to and who to watch, because they're too insecure to recognize what kind of artwork they like. If a gatekeeper hasn't told them what's good, they automatically denigrate it, because it messes with their whole worldview.

    That's why the fear the world that we live in today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 1:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Talk about a broad brush attack Mike. What is scary is to think you find this to be true.

    I don't think anyone is "anti-artist". I am not. But I also have some taste and standards, and I know from my salad days what it is like to end up in a horrible movie that a friend is making for school. All the technology in the world, all the "duplication of look" cannot make a decent movie. It just makes for pap.

    The trailer for this movie is dull. I don't want to see it for free, let alone pay a ransom to see more of it.

    Just because it is "art" doesn't mean I will like it. In fact, the harder you try to call it "Art" (capital A), the more likely I am to think that it is just a bunch of people trying to convince each other that the lame product they are turning out is "better" than something else.

    I could go on about Nina Paley for a while, but I think her cartoons sum it up best. It isn't very funny, and it isn't very original, but some people think it is "Art". It's the best thing about free speech, we are each allowed to have an opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 1:45am

    Re: Case relevant

    Well, there was that funny car acident he was in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 2:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But I also have some taste and standards, and I know from my salad days what it is like to end up in a horrible movie that a friend is making for school

    That's really your problem, but there's no need to take it out on those who are having a serious conversation about business models.

    I can tell you this is not a film school project. You calling it that is a clear intent to insult the filmmaker (who actually is an experienced filmmaker).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 3:14am

    Re: Re: Case relevant

    Well guess there's two things we can thank for it; it bred SK's red headed step child as well.

    Koontz

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 3:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The trailer for this movie is dull.

    What? You want some dialogue or something?

    I could go on about Nina Paley for a while

    She's the definition of marginal and opportunistic. After begging for attention for decades, she saw an angle with the freetards, who never saw an apologist orifice they were unwilling to personally lube.

    But has she ever earned her own rent?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 3:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Mike Masnick: not just a future music mogul...

    but ladies and gentlemen, I present you the new mogul of Hollywood.

    I can see the ads in the trade mags now...

    "oh no you di-unt girlfriend! This boy isn't just the pudgy gym towel collector you knew in 8th grade, nope, this boy is a ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 5:53am

    Re: Re:

    Well, it's certainly a lot better than the last bittorrent release I watched, but I generally don't watch much TV so my frame of reference is somewhat limited.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 5:57am

    Re:

    "So the artist now has to hold his content back essentially for ransom."

    First of all, have the other segments actually been produced yet? It's not clear from what I'm reading, but it's quite possible that the future segments won't be filed until the funding is received. This isn't new, and may actually be a positive thing (that is, it may get better as it goes along based on feedback from viewers).

    Even if they have been produced, this is little different to traditional models in any realistic sense. Everything released under the traditional models is "held for ransom" in that you don't get to see them until you've paid for it. This is realistically more like console gaming, where some games (.e.g Telltale Games adventure games) are released in episodes or some parts of the game are held back and released as DLC if the game is successful enough to release them.

    "Thanks piracy."

    Piracy? Funny you would think that, rather than recognise that it's just another form of non-traditional distribution. Do you honestly think that a movie like this would be likely to get a traditional theatrical release in the current climate, where a majority of cinema screens are reserved for remake, sequels and tacked-on 3D?

    Rather than follow the traditional alternative routes (straight to DVD or TV, if anyone will buy the distribution), why not try something new? This has a great many advantages that traditional distribution doesn't have (no region restrictions, low distribution costs, built-in viral marketing, no danger of piracy "stealing" the movie's profits), even if the piecemeal approach isn't to your taste.

    "Pathetic, sad, and ultimately not where things are going to end up."

    Yep, imaginary worst case scenarios tend to be like that. Reality, fortunately, isn't what you're talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 6:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    See for yourself

    Oh, and just so you can watch OTHER movie makers for FREE since that seems a bad thing:

    Lazy Teenage Superheroes - Budget -> $300

    Judge Minty

    Oldboy film maker shoots on iPhone

    Just so you notice, there's a LOT being created if you don't close yourself off to what is filtered down the pipes at you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 6:09am

    Re:

    "I didn't get the urge to watch any more, and I certainly didn't have any urge to send them money."

    Great. That means you've just watched the movie for free and paid what you thought it was worth. From the linked site, it seems that others disagree with you. Why do you feel that your opinion is worth more than others' opinions?

    "If they movie is so good, shouldn't they just put it all out there for free and hope someone buys some t-shirts or something?"

    Why do you people never seem to recognise any type of scarcity other than t-shirts?

    "What makes them think people will pay a ransom to see their (seemingly average) movie?"

    What makes Disney think that people will pay the ransom to get into the theatre to see their (apparently piss poor, from the reviews) movie Mars Needs Moms?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 6:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The trailer for this movie is dull. I don't want to see it for free, let alone pay a ransom to see more of it."

    Sigh. Then don't, and stop bitching about it. It's clearly not for you, but that has nothing to do with the business model.

    Again, why do you feel that your personal tastes trump the tastes of others? On a personal level, I despise the Twilight series and think they're very poorly written. I felt ripped off by watching the first film, even though I saw if for free on TV. Same with Transformers 2. But, that doesn't invalidate the business model and both those movies made a lot of money. Others produced in the same way didn't.

    Do you have an argument against this that doesn't include your personal artistic tastes and an apparent phobia of low budgets?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 6:21am

    Re: Case relevant

    He also released The Green Mile in instalments, and that was an academic attempt to recreate formerly traditional publishing techniques used by the likes of Charles Dickens and Arthur Conan Doyle. Graphic novels and comic books are regularly released in instalments, and have been known to be discontinued before completion if sales don't keep up. TV shows will be cancelled if they don't get enough viewers to make money, even if all episodes have not been broadcast. Some artists will release EPs and individual songs in preparation for an album containing those tracks.

    Why some people think this is something new and wrong is beyond me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re:

    Nobody gets more pleasure from the failures of others than Mike. Good on ya, bud!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Mike, there is no intention to "insult the filmmaker", it is my opinion. You know, opinion, those things you have that sound like insults when the rest of us don't agree with you.

    If the guy is an experienced film maker, then it is even more for shame, because they are testing a business model on what seems to be a sub-prime product. Maybe it's a great movie. But if their movie making is like their trailer editing, they are already working from a poor position.

    Sorry. The trailer makes it look like a student film, with all the standard cliche characters, the standard color rendering, and so on. If you think I hate artists because I don't like this particular work (or much of what Nina does), you would be wrong. For a guy who repeatedly says "it's just my opinion", you need to learn to respect the opinion of others, even when you don't agree with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 8:12am

    Re:

    So the artist now has to hold his content back essentially for ransom.

    Kinda of like the windowed release scheme the big studios use if you ask me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 9:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The problem is, you're responding to an article about the use of a business model with personal criticism of the content. That doesn't matter, since that's not the point of the article.

    Again, some movies that have previously been criticised for looking "cheap" and/or rejected for similar reasons: The Blair Witch Project, Pi, Primer, El Mariachi, Clerks, Paranormal Activity. All profitable (albeit some more than others). Clerks is stil making money for Kevin Smith on Blu Ray, FFS, and that film was criticised for being cheap looking on VHS 20 years ago.

    For a debut feature this doesn't look too bad, but as with the above films that doesn't matter. This isn't going to battle against Transformers 3 on the big screen, but that's exactly why an alternative business model is appropriate. The fact that an anonymous AC on a message board doesn't find the film to his taste means absolutely nothing.

    "they are testing a business model on what seems to be a sub-prime product."

    They are testing a business model on their own art, and if successful may manage to carve them a career from from corporate interference in their art. Why is that not something worth supporting in an age where direct studio funding is less necessary than ever? Again, the fact that *you* don't like it means exactly nothing.

    "you need to learn to respect the opinion of others, even when you don't agree with it."

    I'm sure he would, if you were even talking about the same subject. Either address the business model, or accept that not every movie is made with your tastes in mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "...may manage to carve themselves a career free from corporate interference in their art."

    ...of course that's what I meant to type :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Paul, a business model is nothing without a product. The success or failure of this one off project depends as much on the product and the people putting it out there as it does on the product itself.

    The same business model with a George Lukas Star Wars 10th episode would be a very, very different beast.

    I'm sure he would, if you were even talking about the same subject. Either address the business model, or accept that not every movie is made with your tastes in mind

    This business model has everything to do with the product. Literally, the entire model is hinged on the first part of the movie being so damn good, that people are willing to pay the ransom to see the rest. The product itself is truly one of the main variables in this test. To ignore it would be foolish and short sighted. The model could be "killed" on the basis of a lower quality product. Isn't that significant?

    After all, if we judged hollywood movies only by the results of B movies (and Z movies for that matter) and ignored the business that the higher end products generate, we would look at their business models differently too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The success or failure of this one off project depends as much on the product and the people putting it out there as it does on the product itself."

    Huh? It depends as much on the product... as it does on the product itself? Maybe there's a typo there.

    "The same business model with a George Lukas Star Wars 10th episode would be a very, very different beast."

    Interesting that you'd mention Lucas. Star Wars was dumped into the traditionally quieter summer months, and Lucas took traditionally worthless merchandising rights because the studio had little faith in his vision. How did that work out?

    "Literally, the entire model is hinged on the first part of the movie being so damn good, that people are willing to pay the ransom to see the rest."

    Perhaps. But, again, just because *you* don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. the very same aspects that put you off watching it could be the same things that make others want to pay.

    In fact, this could be a good thing. It may appeal to those tired of multiplex cookie cutter, painfully "professional" and blandly glossy blockbuster movies. Again, just because it's not to your tastes, this does not mean there's not a market large enough to support it. A film doesn't have to break records to make money.

    "The model could be "killed" on the basis of a lower quality product. Isn't that significant?"

    That depends on who agrees with you. If a large enough audience likes the film and it becomes profitable, your opinions don't matter. If it fails, and you do a post-mortem and find that 90% of the potential audience agree with you then you might have a point. But, every film ever made has detractors - even Citizen Kane has its haters. It's too early to tell what the overall response is to the film, only that *you* don't like it - and you are insignificant (as am I, of course).

    At this point, we only have the model to comment upon as nobody's seen the finished product. But, at the time I write this, the film has had no traditional marketing and is already 1/3 of the way to releasing the 2nd episode. This includes numerous people who have sent $25 and $50 donations. Clearly, your tastes do not match the tastes of everybody.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nobody gets more pleasure from the failures of others than Mike. Good on ya, bud!


    I'm sorry, but are you really just flat out lying about everything now? I spend all my time showing content creators how to be successful, and highlighting and celebrating success stories. Claiming I get pleasure from failure is clearly wrong to anyone who can read.

    What have you done with your life to help content creators?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This includes numerous people who have sent $25 and $50 donations. Clearly, your tastes do not match the tastes of everybody

    No, nor do I expect my tastes to match the tastes of everyone else. Some people find Nina Paley funny. I don't.

    What I do know is that if I was trying to create and market a new cartoon series, I wouldn't call Nina to lead the project. As much as some people may like her, I think it would be a better bet to go with someone who is a little more mainstream.

    If people are making $25 and $50 donations, they are fools who are failing for the artificial scarcity, people I generally think of as the suckers who pay the freight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "As much as some people may like her, I think it would be a better bet to go with someone who is a little more mainstream."

    Well, thanks for proving my argument. How mainstream or otherwise an artist is, that's frankly irrelevant. What matters is whether their appeal is sufficient to make them a decent profit. If the mainstream doesn't care for Paley, but enough people wish to pay to make her a decent living, who the hell cares what the mainstream thinks?

    "If people are making $25 and $50 donations, they are fools who are failing for the artificial scarcity"

    They're fools because they wish to pay for something you don't personally like? Again, thanks for proving you're a damn moron.

    Besides, doesn't the mainstream movie business depend on people "donating" $20+ at a time to see a movie? What makes the Zenith audience "morons" but not the people who paid to see Battle Los Angeles despite its low critical rating, most likely spending nearly the same on tickets? At least the Zenith audience knew whether they liked the movie before paying up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They're fools because they wish to pay for something you don't personally like? Again, thanks for proving you're a damn moron.

    No, they are fools for paying way over what something is really worth, giving a whole bunch of people the "free lunch". These are the same sort of people who would be on here whining about how making them pay $3 for a rental instead of $1 is such a rip off, or how the $1.49 songs on itunes are such a rip compared to 99 cents, but they are willing to pay $25 or $50 to reveal the next part of a movie.

    This isn't about taste in movies (my opinion of the movie), but rather of people stupidly throwing money at something because it's the "cool next way".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 22nd, 2011 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hmmm... a few things here:

    First off, how do you know that people are paying for "the next cool thing" and nothing else? It definitely sounds to me like you're letting your own dislike of the end product inform your opinion of the audience. If there are people who honestly like the movie, what exactly is wrong with their actions?

    "the same sort of people who would be on here whining about how making them pay $3 for a rental instead of $1 is such a rip off, or how the $1.49 songs on itunes are such a rip compared to 99 cents, but they are willing to pay $25 or $50 to reveal the next part of a movie."

    How, exactly, do you know those are the people paying such sums instead of those willing to pay $3 for rentals and $1.49 for iTunes? Again, you're letting your own prejudices label the audience, and then going off on wild tangents from there.

    "people stupidly throwing money at something because it's the "cool next way"."

    Like cinema with sound? Like Technicolour? Like 3D? Betamax? VHS? Blu Ray? Netflix? Please, tell me which major change in the movie business didn't start with some people paying money for the "next big thing".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Michael, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    At least he's providing a great example of what not to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This