Since the movie was funded via kickstarter, does he get to keep ALL of the profits?
Seems to me like a ridiculous way to make movie.
Usually you share profits with your financial backers, in this case does he get to keep 100% of profits?
You have misunderstood the way kickstarter works. The projects on kickstarter and indiegogo NEVER share the profits of the project with the backers. They have perks, such as a signed photo.
share[deleted]
Even though I thought the end product was pretty bad, it was still a damn lot of hard work put into the movie, not only by James or Kevin but tons of other people too. For Kevin and James, it was 8 years in the making though, and James also had a baby born just around the time he started doing editing, post-production and all that, while still producing videos here and there for the site too. I think he deserves all the profit he can get. It's his life, his dreams, and his job too - don't forget that he does AVGN and everything related full-time.
I find it strange how so many people don't even know how crowdfunding works, even though by this time it's not even a novel idea, it's been around for years. It's even stranger when the people who contributed bitch and moan, because nobody forced them to give a single cent and it's clearly stated on the funding pages what you get for all the different amounts you contribute. And if you didn't contribute, then you still don't have any right to bitch or moan. Just look up how these things work, rent or buy the movie if you want to (or just torrent it) and that's it.
this is how crowdfunding works: you pay the money, he gets the profit. If more people know how crowdfunding works, I don't think there'll be the avgn movie.
sharePeople were donating well before the official indiegogo page knowing they weren't getting anything back other than higher quality content, which is how he was able to get a new camera.
I know you and many others have this greedy mentality of "if I give you something you better give it back to me" but some people can do it because they're being truly generous. And they're being generous because they want higher quality content (even if the movie wasn't all that great in the end).
Stuff like this reminds me of "Movie Poop Shoot.com" from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
I hope he is able to make enough money from this movies to fund whatever he wants to do next. He deserves it.
shareHe'll probably just e-beg again though. I mean it worked great this time. He got money on both ends since backers still had to pay for the finished product. If his fans are dumb enough to do that he may as well keep milking them.
shareWho are you calling dumb? I'm very aware of how crowdfunding works and I feel in no way cheated. I just wanted to chip in and the reward is that the movie got made.
shareA lot of his fans were happy to give him some money as a reward for all of the free entertainment he's put out for years. Your talk of "milking" is disgusting, as he has made many videos about how he felt dirty to get all of this money, and thanking the fans in a very humble manner for their support to make his dream come true.
shareOh please. James' fans don't owe him anything. He gets ad revenue from every click on his site, plus money from his merchandise sales, dvd sales, Screw Attack partnership, Paypal donations, and a monthly stipend from his fans on Patreon.
The reason he "felt dirty" about e-begging from his fans is because of this thing called a "conscience." He absolutely could have found legitimate ways to fund his film like Kevin Smith had to do when he was starting out, but why bother when a sucker is born every minute? He also could have given a free copy to anyone that donated at least $10. But nah, he gave them autographed photos of himself instead like he's a celebrity and it holds actual value.
A fool and his money are soon parted, and he took you rubes for a ride. Sorry, but the truth hurts.
Oh please. James' fans don't owe him anything. He gets ad revenue from every click on his site, plus money from his merchandise sales, dvd sales, Screw Attack partnership, Paypal donations, and a monthly stipend from his fans on Patreon.
He absolutely could have found legitimate ways to fund his film like Kevin Smith had to do when he was starting out, but why bother when a sucker is born every minute?
He also could have given a free copy to anyone that donated at least $10. But nah, he gave them autographed photos of himself instead like he's a celebrity and it holds actual value.
[deleted]
Are you arguing that the backers of Evil Dead.....who got their money back and profit (I forget where I read it but Bruce Campbell talked about how a major reason they made ED 2 was so their backers from ED1 could make a profit)....is the same as someone asking for donations?
I don't begrudge James for asking for money, I donated a small amount for all the solid videos he's produced and I've watched..,for free....for years. But the funding model for a Evil Dead and AVGNTM are totally different animals and not comparable at all.
I rented the movie the other day and I will say James really should have brought in an outside writer. His character seemed toned down and the dialogue and jokes were pretty bad.
I wasn't expecting too much but I didn't even finish watching it. His black friend was terrible, and that General guy.....what exactly was that supposed to be?
His videos are much better or used to be, now they're more James than AVGN.
[deleted]
An investor isn't "donating". Are you sure you know what "donating" means?
sharethink of it this way, if James doesnt make money out of the Nerd, he would need to find a regular job and then we have no more nerd episodes (or far and between)
sharegreedy selfish morons.. this is what humans are like in this world, they wont do something unless they get something back.. you're going to be helping out a guy you're a fan of that been giving you entertainment since '06... and it's YOUR choice to donate or not, you don't do it to get anything out, you do it to help.. do people seriously donate for the rewards?.. scum.. if you went into a burning house and saved a wild dog caught inside, and you went through all the trouble, nearly died and got outside with the dog in your arms, the dog bites and leaves you with mark that will end in a nasty scar, and he runs away.. you think the animal is ungreatful and you only did to get a thanks? or did you do it because you actually care in your heart about this animal and didn't just do it and be appreciated for it. there is a difference. greedy azsholes "what's in it for me?" and people who do it because they want to and don't want something out of it.
shareWell, yeah, I don't blame anyone who wanted a decent movie back after they gave their money to an entertainer they loved. Why go on a self-righteous rant like that?
shareWhy go on a self-righteous rant like that?
Donating = expect nothing back, usually involves supporting a cause you like
Investing = expect a return of some sorts, whether it's financial or publicity
This film was terrible, there are no two ways about it, it IS the worst film I've ever seen, and being that's it's based on my favourite youtube show is a hard thing to say, but this film was a steaming pile of puppy poo
I'm not sure what the reasoning behind it was, but it does kind of irk me that people who donated to the project didn't get to see the movie for free. I know that if I were to ever fund something via Kickstarter or one of those crowdfunding sites, I would want it to be reciprocal. I would want the option for the final product to find its way into the hands of the people who made it possible. The things that were offered were things that really didn't have much of a tangible value.