And that's all very bohemian and feel good of us, but if we approach it like that, we don't get to keep making stuff. I mean that's the simple truth of it. It's the age old dilemma of the artist, you can make good work and make one of it, or you can make work that sells and make more of it, and sneak in the good ones.

I think that with the way distribution and marketting has evolved with the internet, there probably is room to make good work and have it appeal to a broader audience and make money on it, but it'll take some serious work to figure it out. AND BEFORE you go ape shit on me, by broader audience I mean, you can reach more people who will appreciate whatever you've made. if there's one thing the internet has taught us is that no matter what you're into, somewhere out there someone else is into it too. You just might be on opposite sides of the planet. And that's where a lot of art has stumbled in the past, because there was no way to get those people together.

So the audience is out there, it's just a matter of reaching everyone who would be interested in it, which is where it gets tricky.

Probably, like I said, I could be entirely wrong. But I don't know how to get past that wall. I really wish I did, but I don't.

This is already happening, which is awesome. And I think it will probably keep happening, which could be awesome. The issue is:

A lot longer than it should, maybe even too long to catch the wave. The thing is, we already have a plethora of ways to distribute (Youtube, vimeo, etc etc). But none of those ways provide a way to market or make money off of your project.

An example: Most major movies these days will get marketing everywhere on the web (I'm gonna stick to the web here, but you can imagine how it would apply to TV/radio other formats) there are banner ads on every site you go to, youtube trailers in front of videos. People KNOW that this fucking thing is coming out. And the films budget shows that price (What is it, a movie's budget is actually a third marketing or something like that).

But an indie kickstarter funded thing just can't do that. So unless you're Louis CK or Kaufman, and can get that kind of marketing just because you're doing a thing, no one is going to know that you're thing exists. Obviously there are a few steps you can take, but nothing even remotely on the level of people of would need to reach in order to make it profitable.

So really the only way i can see this becoming a thing is:

1) We need someone, somewhere to figure out how to and then actually set up a system to market a movie at a high level and to wide audience, and then to do it, EXTREMELY CHEAPLY, and that's the key part.

2) We need a place where movies can be hosted, in high quality, in either a pay to watch format (You know 3 bucks to watch the movie) or some sort of netflix style with ads. (I'm not even remotely experienced with establishing or running this kind of operation, so there may be more options, but this is what I got.)

3) All of this would need to be cheap enough and reliable enough to be run off a kickstarter budget, and produce enough enough FOR THE ARTISTS that they can become self suffiecient enough to not have to rely entirely on kick starter or other funding sources.

So, I think it COULD happen, but it's going to take some serious genius behind it to make a viable option for true indie stuff. And I think that by the time it becomes a viable option it'll have missed the wave of support.

EDIT: On further thought. It could work to just have step one, and then have the artists sell the film on their own. But that could get extremely hectic and be a huge headache for the artists. But the key factor is still getting enough people interested in your thing.

Here's the problem. And I've held this ever since Louie CK did his first experiment. But the thing is, you NEED to already be Kaufman or Louie Ck in order to pull something like this off. Because there is literally no way to make an indie widely profitable, on the level that kickstarter let's you fund it.

What I mean is that, kickstarter has made it soooo frickin simple to get something funded, from people all around the globe. But there is no way to release it once it's done and actually make enough money to make it profitable to be able to make another one. Because unless you have a fanbase that will go "Holy Shit it's Kaufman (or Louie CK) doing a thing, I'm going to go buy that.". NO ONE on the face of the planet, no matter how well you try to market yourself, is going to go "Holy Shit Chris Walker is doing a thing!" Because who the fuck is Chris Walker? Never heard of him.

Once we can have something to overcome that. Then we can start talking about it being a threat. But for now it's a closed loop system of people getting funded, making thier project, and having to get funded again...and the loop continues. With a few outliers.

Anyways. The film looks like it could be awesome, and I'm a big fan of Kaufman and of stop-mo so this should be interesting.

believenothing.net/2012/06/16/out-of-th … meteorite/

I will never ever understand the love for Wall-E as a movie.

The first girl I ever went on a date with. Yeah, that didn't last long.

I've been hearing this complaint a lot. I haven't actually seen it yet, but I'm trying to figure out if that's just a factor of having Raimi's Spiderman tell his origin so soon ago or if the movie's just doing it wrong. Because as DiF has pointed out several times, becoming is more interesting than being (Which I do agree with for the most part).

Those bouncing cubes man, just about killed me.

Although, the aerial faith plate thing you had was a ridiculous amount of fun...if slightly useless.

I'm scared.

So, I'll take a moment to say EVERYONE GO WATCH EVERY SHOW STARKID HAS DONE.

But also... their new webseries (Well..not technically it's not by Starkid, but basically half the cast and crew): The Worlds Worst Musical.

Carry on citizens.