Jessica Mae Stover wants independent funding for her movie project “Artemis Eternal,” so she’s turning to social media for a (her term) “Crowd-Funding” drive.
The idea is simple enough: visitors get to follow the entire process. Contributions for the film range from $1+ with the contributor getting an online credit for the contribution, $25+ gets the contributor a credit in the film, and $100+ gets credit in the film and “Wingman” status that offers name credits on the “silver aurum,” the development map on the front page of the movies website. So far the project has raised $40,000 of the $100,000 required to produce the movie.
The idea is being pitched as cutting out the middleman, and breaking “new ground on a new formula for film finance, production and exhibition.” You can follow the process on the Artemis Eternal website here.
See all
Post
Crowd funding - interesting term. Well, if I could get a real Spawn movie, I’d be all for this - since Hollywood ruins a lot of awesome ideas. Perhaps this would be good on thepoint.com, because I wouldn’t want to be charged for something that never makes it to viability.
Obligatory: She’s very cute. Now that we got that out of the way, continue with the discussion.
Count me in. Very cool!
My computer was really slow and I thought it was maleware, but i just uninstalled Flash and now its wicked fast. Unfortunately I can’t see the video, but i was ready to buy a new laptop. Anyone else have the same problem?
This reminds me of the creative ways people finance their media endeavors. http://rusmartour.com is financing their road trip from donations as they broadcast of justin.tv and volunteer across the country.
Crowd funding. Now that sounds like a cool way to get rid of Vulture Capitalists.
There was a similar model used for a horrible independent film a few years ago - http://www.arnoldsparkmovie.com/
Hopefully this project will yield better results
A similar model was used for a horrible independent film a few years ago - http://www.arnoldsparkmovie.com/
Hopefully this project will yield better results
This was also done before by director Melissa Baldin in 2005 with her feature-film “Freezerburn” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438040/ — I should know because I was one of the contributors… she had 5,000 ‘Producer’ T-shirts printed up and sold them for $20 each to raise cash to cover post-production expenses.
Although the movie basically tanked at a couple of festivals and her subsequent idea of auctioning off the film rights on Ebay didn’t pan out like she planned, it was a first. Jessica’s statement that she is the first is not correct.
http://www.freezerburnthemovie.com/
Enjoying the comments. We definitely welcome smart, savvy Wingmen. Hope to see you soon!
I’m not a huge fan of all Flash websites but I think the design is top notch. It really lays out the filmmaking process very well. I made a small donation and plan to donate more in the future.
Why not use IndieGogo.com? That site is already doing this and has already funded two movies. They were at Sundance.
From the description here, it sounds a lot like (if not exactly like) The 1 Second Film, which even has a ton of celebrity contributions:
http://www.the1secondfilm.com/
Not that I’d ever want to claim a buzzword, but I’m afraid I have to claim that buzzword.
Alberta/Niraj: No thanks on indiegogo. I prefer to work directly with the audience. Plus in the doing they just become another gatekeeper like a few others barking up that tree. That means they have rules and a process you have to abide by. It becomes template.
& 1 second is very different once you get to specifics and execution. Neither of those create sustainable models that artists can use by themselves long term, and they don’t really change the cues, either. That doesn’t mean they are wrong; just not for us.
Trust me when I say I would love to do a vid interview walking through all the nuances of these ideas. There’s so much insight and expertise our team has that I’d love to share. We’ve hardly scratched the surface. Some of the projects out there bother me as I don’t feel they are effective enough, but overall I’m glad (and think it’s important to note) that a handful of people are working to create alternative avenues.
hi jess, which film school did you go to?
http://massify.com is doing something similar, but on a much larger scale. You can read more about them here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.....ssify.html
http://www.filmriot.com/ is actually funded and trying to create a platform to do this type of thing on a larger scale.
Although not original Jessica Mae Stover is harnessing the power of social web. This highlights the need for more independent funding for media and the desire to have more control over your project. A concept that Matt Hanson coined CINEMA 2.0 with his project http://aswarmofangels.com/. A concept well worth watching and taking part.
Hey Jess, awesome job engaging your fans! Your story is exactly why we built IndieGoGo: to help every filmmaker do what you’re doing… i.e. directly involve audiences in the filmmaking process. Good luck gathering your “1,000 True Fans” as Kevin Kelley recently discussed… and keep on rocking!
Swarm of Angels is really the only other project I’ve seen that I think has a viable business model for artists and audiences. Although, what we are doing in terms of artistic methodology and distro differs greatly - but that’s a good thing: Just as in the case of storytelling, the “originality” in the evolution and exploration of this new model(s) lies in the execution and how you approach the idea/what makes it your own and authentic. While there are some things I don’t agree with or question in their model in terms of increasing your chances for having a quality film; again I don’t think that makes it wrong and I like that they have a specific take.
Filmriot I take a lot of issue with (again, just another gatekeeper). Professionally Massify doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve been out talking about some of this with students and other filmmakers/motion picture artists. It troubles me that more artists and audience members than I would have guessed don’t yet see the differences or downside to some of these “you bring your film to us” websites.
“Crowd-Funding” is “a viable business model for artists and audiences.” Back in the day some doc producers, like myself, called it “People Powered” media. Folks who gave money got their name in the credits, if they wanted (many did’nt) and ‘followed’ the process via monthly, or quarterly, calls and/or direct mailings (where we also raised more money).
Without the web… we took videos door-to-door and organized screenings (video parties); as well as had a multiple voicemail box phone# for audio docs and PSAs.
I (independently) produced what I wanted and often found organizations, and on occaison a business or university, who would pay for the right to show, broadcast, own or use the work in the field.
Of course, here in the U.S., Public Television and National Public Radio have been “Crowd-Funding” from “people like you” for decades. No two of anything are exactly alike. Calling it Crowd-Funding 2.0 is still “new ground”… and you don’t have to split (’the original’) hairs.
Very nice site and project. All the best.
@Claude
You can say that the medium is the message in this case.
i.e. doing it via the Web is what’s new about it.
@Jess
You’ve won the battle even if the movie flops.
A movie about this “crowd funding 2.0″ experience would be watched by everyone interested in taking power back from the gatekeepers.
I had written about 2 years ago regarding a “crowd funding” model for tech startups (before Y Combinator et al came about) so I can relate to this very much.
Again, you’ve won the battle.
Have fun with the movie.
I can’t sleep (I’m on Pacific Time) because you people fascinate me so. I really do hope to see some of you as Wingmen (you’ll make us stronger) and down the line at screenings, et cetera. If we’re all saying the same thing - then let’s stop talking and finish the job!
not the first by a longshot - the swarm of angels project has been doing this for a while, among others.
I think this method would be more viable in the long term if investors in the film got equity… so if I contribute 10K…. and movie goes on to make 5 mil… I get a little piece of that pie.
Right now people are donating because its a novel feel good idea. But if other films want to get in on this there has to be a bigger reward for the investor than a one line credit.
Also, Robert Greenwald has been running on subscription based donations for three years now and has a monthly budget of $70k I think…
The issue isn’t whether you can raise 100k / 1 mil / ? … so many filmmakers raise the money to make their first feature flop. The question is whether you can actually make a good film, get it to festivals and get it distributed (and then, finally, if you can make any money)
Oh yeah - one last thought before work - Duncan you should have mentioned indiegogo.com - someone brought it up in the comments before, but they are trying (and not yet succeeding) to allow any filmmaker to do just this. There is a horror film version too called Massify.
Good discussion - I hope everyone who is taking the time to be so passionate in their comments takes the time to drop at least $10 on Jess. $100 gets you Wingman status and a chance to “be there at the beginning”. This effort was recently highlighted on MySpace and YouTube. There is also an Artemis Eternal Facebook group. Lots of opportunities to learn more and become a part of something awesome.
The bandwagon is gaining speed. Are you on?
Browncoats, take notice.
Alex, we’ve taken notice and have stepped up to the plate. We learned about Artimis Eternal only a few weeks ago, but we’re working in the same line.
We are creating an original film set in the ‘verse of Firefly with a new crew and captain. Our intent is not to change the way movies are made, but to have the final product be a source of fundraising for the charities either supported or created by our Big Damn Heroes.
Since September 2008, we are 50% of the way through our fundraising, starting auditions next month and will begin filming in March 2009.
We hope fellow Browncoats will learn more about what we’re doing and help us raise awareness and support for the charities while giving back to the ‘verse we love.
Please learn more about what we’re doing at http://www.browncoatsredemption.com
@omgomgomg
I’d contribute and take a one line film credit for any movie that I really wanted to see made. Think of it as contributing to the arts!
@Jess
I know the guys from FilmRiot, I’m pretty sure they are wanting to build a platform for others to do exactly what you are doing. Not be the gatekeeper. Again, I think it is all about people like me who are disenchanted with the regular, blockbuster type movies out there and really want to see quality independant films get made. Good luck to you and I hope you inspire other filmmakers to do the same!
very cool, jess! hope this works out for you.
in july 2006, i started developing what i called at the time “a social media crowdfunding experiment for the vlogosphere”. the focus was on funding videobloggers and their projects. at that time, i created a wikipedia entry for crowdfunding but after several months of fighting to keep it from being deleted… i gave up and setup a wiki page on pbwiki which i invite you and anyone else to contribute to. i felt a need to create a term and describe it and attach it to the progressive crowd participation internet phenomena.
http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com
my inactive site on this topic:
http://crowdfunding.com
cheers,
sull
What’s the word on whether this could become a matter for securities regulators (SEC)? One way or another, it is an investment vehicle seeking funding from the public. Probably ignored until now due to the many pet projects out there - but what happens if a movie actually hits it big and “crowd funding” becomes big biz?
Regards,
George
Great concept, but who owns the movie? Who reaps the profits? Are people donating or investing?
Quite a few of the comments illustrate the problem with the process: You’re asking for funding up front, with little to no guarantee that the end result will even be watchable. How sustainable is the process? How many flops will you fund before you decide its just not worthwhile?
Another issue lies with giving away enough information to convince people to fund the film, without spoiling any surprises that may be in store. “Uh, I want to make a movie about a computer hacker who… ah… takes a red pill. But there will be lots of action and other stuff I can’t talk about!”
There may be a few problems here and there, but there’s also a lot to like about the current system. An author or director convinces a small group of people to fund the project on spec. We then evaluate the result by listening to blogs, reviewers, and friends, decide if it’s worthwhile, and then, and only then, pony up a few bucks (a miniscule fraction of the production price) to see it.
This sounds like Sellaband for movies.
Do you plan on giving your contributors a copy of the movie, physically (DVD) or digitally (download), since they basically already paid for it?
This general concept is actually being implemented on a large scale through an awesome site called myProducer http://www.myProducer.tv
The tools their is like a collission of Facebook and Youtube with the peer funding model baked in. There will also be a number of great collaboration tools for the filmmakers so they can use the site as a virtual studio as well as a built in marketing department with national brands wanted to support the projects.
Check it out!
Conceptually sound, but could be a regulatory nightmare.
VCs have their jobs because they’re suppose to have good forward looking perspective into which startups would succeed. Now what kind forward looking perspective do consumer crowds have? Which movie/video game they want to enjoy!
Problem comes when you try to securitize this investment. How would you regulate it? Do you incorporate every project and treat it like an IPO? If not, how do you define who/what the agent is, and what are the liabilities if the project fails due to execution?
Added note, we can probably test the waters with a half-way solution: a market where major studios can share risk with movie watchers. It serves both a financial and SIGNALING function.
That way, there’s an element of crowd-funding/interest-signaling but also you don’t have to worry about investing in dead-end projects from people who aren’t qualified to make good movies.
It’s interesting to me that there’s even a split in methodology within this space, as small as it is.
@Jess
I understand that you’re wary of placing your film in the hands of another gatekeeper, but I think the part that you’re ignoring is that not all films have the funds or technological know-how to even begin to create a system like you’ve created, let alone IndieGoGo or FilmRiot. By creating a standardized system they’re lowering the bar again, but certainly that doesn’t stop anyone from doing their work independently if they have the means. Think of it as YouTube vs. server hosting.
As for me, I find the whole concept interesting and I’ll be watching it. I feel as though this could either push movies into a *more* decentralized, too-many-cooks-state or usher in a new era of auteurs. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Brian
WGBH Lab
http://lab.wgbh.org
Jessica didn’t go to film school. She has no real training in anything. She got a lucky break and worked for AOL, got to meet some celebrities and then caught the hollywood bug and wanted to famous. The AOL fired her, and she started her quest of self promotion. She has an interesting idea here, but I can’t support someone that is not honest about who she really is. The bio on her site is a joke. She’s too embarrassed to say that she has a degree in English Lit. because it has nothing to do with film making. I find it hilarious that she claims that she will live a modest life and never sell out, yet she buys $200 jeans. You could be awesome, but your a faker. Be real. Good luck raising that money. Shouldn’t you be shooting already?
Oh, and she lives off of her parents dime and has been for several years, because she won’t get a job. Or she has a job at Starbucks or McDonlds and, again, won’t tell anyone the truth. And those “books” of hers that were “published”…ha…she paid to have her writing bound…they were not published by a publishing house. And she’s staring in her own film, even though she has never actually acted in anything more than classes she pays for…isn’t that putting your own vanity in front of the success of your movie? I mean, the professional actors you hire are clearly going to outshine and outperform you. I just can’t buy this grassroots, f the system attitude…when you are really just looking for your in.