VM Kickstarter success and the possibility of more Chuck.
dude029
Kevin Windham
Probably will not get much response here, but what do you guys think about the possibility of more Chuck? Zac has gone on record as wanting to explore the opportunity. Many questions? Would you contribute? Storyline direction? What form or distribution? If Fedak is true to his word, he won't be involved. If their is more creative input from Zac and Yvonne, I could be on board. Yvonne has always gotten what the story meant to the fans and I think Zac came around in retrospect. For quite a while there his attitude was similar to Schwedak...hey we're just making conventional television here. Too bad they failed to realize at the beginning, they weren't, but that's what it turned into. I'm patient enough to wait for some developmental details, but I can see myself paying for more Chuck.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chuck vs. the GoogleGroup" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Chuckversus...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Chuck...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Chuckversus?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Ardent Aardvark
Well, for my part I’ve vowed to never watch anything Fedak has anything to do with ever again. I’ve already broken this vow for Schwartz, having caught a few episodes of Cult, but with Schwartz it was only a half-hearted mandate anyway. :)
For instance:
I will not watch that.
Having said that, I think the Chuck story is played out, for better or worse, and I cannot fathom any realistic configuration that would induce me to cough up crowdsourcing money (as I did for Veronica Mars).
I will instead (selectively) remember Chuck with both fondness and dismay.
--
dude029
like Adam Baldwin lauded his leadership during Chuck. At the same
time, he wasn't totally attuned to the fan outcry during S3 because
he is a Hollywood guy. It was a gig to him. One that he wanted to see
succeed, but a gig nonetheless. Yvonne on the other hand is
Australian, has theatrical training and of course had no experience in
the Hollywood pr game. She was also more talented and seemingly more
invested in her character. More importantly though, the show was not a
popular hit. If you pull NCIS type ratings over time, as the lead
actor or actress, you get paid well and you have a little more
creative input as to story directions because they need you. You
couldn't have Chuck without Levi. The fact that it was a niche hit
constantly threatened by cancellation means Angus T Jones makes more
per episode than they ever made in their shows duration and that they
had NO STROKE. I think they cared. They just weren't big enough stars
on a big enough hit, to do anything about it. It's why we got all
Scwartz,Fedak decisions. I've always felt Yvonne got the show even
more than Zac did and better ratings and a little creative input from
someone who made her character exceed expectations couldn't have been
a bad thing.
On Mar 16, 3:27 pm, Kevin Windham <wepdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you misunderstood where Zac was coming from during the duration of the show. He played the titular character. He was the face of the show. He couldn't very well come out and say "No, I hate what the creative staff is doing." While it might make headlines or whatever, and draw momentary attention to the show, it would not make for a happy work environment, and it would have eventually killed the show.
>
> Yvonne was never good at toeing the company line. Part of that was, she was very uncomfortable in an interview setting. Because of her discomfort, she would normally try not to say anything that would be seen as "spoilers" and would often times fail at doing even that.
>
> All that said, while the actors appreciate the support, fandom, whatever--it's still a job to them. In the same way Tom Brady doesn't care if random Patriots' fan disagrees with a play call, Zac, Yvonne, and everyone else on set didn't care if the fans disagreed with the direction of storyline.
>
> Now, Zac sees an opportunity for a movie, so of course he's going to pander to the fans as opposed to protecting creative. The fans serve his purpose greater at this point. This isn't to say that his intentions aren't good, as far as fans are concerned. Just--as Lou Holtz used to say, things are never as good as they seem, and never as bad as they seem.
>
> Also, it's St. Patty's weekend, so I may be a bit intoxicated, and that may be while this was such a rambling, non-sensical rant.
>
dude029
creatively involved, that's a dealbreaker for me. As much as I loved
those characters, I thought they pretty much made what was a great
show with so much potential......mediocre.
On Mar 16, 5:06 pm, "Ardent Aardvark" <aardvark7...@embarqmail.com>
wrote:
> do with ever again. I've already broken this vow for Schwartz, having caught
> a few episodes of Cult, but with Schwartz it was only a half-hearted mandate
> anyway. :)
>
> For instance:
>
> chwartz-adapting-midnighters-trilogy-fox-376767
Bill Sweatland
But what if Fedak wasn’t involved? The buzz I’m hearing says that he won’t be.
Trust me, I understand the vow. I’ve made my own similar one. But in thinking about it, he laid out what the line of the next story would be. C/S are together, happy, and planning their future, and finding a bit of trouble. I suddenly find that I want to see that next chapter. Enough that I contributed $25 to the VM thing even though I’ve never seen VM and don’t give a rip if they make a movie. I want the concept to succeed.
Indeed, this is why I’m so excited about the KickStarter concept.
It makes me Chris Fedak’s customer where I never was before. NBC was his customer. Subway indirectly was. I wasn’t. He didn’t think of me that way. He didn’t make one dime more or less if I watched S5 or not. Now he has a direct financial incentive to make me happy. Because he’ll want me to help pay for the next one, and the next one. It’s free enterprise at it’s perfect best. And if CF can make me and enough people like me happy, then he must have done something right.
Ardent Aardvark
I respect that you’re not done with those characters and this premise. You have that right and I’m totally okay with that.
But I’d still say no. And it’s not just because whoever was involved with a Chuck restart in the fundraising stage might not be who ends up involved after the money is already committed. It’s because there is no one readily identifiable within the potential Chuck production group whom I trust to know what was magic about the show in the first place. Tell me which writer, producer or director fills the role of a Rob Thomas for Chuck? Veronica Mars fans WANT Rob to create the movie, as far as I can tell. What percentage of Chuck fans wants Fedak back? Really? And if not him, who else?
I think one of the great ironies in this whole situation is that if Chuck had simply been cancelled after S2 there would actually be more of a chance that a Kickstarter effort could revive it. As it is, the successive seasons poisoned the well, reducing both the number and enthusiasm of people interested in a rebirth. I know that for myself, I’d be singing a completely different tune if there’d never been seasons three through five. And think how funny that would be, if they rolled out the existing S3 as the reward for everyone’s contributions! You thought the fans’ sense of entitlement was bad before! This would be unimaginable.
As for crowd-sourced TV/Movie projects in general? I’m hugely skeptical. VM was a perfect choice to try this out—a deeply loved property that ended early and was really inexpensive ($1.8M/episode). I believe that a lot of people (like you, and the guy who donated $10k) just loved the concept and wanted to vote for it with their wallets, VM be damned. Sepinwall’s article summed this up nicely. Some projects with the right genome are going to succeed, most are not.
Bill Sweatland
I also respect your decision. Six months ago, I was probably right there with you. I’m not trying to talk you into changing your mind. I’m absolutely not. For one thing my track record with that over the years has been… not that good. J
But I would also like to point out the distinctions in this kind of effort that have me willing to rethink my position.
I get that you don’t trust Chris Fedak. It’s hard to fault you for that. And I certainly don’t want to come across as defending him. He was sloppy and just not very good at what he did. But a lot of what was wrong with Chuck is what is wrong with television in general.
A lot of TV Shows are built on UST, like Chuck was. UST only works if you have the U. And since very few shows know how long they have, they keep milking that U for all they are worth. That fact prevents honest storytelling. You hated S3. So did I. But it was spun from the TV formula of reset and keep the U alive. I can point to a dozen other shows that follow the same formula. It’s why I don’t watch TV.
A movie is a different deal. By definition, a movie has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It doesn’t depend on UST to get you to watch next week to hope it is resolved (but never is).
TV depends on appeal to the masses. All the matters is the demo number each week. Chuck really didn’t fit the model of an 8:00 network show. Its viewers skewed older, better educated, with more disposable income. I’m not sure if CF ever understood that, but it probably didn’t matter even if he did. The teenage girl’s eyeballs who squealed to see Jeffster were just as important to CF as mine. So they often split the difference.
The Jumpstart model is different. It’s more important to find that .5 million people willing to spend $10 or even .05 million willing to spend $100 than it was to have 8 million who watched the show for free. I’m now more important than the teenage girl who squeals for Jeffster. You can now target me and make me happy. Indeed, you have to do that if you hope for the 2nd gig.
So I’m not saying that we should trust CF. I’m saying that he now has an economic interest in making me happy want where he never did before. I don’t think you can overstate how important that is. I’m trusting that he wants to get paid next time. It’s the American way. J
I’m a little unsure what VM has planned. A theatrical release movie costs 200+ million. The fans can only fund a small percentage of that. That means that WB must be putting up some major capital. And the bar to call that kind of investment successful is quite high. So, like Serenity, I could see this bombing.
I wouldn’t do that with Chuck. I’d make a 2 hour ‘made for TV’ movie with the same production values as the TV show. That means that we won’t see the slow motion shot of Sarah jumping in the air and kicking some bad guy in the head while panning 360 degrees. We’ll get the TV version of that. But I figure that TV version could be produced for something like 5 million. The fans could almost totally fund that. It could be distributed a lot of ways. It could be offered to NBC at a very low rate. Similarly, it could be offered to another cable channel for that same low rate. It could be distributed using a NetFlix’s model. Or maybe a direct delivery via the web. Since WB isn’t investing any money, whatever profit they make from the distribution goes directly to their bottom line.
I’m convinced that would work… at least once.
dude029
Ardent Aardvark
I think it’s kind of a straw man argument that the VM people would try to produce a $100M movie and thus probably fail. As I said before, this was an inexpensive show in its prime, and Rob Thomas has publicly stated that WB has not promised any additional funds for production, just for promotion and distribution. They are clearly aiming at a movie that could be done within the budget provided by the KS campaign. I was as surprised by this as anyone—I figured there’d been some kind of co-pledge agreement reached with WB, where a public show of faith in the form of $x donation would produce a corresponding $y copay. That apparently isn’t happening (yet). If salaries are the biggest part of the production budget, and actors’ salaries are the biggest part of that, then they’re in great shape, because KBell is the only well-known star, with Colantoni the next most recognizable. No one here seems like they’re trying to cash out.
Having said that, a quick glance over to the VM Kickstarter site shows that they’re just about to reach $3.6M. If they open up international payments efficiently they may get to ~$6M at the end of their 30-day pledge period. Can a VM movie be made on a production budget of $6M? Absolutely. VM would be even cheaper to make than Chuck—at $1.8M per episode, VM sang. Chuck was noticeably cheesy once their budget was cut, both in FX and in the variety/number of shots per scene. Schwedak once said in an interview post budget cut that, “if we’re doing our jobs you won’t notice.” Well…
I find it perplexing that on the one hand you say that Fedak was sloppy and not very good at what he does, yet on the other hand you seem to be expressing a belief that if his target audience is simplified for him he has a chance of succeeding. Considering how tone deaf he’s been, I just flat out don’t get this. But either way, this argument is moot unless he’s involved, so we can probably safely table the whole debate for now.
To sum up, I think a Chuck KS campaign is doomed. I think if Levi gets this started he’s going to get a startling wakeup call on that first day.
dude029
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:30:12 PM UTC-4, Aardvark7734 wrote:
I think it’s kind of a straw man argument that the VM people would try to produce a $100M movie and thus probably fail. As I said before, this was an inexpensive show in its prime, and Rob Thomas has publicly stated that WB has not promised any additional funds for production, just for promotion and distribution. They are clearly aiming at a movie that could be done within the budget provided by the KS campaign. I was as surprised by this as anyone—I figured there’d been some kind of co-pledge agreement reached with WB, where a public show of faith in the form of $x donation would produce a corresponding $y copay. That apparently isn’t happening (yet). If salaries are the biggest part of the production budget, and actors’ salaries are the biggest part of that, then they’re in great shape, because KBell is the only well-known star, with Colantoni the next most recognizable. No one here seems like they’re trying to cash out.
Having said that, a quick glance over to the VM Kickstarter site shows that they’re just about to reach $3.6M. If they open up international payments efficiently they may get to ~$6M at the end of their 30-day pledge period. Can a VM movie be made on a production budget of $6M? Absolutely. VM would be even cheaper to make than Chuck—at $1.8M per episode, VM sang. Chuck was noticeably cheesy once their budget was cut, both in FX and in the variety/number of shots per scene. Schwedak once said in an interview post budget cut that, “if we’re doing our jobs you won’t notice.” Well…
I find it perplexing that on the one hand you say that Fedak was sloppy and not very good at what he does, yet on the other hand you seem to be expressing a belief that if his target audience is simplified for him he has a chance of succeeding. Considering how tone deaf he’s been, I just flat out don’t get this. But either way, this argument is moot unless he’s involved, so we can probably safely table the whole debate for now.
To sum up, I think a Chuck KS campaign is doomed. I think if Levi gets this started he’s going to get a startling wakeup call on that first day.
From: Chuck...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Chuck...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Sweatland
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Chuck...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Chuck vs. the GoogleGroup] VM Kickstarter success and the possibility of more Chuck.
I also respect your decision. Six months ago, I was probably right there with you. I’m not trying to talk you into changing your mind. I’m absolutely not. For one thing my track record with that over the years has been… not that good. J
But I would also like to point out the distinctions in this kind of effort that have me willing to rethink my position.
I get that you don’t trust Chris Fedak. It’s hard to fault you for that. And I certainly don’t want to come across as defending him. He was sloppy and just not very good at what he did. But a lot of what was wrong with Chuck is what is wrong with television in general.
A lot of TV Shows are built on UST, like Chuck was. UST only works if you have the U. And since very few shows know how long they have, they keep milking that U for all they are worth. That fact prevents honest storytelling. You hated S3. So did I. But it was spun from the TV formula of reset and keep the U alive. I can point to a dozen other shows that follow the same formula. It’s why I don’t watch TV.
A movie is a different deal. By definition, a movie has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It doesn’t depend on UST to get you to watch next week to hope it is resolved (but never is).
TV depends on appeal to the masses. All the matters is the demo number each week. Chuck really didn’t fit the model of an 8:00 network show. Its viewers skewed older, better educated, with more disposable income. I’m not sure if CF ever understood that, but it probably didn’t matter even if he did. The teenage girl’s eyeballs who squealed to see Jeffster were just as important to CF as mine. So they often split the difference.
The Jumpstart model is different. It’s more important to find that .5 million people willing to spend $10 or even .05 million willing to spend $100 than it was to have 8 million who watched the show for free. I’m now more important than the teenage girl who squeals for Jeffster. You can now target me and make me happy. Indeed, you have to do that if you hope for the 2nd gig.
So I’m not saying that we should trust CF. I’m saying that he now has an economic interest in making me happy want where he never did before. I don’t think you can overstate how important that is. I’m trusting that he wants to get paid next time. It’s the American way. J
I’m a little unsure what VM has planned. A theatrical release movie costs 200+ million. The fans can only fund a small percentage of that. That means that WB must be putting up some major capital. And the bar to call that kind of investment successful is quite high. So, like Serenity, I could see this bombing.
I wouldn’t do that with Chuck. I’d make a 2 hour ‘made for TV’ movie with the same production values as the TV show. That means that we won’t see the slow motion shot of Sarah jumping in the air and kicking some bad guy in the head while panning 360 degrees. We’ll get the TV version of that. But I figure that TV version could be produced for something like 5 million. The fans could almost totally fund that. It could be distributed a lot of ways. It could be offered to NBC at a very low rate. Similarly, it could be offered to another cable channel for that same low rate. It could be distributed using a NetFlix’s model. Or maybe a direct delivery via the web. Since WB isn’t investing any money, whatever profit they make from the distribution goes directly to their bottom line.
I’m convinced that would work… at least once.
From: Chuck...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ch...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ardent Aardvark
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:55 AM
To: Chuck...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Chuck vs. the GoogleGroup] VM Kickstarter success and the possibility of more Chuck.
I respect that you’re not done with those characters and this premise. You have that right and I’m totally okay with that.
But I’d still say no. And it’s not just because whoever was involved with a Chuck restart in the fundraising stage might not be who ends up involved after the money is already committed. It’s because there is no one readily identifiable within the potential Chuck production group whom I trust to know what was magic about the show in the first place. Tell me which writer, producer or director fills the role of a Rob Thomas for Chuck? Veronica Mars fans WANT Rob to create the movie, as far as I can tell. What percentage of Chuck fans wants Fedak back? Really? And if not him, who else?
I think one of the great ironies in this whole situation is that if Chuck had simply been cancelled after S2 there would actually be more of a chance that a Kickstarter effort could revive it. As it is, the successive seasons poisoned the well, reducing both the number and enthusiasm of people interested in a rebirth. I know that for myself, I’d be singing a completely different tune if there’d never been seasons three through five. And think how funny that would be, if they rolled out the existing S3 as the reward for everyone’s contributions! You thought the fans’ sense of entitlement was bad before! This would be unimaginable.
As for crowd-sourced TV/Movie projects in general? I’m hugely skeptical. VM was a perfect choice to try this out—a deeply loved property that ended early and was really inexpensive ($1.8M/episode). I believe that a lot of people (like you, and the guy who donated $10k) just loved the concept and wanted to vote for it with their wallets, VM be damned. Sepinwall’s article summed this up nicely. Some projects with the right genome are going to succeed, most are not.
From: Chuck...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ch...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Sweatland
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:59 PM
To: Chuck...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Chuck vs. the GoogleGroup] VM Kickstarter success and the possibility of more Chuck.
But what if Fedak wasn’t involved? The buzz I’m hearing says that he won’t be.
Trust me, I understand the vow. I’ve made my own similar one. But in thinking about it, he laid out what the line of the next story would be. C/S are together, happy, and planning their future, and finding a bit of trouble. I suddenly find that I want to see that next chapter. Enough that I contributed $25 to the VM thing even though I’ve never seen VM and don’t give a rip if they make a movie. I want the concept to succeed.
Indeed, this is why I’m so excited about the KickStarter concept.
It makes me Chris Fedak’s customer where I never was before. NBC was his customer. Subway indirectly was. I wasn’t. He didn’t think of me that way. He didn’t make one dime more or less if I watched S5 or not. Now he has a direct financial incentive to make me happy. Because he’ll want me to help pay for the next one, and the next one. It’s free enterprise at it’s perfect best. And if CF can make me and enough people like me happy, then he must have done something right.
Bill Sweatland
I picked a movie at random. Oz, The Great and Powerful. It had a production budget of 200 million. A distribution budget of another 120.
There is a two order of magnitudes difference between television and movies. What you’re talking about for 6 million is a special television episode and showing it on the big screen. And not even that many big screens if you can’t promote and distribute it.
And it’s very possible that a Chuck Kickstart effort would fizzle. I’m actually fine with that. That would be free enterprise at work as well.
I’m not sure what the legal situation is. Could WB do a Chuck movie without Fedak? But even if Fedak is involved, I see it going differently. For one thing, I see Zac and Yvonne exercising a lot more creative control. After all, either could veto this and both have expressed some dissatisfaction with how it went down.
.
Pike16
I have heard the rumors as well, and haven't yet consolidated an opinion as to what they really mean,lol...and so did the missus
But we both agreed that if The Bobs will not be involved, we might give it a chance.
As for the rationale you mentioned(albeit not being yours necessarily, I know), I think that a large percentage of those who left the show, were of that older section of the fan-base, who got fed up with Schwedak's stupid notions.
I think that it has nothing to do with devotion, a lot of us(in GG and other places) who survived S3 and kept watching, did it mostly out of momentum and a sense of completion, rather than a true love for a show, knowing full well that the third season hollowed us(and itself,lol) from any true meaning anymore, sterilizing and practically erasing the characters we grown to love in the first 2 seasons.
OTOH, as you said, though...Zach Levi might still have some pull.
Alex
anon4utu anon4utu
Now a film version of Peptuck's Serenity saga? Now that would be great.
My Soapbox
I agree with Bill that this Kickstarter concept is going to change the way entertainment is produced. And I wished it existed two years ago when Chuck ended. I'm sure that our fandom would have easily raised the money to do at least a made for TV type release to video offering. I'm not sure if that would be possible today, but I admit that I did think of it when I saw what was happening with the VM movie. And would I kick in twenty bucks, to see Sarah get her memories back and have them fix somehow that gosh awful ending they left us with? Sure I would.
Just this last week a fandom that I am part off for a web series raised $300,000 the first couple days to produce a 7 DVD set with outtakes and commentary and all that. I think that is amazing! Especially for a little web series that was getting maybe 250,000 hits an episode.
I love the possibility with Kickstarter that we can cut out all the middle men and deal right with the artists. Anybody who gets a following on YouTube has a shot now.
From: Bi...@GroupSCS.com
To: Chuck...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Chuck vs. the GoogleGroup] VM Kickstarter success and the possibility of more Chuck.