>> It argues neither. It asks the question: you apparently want to do this, you seem to have the means to do it, why do you go through a crowdfunding site?
Isn't the standard operating procedure for making movies to go out and find other people to finance the bulk of your project, whether it be private investors or a big studio? A lot of rich stars/producers/directors get financing even though they could afford to do it all by themselves.
>> Why do you go through a crowdfunding site?
Because it's trendy and has worked for some other projects (i.e., Veronica Mars)?
> Because it's trendy and has worked for some other projects (i.e., Veronica Mars)?
Right, and that's the other thing people can take offense to. Many early "big" crowdfunding project had a feeling of "you're making it possible at all", that makes people think they can have an impact. "I heard there's free money to be had"... not so much.
What do you want crowdfunding to be? A "farm system" for talent that will move on to be financed by Big Content, or Big Content's inevitable replacement? Because the way you're framing it, you can't have it both ways.
Isn't the standard operating procedure for making movies to go out and find other people to finance the bulk of your project, whether it be private investors or a big studio? A lot of rich stars/producers/directors get financing even though they could afford to do it all by themselves.
>> Why do you go through a crowdfunding site?
Because it's trendy and has worked for some other projects (i.e., Veronica Mars)?