Attention, "Chuck" fans -- a film version of the now-canceled TV series may be in the works.
Former series star Zachary Levi says he's definitely interested in taking a cue from the successful "Veronica Mars" movie fundraising campaign and raising money to bring back "Chuck" on the big screen. "I've always thought doing a 'Chuck' movie would be fun," Zach told E! News. "If we had just gone straight to monetizing it and selling it directly to the fans then, we might still actually be on the air." The 32-year-old actor admitted there are "a lot of conversations that need to happen" before official plans to revive the spy series would be announced, but said he intends to get the conversation started. "I'm going to sit down with ['Chuck' creators] Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak and just kind of gauge their temperature on it -- see how much they'd want to be involved," he said. "Of course, I'd only want to do it with the blessing of them."
Zach also praised "Veronica Mars" creator Rob Thomas and star Kristen Bell for using Kickstarter to fund a big screen version of the fan-favorite show. "I think what Kristen and Rob have done is awesome," he said. "I love that they care about their fans. I love that they are bringing their talents back to their fans and wanting to kind of complete the journey they never got to the first time around. "I will watch that movie," he added. "I can't wait to see it." As previously reported on AccessHollywood.com, the "Veronica Mars" movie project hit its $2 million donation goal in less than one day. Rob and Kristen have currently raised over $3.8 million for the project, donated by more than 59,000 backers.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/zachary-levi-takes-cue-veronica-mars-wants-fan-160916722.html (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/zachary-levi-takes-cue-veronica-mars-wants-fan-160916722.html)
I like this idea and I like this trend too. Count me in! I miss "Chuck."
Sarah dances in for Chuck, Ep. 2-2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6SQNtKfQ2I#ws)
I'm really not happy with the Veronica Mars kickstarter and I would be even less enthusiastic about Chuck being "Kickstarted" as well. I would much rather the Chuck series stay as it is. It shouldn't need funding from crowd-source to get a movie going. Last I checked, the studios had plenty of money to fund these projects. There is absolutely no reason they need help from us.
I really miss Chuck too and would love to see a movie or even a tv movie. I do agree with KingIsaac though about sending them money to make a movie but not on Chuck staying as it is.
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on March 25, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
I'm really not happy with the Veronica Mars kickstarter and I would be even less enthusiastic about Chuck being "Kickstarted" as well. I would much rather the Chuck series stay as it is. It shouldn't need funding from crowd-source to get a movie going. Last I checked, the studios had plenty of money to fund these projects. There is absolutely no reason they need help from us.
It isn't about the studios having the money, it's about where they decide to spend the money. A Kickstarter basically is a bypass to that decision process. It directly funds a specific project.
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on March 25, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
I'm really not happy with the Veronica Mars kickstarter and I would be even less enthusiastic about Chuck being "Kickstarted" as well. I would much rather the Chuck series stay as it is. It shouldn't need funding from crowd-source to get a movie going. Last I checked, the studios had plenty of money to fund these projects. There is absolutely no reason they need help from us.
Curious position to take. Why would it matter? What's the downside of using crowd source funding?
Quote from: Bryancd on March 25, 2013, 06:25:59 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on March 25, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
I'm really not happy with the Veronica Mars kickstarter and I would be even less enthusiastic about Chuck being "Kickstarted" as well. I would much rather the Chuck series stay as it is. It shouldn't need funding from crowd-source to get a movie going. Last I checked, the studios had plenty of money to fund these projects. There is absolutely no reason they need help from us.
Curious position to take. Why would it matter? What's the downside of using crowd source funding?
There isn't so much a downside as it feels largely disingenuous. The Veronica Mars Kickstarter asks $2 million dollars to fund a movie. Yeah...we all know it takes much more than $2million dollars to make a full feature length movie. So this isn't crowd source funding. It's basically gamble pre-ordering to maybe get a movie. That is, if Warner Bros doesn't can it at the last minute which they still could and that money would disappear into the ether. What concerns me more is that this particular Kickstarter doesn't even tell us where the money is going.
It's made worse by the fact that you pay almost double the money for a digital copy of the movie without any movie ticket. So you have to pay for the movie ticket as well if you want to see it in theaters. If this isn't double or triple dipping, I'm not sure what is.
At the end of the day, Warner Bros didn't need that $2,000,000 to make this movie. So why should it be up to crowd-sourcing to even get these movies moving forward? You could make a poll or something to determine whether people wanted this movie.
It just really concerns me, all of this. Yes, people are free to not kickstart but what if favored series here start getting held hostage by this? Idk....none of this feels right to me.
OK, but I am still confused how this impacts you or the development of new content in a negative way. If people want to deploy capital this way that is their prerogative. If a film maker wants to create interest and raise initial money this way to get the attention of a studio, where is the harm? It seems to drive more opportunities for an egalitarian approach to film making that is compelling.
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on March 25, 2013, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on March 25, 2013, 06:25:59 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on March 25, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
I'm really not happy with the Veronica Mars kickstarter and I would be even less enthusiastic about Chuck being "Kickstarted" as well. I would much rather the Chuck series stay as it is. It shouldn't need funding from crowd-source to get a movie going. Last I checked, the studios had plenty of money to fund these projects. There is absolutely no reason they need help from us.
Curious position to take. Why would it matter? What's the downside of using crowd source funding?
There isn't so much a downside as it feels largely disingenuous. The Veronica Mars Kickstarter asks $2 million dollars to fund a movie. Yeah...we all know it takes much more than $2million dollars to make a full feature length movie. So this isn't crowd source funding. It's basically gamble pre-ordering to maybe get a movie. That is, if Warner Bros doesn't can it at the last minute which they still could and that money would disappear into the ether. What concerns me more is that this particular Kickstarter doesn't even tell us where the money is going.
It's made worse by the fact that you pay almost double the money for a digital copy of the movie without any movie ticket. So you have to pay for the movie ticket as well if you want to see it in theaters. If this isn't double or triple dipping, I'm not sure what is.
At the end of the day, Warner Bros didn't need that $2,000,000 to make this movie. So why should it be up to crowd-sourcing to even get these movies moving forward? You could make a poll or something to determine whether people wanted this movie.
It just really concerns me, all of this. Yes, people are free to not kickstart but what if favored series here start getting held hostage by this? Idk....none of this feels right to me.
This is for people willing to put up their money to get something they want. It's not any kind of dipping. It's people paying for something they want to see happen. That's what Kickstarter does it let's you jump in on something you want to see happen and wouldn't happen if it wasn't done that way.
At the end of the day, Warner Bros could care less about making a movie and would easily put that 2 mill into something else if it was their money. However, they are now in the position to help with the movie with far less risks to them.
How is anything going to get held hostage by any of this?
Quote from: X on March 25, 2013, 04:02:40 PM
This is for people willing to put up their money to get something they want. It's not any kind of dipping. It's people paying for something they want to see happen. That's what Kickstarter does it let's you jump in on something you want to see happen and wouldn't happen if it wasn't done that way.
At the end of the day, Warner Bros could care less about making a movie and would easily put that 2 mill into something else if it was their money. However, they are now in the position to help with the movie with far less risks to them.
How is anything going to get held hostage by any of this?
Yeah, there is no correlation between giving $100 to help fund the initial stages of a film project prior to a studio stepping in to pick up the remaining tab and then having to buy a movie ticket to see it in theaters. That's simply part of the cost and if $10 is make or break you likely can't afford to be part of the kickstart. I would also suggest that it's the initial $2 million that's the bitch of the bunch, so to speak, of getting a project started. NO ONE at a studio wants to deploy that capital when the risk is at it's highest, they are very motivated to say NO. It's like space flight, the hardest and riskiest and most risk capital part is that first 30 miles or so after liftoff. After that it's a LOT easier.