- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I have to settle for contributor without a t-shirt. Lol.
A good actor for John Galt would be Clive Owen. He has a strong appearance and was great in "Hemmingway and Gelhorn."
I thought the movie was already fully funded. Why does it need more strong capitalists to "help invest" in it?
I've already done that and perused the FAQs. They say merely that the donations will be used to "expand" production, distribution, and marketing (broad categories that cover just about anything and everything in making a movie). And then another paragraph in one of the FAQs contradicts all that and claims that the donations are "not about the money" but about marketing.
Marketing? What happened to "production, distribution" mentioned in an earlier paragraph?
If marketing only, will the donations be used only to market AS-3? Or will they be used to market the entire, completed trilogy? Apparently, no one inquired.
So why don't you explain it to me, richrobinson, since you are so easily satisfied with vague explanations provided on the Kickstarter site.
One is born every day, as P.T. Barnum quipped. No one ever doubted there would be plenty of suckers ready and willing to throw their money at a project that already had money. You're in denial if you believe that's what all the snickering was about.
Oh, and by the way, much of the snickering was being done by former-generation Objectivists and other admirers of Rand, not unidentified "haters."
[The movie itself is fully funded]
According to the producers.
Which broaches the question of why they would ask for donations on top of that.
[and would be made and released with or without the kickstarter monies.]
Unsubstantiated assumption and subjective opinion on your part. No one knows if that's true or not, and it's obviously too late now. Your statement is as stupid as Obama's claim that "America would have lost even more jobs had we not injected stimulus money into the economy." Unmeasurable, unknowable, unverifiable.
But if you prefer to believe your statement on the basis of faith, go right ahead.
[Those funds will help to market ASIII.]
Not according to the FAQs on the Kickstarter page. Try reading them sometime. One paragraph claims the donations will be used to "expand" the budgets for production, distribution, and marketing. Got that? Not just marketing, but production and distribution, too. The next paragraph, however, contradicts the first paragraph by claiming the request for more money was not about the money (?) but, rather, was about marketing. So the 2nd paragraph dispenses with the notion that Kickstarter donations will be used to "expand" the budgets for production and distribution, too.
[If the first 2 parts are promoted at the same time I am happy with that.]
I'm quite sure you are, and that you'd be happy with any use to which Aglialoro and Kaslow put your money. That's between you and your wallet.
[Contributions were voluntary so I am a bit perplexed as to why you are upset by it.]
I've never claimed to be upset. Wonder why you would think that. In fact, I'm highly amused – by your gullibility.
???
Not sure I understand your question. You're asking, "Exactly what is gullible about contributing money to producers who claim they already have money for their project?"
Is that what you're asking? Because that's actually what you're asking.
"What's so gullible about donating money to people who don't need it, and who give vague and 'generic' explanations regarding what they intend to do with it?"
If your point is 'buyer beware' why the name calling? why the taunting?
your influence is nil because your objective is so obvious. Try commenting on another topic-maybe
you'll fool someone there
richrobinson frowns: you're not supposed to answer a question with a question.
asked not answered-
It would be gratifying to see those who profited so much from a capitalist system that they would support a project about capitalist values. Businessmen are not capitalists. There is almost no project that could not use more money. what is YOUR point troll?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWTn-bjJN...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS3re2lcS...
We don't see many projects on Kickstarter claiming to be already "fully funded" asking for yet more money for vague reasons like, "with more money, we can do even MORE stuff!" If you don't find that fundamental fact suspicious in and of itself, you're even more naive than I originally thought.
But it takes an irritant like me to tell that to you, since everyone else on this board is too busy complimenting one another as to how "rationally selfish" they are, and how well they've "integrated" (i.e., uncritically absorbed) Objectivism.
And by the way: You're welcome.
It's going to cost me 5% of each paycheck that I can't afford.
Obamacare is making me buy what I didn't have because I didn't want to buy it.
Which is pretty much the opposite of the kickstarter campaign...
that's amazing.
History tonight folks. sniff