Welcome Anonymous, It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:01 pm
Press Start DVD
     

Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project(Success: $89,757 Raised)

Talk about all the Nostalgia Critic episodes here!

Moderator: DodgerOfZion

Forum rules
DO NOT post requests.

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby ZetaCheesecake » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:10 pm

The Other Guy wrote:



But this isn't the NC. The NC was cheap to start. We don't want to go Demo Reel again. That show was boring as hell to look at. I admit it. We want something professional looking, not just for the fans, but because showing higher quality can demonstrate to the big fish that we're worth using or investing in.


And there's the reason Demo reel failed, Channel awesome still seems to be in denial about the quality of DR. Read the reviews on the forums, you'll see it wasn't the fact that demo reel looked " boring" is why everyone switched off in droves, it was because the script sucked. I'm sorry to say that and i know you and Doug are perfectly good writers when up to the task but demo reel was full of annoying inaccessible characters, long overdrawn,over obvious skits , crude ethnic stereotype humour (a stern militaristic german and a drunk irishman...funny in 1935 perhaps, why not just have black guy have a watermelon addiction?) and a completely unfocus on just what the show was about or what kind of setting it was in.

You could have given Demo reel a multi million injection of cash and it would still have tanked just as much. So once again we seem to be in the position of " come on guys, if you give us all this cash we will have the most polished game show ever! with amazing lighting! and wizzy special fx!" In fact why did demo reel need a studio anyway? why not film most of it in dougs basement? the show was about guerrilla filmmakers to begin with so a basement in someones house sounds like an ideal setting. There , that would have saved you a few grand right there, see what i mean about your priorities being wrong?

NC took off and was just a guy in front of a wall, AVGN took off and it was just a guy messing around in his tiny apartment. Why do you suddenly feel a game show will be "improved" by more epic lighting and editing equipment? Just make sure the set up, games, and upbeat humor are in place and thats all you need. Make a cheap pilot and if the bare bones premise is there you could probably get some real time investors in there, a retro knowledge quiz show for people in their 20's and thirties seems like a great idea, but if your gonna go make it with your demo reel heads on it will probably tank just as hard.

I know i sound harsh and condescending but i cant beleive your blaming Demo reels failure on " how it looked". Thats like George Lucas saying Phantoms menace's problems was the lack of CGI".










The Other Guy wrote:And no, Roger Ebert never needed props to do his job. I remember watching At The Movies with Siskel and Ebert and was always amazed at how he'd do it from the confines of a dark, cardboard box without any functioning audio equipment. It really made the bickering between those two intense when you couldn't see them in pitch black. Plus, without microphones, it allowed them to really shout like nobody's business. It was nice of them to do it naked too, and on the cold floor -- because furniture and tweed suits are definitely props. Fortunately, boxes are free if you collect them from your local supermarket. Such geniuses.


You know his point was at the end of the day SIskel and ebert was basically just two guys talking.
ZetaCheesecake
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby JimB » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:50 pm

You know, I originally was going to post some funny little joke about me hopping around Rob Walker's feet like an excited and adoring puppy after Mr. Walker's thorough explanation of why a business needs money to make things, and then the previous post happened. Christ. Let's get this over with.

ZetaCheesecake wrote:I know I sound harsh and condescending, but I can't believe you're blaming Demo Reel's failure on "how it looked."

And you are right not to believe it, because he didn't fucking say that. The argument you just put forth is one only you have made. Mr. Walker never said or even implied that Demo Reel failed because of its look; he is comparing how Demo Reel looks to how he wants the new show to look.

ZetaCheesecake wrote:You know his point was, at the end of the day, Siskel and Ebert was basically just two guys talking.

And I think you know Mr. Walker's point is that sturmovik has no idea how much it costs to make a show and that his apparent belief that the equipment they use to film Nostalgia Critic in what I'm guessing is a 10'x10' suburban bedroom is all they need to film a show in a studio in a business neighborhood is ridiculous on its face. I think you further know that no one who has any right to speak for Nostalgia Critic--by which I mean anyone other than viewers like yourself--has ever claimed that Nostalgia Critic is or wants to be Siskel and Ebert, so insisting a show that doesn't want to be Siskel and Ebert should be exactly like Siskel and Ebert is just baffling.
"If you've never heard the term 'white knight,' it means, 'I'm twelve years old, so you don't have to take me seriously.'" --Mark Hill

Oh, uh, and kupo.
User avatar
JimB
 
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 am

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby AVPGuyver21 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:02 pm

So if I donate $6,500 then I get to choose the movie for the review if I'm going to star in it?
User avatar
AVPGuyver21
 
Posts: 5454
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby sturmovik » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:59 pm

JimB wrote:
ZetaCheesecake wrote:You know his point was, at the end of the day, Siskel and Ebert was basically just two guys talking.

And I think you know Mr. Walker's point is that sturmovik has no idea how much it costs to make a show and that his apparent belief that the equipment they use to film Nostalgia Critic in what I'm guessing is a 10'x10' suburban bedroom is all they need to film a show in a studio in a business neighborhood is ridiculous on its face. I think you further know that no one who has any right to speak for Nostalgia Critic--by which I mean anyone other than viewers like yourself--has ever claimed that Nostalgia Critic is or wants to be Siskel and Ebert, so insisting a show that doesn't want to be Siskel and Ebert should be exactly like Siskel and Ebert is just baffling.


I wasn't complaining about the cost, I was pointing out that letting Doug indulge his penchant for dressing up and doing sketch comedy is probably going to result in another Demo Reel instead of raising Channel Awesome to some mythical "next level". Doug's best work comes when he minimizes the goofing around. Like you said CA is a business so it should look at what has been successful and what hasn't, even if that conflicts with Doug's personal desires. NC, ATG, BR, VGC and The Review Must Go On are examples are the minimal, dialog driven humor that has worked well. BLAMing around in costume generally has not. Giving Doug a studio with all those props is like sending someone to rehab in a pharmacy.
sturmovik
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:23 pm

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby AVPGuyver21 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:06 pm

User avatar
AVPGuyver21
 
Posts: 5454
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby Ratin8tor » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:19 pm

sturmovik wrote:
JimB wrote:
ZetaCheesecake wrote:You know his point was, at the end of the day, Siskel and Ebert was basically just two guys talking.

And I think you know Mr. Walker's point is that sturmovik has no idea how much it costs to make a show and that his apparent belief that the equipment they use to film Nostalgia Critic in what I'm guessing is a 10'x10' suburban bedroom is all they need to film a show in a studio in a business neighborhood is ridiculous on its face. I think you further know that no one who has any right to speak for Nostalgia Critic--by which I mean anyone other than viewers like yourself--has ever claimed that Nostalgia Critic is or wants to be Siskel and Ebert, so insisting a show that doesn't want to be Siskel and Ebert should be exactly like Siskel and Ebert is just baffling.


I wasn't complaining about the cost, I was pointing out that letting Doug indulge his penchant for dressing up and doing sketch comedy is probably going to result in another Demo Reel instead of raising Channel Awesome to some mythical "next level". Doug's best work comes when he minimizes the goofing around. Like you said CA is a business so it should look at what has been successful and what hasn't, even if that conflicts with Doug's personal desires. NC, ATG, BR, VGC and The Review Must Go On are examples are the minimal, dialog driven humor that has worked well. BLAMing around in costume generally has not. Giving Doug a studio with all those props is like sending someone to rehab in a pharmacy.


... You do know they're making a game show, right? Like I know it was very subtly hinted at in the video and the webpage, I mean really subtle, but I think because it's a GAME SHOW and not a serious comedy/drama I don't think you can really make an argument.

It is a GAME SHOW. A GAME SHOW based on nostaligic properties, with the set and props being related to the GAME SHOW in some way. Thus it's not some sort of drama it's a GAME SHOW.

I'm starting to think that a lot of people that are bitching about it didn't watch the video where it clearly said they were making a GAME SHOW and not another Demo Reel. A GAME SHOW.
Ratin8tor
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby Iamabrawler » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:23 pm

Ratin8tor wrote:... You do know they're making a game show, right? Like I know it was very subtly hinted at in the video and the webpage, I mean really subtle, but I think because it's a GAME SHOW and not a serious comedy/drama I don't think you can really make an argument.

It is a GAME SHOW. A GAME SHOW based on nostaligic properties, with the set and props being related to the GAME SHOW in some way. Thus it's not some sort of drama it's a GAME SHOW.

I'm starting to think that a lot of people that are bitching about it didn't watch the video where it clearly said they were making a GAME SHOW and not another Demo Reel. A GAME SHOW.


I'll add this: Even if it WAS a web series... quit shoving Demo Reel's failure in their faces. Doug and Rob have proven, not even three weeks ago, that they could make something very good.

DRAGONBORED!!!!!!!

I'm not saying it's a certainty that they can do as good as this, but it's a proof that if they are really serious about something, then they can make some excellent stuff.
User avatar
Iamabrawler
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:54 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby sturmovik » Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:11 pm

The Other Guy wrote:The primary costs are set building for the new show plus the green screen room. That was mostly done. What we got hung up on is audio and temperature control. The studio's back portion bakes in the summer. We can suffer just fine, but the effect it has on the sets was something we didn't fully comprehend until the heat waves hit. The humidity is warping all the sets -- and those things took a lot of time, effort, and money to build. So it was a blow to us. The green screen room now has to be redone. So we need to rig some form of AC/ventilation system for our property. Also, the extent of the soundproofing we needed far exceeded our imagination. The cost of that plus the proper audio equipment to reduce the echo even more completely blew our minds. It's a learning process like anything else and we did test upon test for months using every method we know how, but nothing's worked. There's just no cheap fix. Now we've run out of all other options for how to fix it without a) investing major money, or b) halting everything for yet another year. Why a year? Because the money that goes to fixing the damaged sets and fixing the audio was going to be used for redoing the electrical for functioning lighting, as well as updating the cameras/computers for live editing and the classic 3 camera setup that all professional shows have.


For the record I support your capital campaign, I was simply trying to explain how it is understandable that the community of people into independent internet video shows may raise claims of e-begging. I'm sorry about the troubles with the studio and I wish you had been more up front about it. Without this explanation you had people wondering why you needed a Kickstart to deliver the shows your promised a year ago. There is no shame in saying that your studio turned into a significant cost sink and you need some help from the fans to make shows and such happen. Being all under the radar only gives power to the haters.


Ratin8tor wrote:It is a GAME SHOW. A GAME SHOW based on nostaligic properties, with the set and props being related to the GAME SHOW in some way. Thus it's not some sort of drama it's a GAME SHOW.

I'm starting to think that a lot of people that are bitching about it didn't watch the video where it clearly said they were making a GAME SHOW and not another Demo Reel. A GAME SHOW.


Brad Jones is making the game show...who know what Doug is doing apart from NC. And for the record the $ is to finish the studio in order to make the game show they had already planned to make.

I am interested in how many of the big ticket items will actually sell. Those prices are awfully steep for the rewards being offered. I urge whomever is in charge of the campaign to perhaps lower the price if they don't sell out. I mean you guys eat lunch every day. There is no reason that you shouldn't be selling out that lunch break every day. If you don't that's just money on the table.
sturmovik
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:23 pm

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby The Other Guy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:56 pm

ZetaCheesecake wrote:And there's the reason Demo reel failed, Channel awesome still seems to be in denial about the quality of DR. Read the reviews on the forums, you'll see it wasn't the fact that demo reel looked " boring" is why everyone switched off in droves, it was because the script sucked. I'm sorry to say that and i know you and Doug are perfectly good writers when up to the task but demo reel was full of annoying inaccessible characters, long overdrawn,over obvious skits , crude ethnic stereotype humour (a stern militaristic german and a drunk irishman...funny in 1935 perhaps, why not just have black guy have a watermelon addiction?) and a completely unfocus on just what the show was about or what kind of setting it was in.

You could have given Demo reel a multi million injection of cash and it would still have tanked just as much. So once again we seem to be in the position of " come on guys, if you give us all this cash we will have the most polished game show ever! with amazing lighting! and wizzy special fx!" In fact why did demo reel need a studio anyway? why not film most of it in dougs basement? the show was about guerrilla filmmakers to begin with so a basement in someones house sounds like an ideal setting. There , that would have saved you a few grand right there, see what i mean about your priorities being wrong?

NC took off and was just a guy in front of a wall, AVGN took off and it was just a guy messing around in his tiny apartment. Why do you suddenly feel a game show will be "improved" by more epic lighting and editing equipment? Just make sure the set up, games, and upbeat humor are in place and thats all you need. Make a cheap pilot and if the bare bones premise is there you could probably get some real time investors in there, a retro knowledge quiz show for people in their 20's and thirties seems like a great idea, but if your gonna go make it with your demo reel heads on it will probably tank just as hard.

I know i sound harsh and condescending but i cant beleive your blaming Demo reels failure on " how it looked". Thats like George Lucas saying Phantoms menace's problems was the lack of CGI".


You know, if Zeta held still long enough I think I could build a bridge around him to make the whole troll ensemble complete.

That was a fantastic attempt to put words into my mouth. Yeah, cause Demo Reel failed cause it was boring to look at. That's what I said.

I could write a book about why Demo Reel failed -- the boring design was just one part of it. But it WAS a complaint we heard from people who even (holy crap) liked the show. So no, we don't want our future projects to look that cheap.

I appreciate the three paragraphs of ignorant assumptions and conjecture dedicated to something I didn't say, though.

ZetaCheesecake wrote:You know his point was at the end of the day SIskel and ebert was basically just two guys talking.


I guess I imagined the sets and the graphics then. Wow, what an active imagination I have.

Oh, and for the record -- better editing equipment will allow us edit live, reducing turnaround time and giving fans more shows faster. A dedicated editing station in the studio will also allow us to coordinate the shows better, particularly if we're doing more than one project. Real stage lighting will also reduce post production time, since we won't have to color correct or digitally light people's faces. It'll also cut our production time in half, since any film studio will tell you that setting up lighting is the most time consuming part. Having a dedicated system preset will ensure that there aren't any mistakes, the lighting is consistent, and we won't have to move them around and keep readjusting (slowing production time town). Amazing as it may seem, lighting a large set is far different from lighting a small room with a man in front of a white wall. I apologize if that makes too much business sense. I'll just say for "shits and giggles" next time.
Image

"No, you're right. I'm not That Guy's brother. Silly me." ~ Myself, After Being Corrected in a Chat Room
User avatar
The Other Guy
Moderator
 
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:17 am
Location: The Windy City

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby fusionater » Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:11 pm

You know, if Zeta held still long enough I think I could build a bridge around him to make the whole troll ensemble complete.




XD, why doesn't that video get used more often. :D

Everytime I've seen someone complain about the show and other things you do, almost invariably they tend to strip the problem down to it's barest details and use assumptions, rather than gathered facts, to fill in the gaps.
User avatar
fusionater
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:20 am

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby Samuraiko » Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Okay, I am so putting "You know, if you held still long enough, I think I could build a bridge around you to make the whole troll ensemble complete" on a t-shirt. It is a moral imperative.
You can find me at the edge of my imagination...
Visit the Samuraiko Productions Video archive!
I sent the Critics to Hell! Reblog if you want to see this made!
User avatar
Samuraiko
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Filming on the Internet

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby sturmovik » Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm

The Other Guy wrote:Oh, and for the record -- better editing equipment will allow us edit live, reducing turnaround time and giving fans more shows faster. A dedicated editing station in the studio will also allow us to coordinate the shows better, particularly if we're doing more than one project. Real stage lighting will also reduce post production time, since we won't have to color correct or digitally light people's faces. It'll also cut our production time in half, since any film studio will tell you that setting up lighting is the most time consuming part. Having a dedicated system preset will ensure that there aren't any mistakes, the lighting is consistent, and we won't have to move them around and keep readjusting (slowing production time town). Amazing as it may seem, lighting a large set is far different from lighting a small room with a man in front of a white wall. I apologize if that makes too much business sense. I'll just say for "shits and giggles" next time.


Who wrote the dialogue for the Kickstart video because what you just said is about 10 times more compelling than Doug's rambling comedy bit. How about instead of charging $50 for a behind the scenes video you or Doug or Doug with your words explain why you need studio upgrades and what you can do with them.

:roll: I'm sure you'll reach your goal, but the viewers shouldn't need to get the straight dope from the forums. As was pointed out in Kickstarter nightmares your production values are about as good as it gets in the internet video scene and as I mentioned the shows you are offering were ones you offered last year without needing to ask for funds. You need to get the point across that this isn't about some stupid new shows, but about creating an independent production company that (or at least tries to) cater to the preferences of whatever target demographic watches your stuff.
sturmovik
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:23 pm

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby The Other Guy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:43 pm

sturmovik wrote:
Who wrote the dialogue for the Kickstart video because what you just said is about 10 times more compelling than Doug's rambling comedy bit. How about instead of charging $50 for a behind the scenes video you or Doug or Doug with your words explain why you need studio upgrades and what you can do with them.

:roll: I'm sure you'll reach your goal, but the viewers shouldn't need to get the straight dope from the forums. As was pointed out in Kickstarter nightmares your production values are about as good as it gets in the internet video scene and as I mentioned the shows you are offering were ones you offered last year without needing to ask for funds. You need to get the point across that this isn't about some stupid new shows, but about creating an independent production company that (or at least tries to) cater to the preferences of whatever target demographic watches your stuff.


I may actually push for that the second Doug returns.

In all fairness to Doug, he had all of about 1 hour to shoot that and put it together. This was his con season, and in between those and Dragonbored post production and now another con that Blip wanted us at, he had zero time to put something compelling together. But we also planned on doing a charity drive later this season for a good cause (that is most assuredly not US), so Mike wanted to get the campaign out there before that, so as not to give our fans donation fatigue. And again, this was all spearheaded because our last ditch effort at fixing the audio through our own means failed last month. Had that worked, we might be in a different scenario. But that domino effected everything else we were trying to do, and we don't want fans to have to be patient for yet another year.

And to answer one of your questions: we never handed Doug the studio or just gave him props for the hell of it. The studio was always meant for these other shows, and they wound up having hiccups which kept delaying us. Demo Reel was never the prime priority. It was something that was concurrently going to happen while putting the game show together. In fact, the cheapness of Demo Reel was, in part, because set design was going to the game show. Doug didn't realize how much resources were going to that and was in the process of a move -- so he got kind of pigeon holed there. I think in retrospect he may have wanted to use his own place for visual diversity, but it was a mess at the time thanks to moving. The props, again, were not a gift to Doug. They were the result of Jim Jarosz's years of collecting. And the rest were holdovers from other projects. To not organize them and have them on hand doesn't make any sense. The NC is what it is now. We're not doing a sketch comedy show. Demo Reel is done. Even Dragonbored used minimal props (Doug was wearing the only props you saw). Love it or hate it, it wasn't written in my head to justify using props. I actually tried to keep props to a minimum. The cloak came from Jim's collection, as did the swords. The only thing made for Dragonbored was the bow and arrow and the fake head.

But even then -- why waste resources? Having them on hand is always a plus if we DO need something. Plus, we'd love to be able to rent them out (much like the studio) to local film groups that need them.

And Doug? If he wants to use props, that's his call. But they weren't given to him for that purpose. Nor was the studio.
Image

"No, you're right. I'm not That Guy's brother. Silly me." ~ Myself, After Being Corrected in a Chat Room
User avatar
The Other Guy
Moderator
 
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:17 am
Location: The Windy City

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby ZetaCheesecake » Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:09 pm

The Other Guy wrote:
You know, if Zeta held still long enough I think I could build a bridge around him to make the whole troll ensemble complete.

That was a fantastic attempt to put words into my mouth. Yeah, cause Demo Reel failed cause it was boring to look at. That's what I said.


what you said was
The Other Guy wrote:We don't want to go Demo Reel again. That show was boring as hell to look at, i admit it.


Surely what you should have said was what you've said now. " We dont want to go demo reel again, i could write a book about all the things wrong with that".
but instead all you mentioned was that it "looked boring", implying if you had given it nicer lighting it would have got better results.
However i applaud our honesty in admitting there were major faults in demo reel, like you said the worst thing for CA would have a repeat of that.



The Other Guy wrote:I could write a book about why Demo Reel failed -- the boring design was just one part of it. But it WAS a complaint we heard from people who even (holy crap) liked the show. So no, we don't want our future projects to look that cheap.


I really don't understand why of all the complaints about demo reel you've decided a major one to take into consideration is " it looked cheap". I fear your making the same mistake as demo reel by throwing your eggs in a basket before they've been laid. your talking about making THREE different game shows when you don't even know if the first one will be successful? why cant you make a pilot on a low budget with the basics in place and THEN ask fans for money to make it look more A grade professional. Your asking fans to polish something before they know its worth polishing. Thats why it was such a bad idea to ditch NC for Demo reel before you even knew what the reaction to demo reel was going to be.

The Other Guy wrote:I appreciate the three paragraphs of ignorant assumptions and conjecture dedicated to something I didn't say, though.


Hey if you think im a troll, you should head over to Encyclopedia dramatica sometime.


The Other Guy wrote:I guess I imagined the sets and the graphics then. Wow, what an active imagination I have.


But come on, youve gotta admit the success of Siskel and Ebert was their banter and verbal presentation, would it really have mattered if the plant in the background was a little out of focus and the greenscreen movie theater was gone?

ZetaCheesecake wrote:Oh, and for the record -- better editing equipment will allow us edit live, reducing turnaround time and giving fans more shows faster. A dedicated editing station in the studio will also allow us to coordinate the shows better, particularly if we're doing more than one project. Real stage lighting will also reduce post production time, since we won't have to color correct or digitally light people's faces. It'll also cut our production time in half, since any film studio will tell you that setting up lighting is the most time consuming part. Having a dedicated system preset will ensure that there aren't any mistakes, the lighting is consistent, and we won't have to move them around and keep readjusting (slowing production time town). Amazing as it may seem, lighting a large set is far different from lighting a small room with a man in front of a white wall. I apologize if that makes too much business sense. I'll just say for "shits and giggles" next time.


Once again your talking about making "more shows quicker" before you know if there gonna be any good.
ZetaCheesecake
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby JimB » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:09 pm

ZetaCheesecake wrote:All you mentioned was that it "looked boring," implying if you had given it nicer lighting it would have got better results.

You know, I want to yell at you some more, but I actually have to grant that you're right: It does imply that nicer lighting would have gotten better results...but that is as far as any implication goes. "Better" does not mean "successful;" it just means "less bad."

ZetaCheesecake wrote:I really don't understand why, of all the complaints, about Demo Reel, you've decided a major one to take into consideration is "it looked cheap."

I'm guessing he took it into consideration because it is one of the few valid areas of comparison between the new game show and Demo Reel.

ZetaCheesecake wrote:Why can't you make a pilot on a low budget with the basics in place and then ask fans for money to make it look more grade-A professional?

For the same reason you don't say to yourself, "I'm just going to wear sweatpants on my first date and I'll only bother dressing up if the girl has proven herself worthy of a second date:" because first impressions matter.

ZetaCheesecake wrote:But come on, you've gotta admit the success of Siskel and Ebert was their banter and verbal presentation.

And if Mr. Walker said they were trying to create a show that was a clone of the Siskel and Ebert program, this observation would be relevant. As it is, you're criticizing him for not making a show he never said he wants to make. If Siskel and Ebert is what you want, go watch reruns on Youtube or something.

ZetaCheesecake wrote:Once again you're talking about making "more shows quicker" before you know if they're gonna be any good.

It's called commitment, ZetaCheesecake. When you're taking a risk, you can't hold back. Taking hesitant half-measures is nothing more than refusing to try your hardest, and refusing to try your hardest is the single best way to fail at what you're doing. You believe that what you're doing will work, and you take your best run at it.
"If you've never heard the term 'white knight,' it means, 'I'm twelve years old, so you don't have to take me seriously.'" --Mark Hill

Oh, uh, and kupo.
User avatar
JimB
 
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 am

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby Iamabrawler » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:54 pm

JimB wrote:
ZetaCheesecake wrote:All you mentioned was that it "looked boring," implying if you had given it nicer lighting it would have got better results.

You know, I want to yell at you some more


I'll do it for you... verbally, not written here. So that I can cuss all I want against those passionate complainers. Crisse de tabarnak! (Whoops, dropped two!)

You know, you got to acknowledge - and even acclaim - their tenacity in complaining about every thing the team behind Channel Awesome tries to do. But after a few months, that enjoyable pile of faulty reasoning and fake argumentation loses all interest, and it becomes annoying rather than entertaining.
User avatar
Iamabrawler
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:54 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby Darkest Lord » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:16 pm

I realize it's Doug's job to keep us happy and entertained, but this more serious presentation of information should be made more public, even if it isn't on camera. This makes the situation so much more clear to us.
Darkest Lord
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby DylanS » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:20 pm

Darkest Lord wrote:I realize it's Doug's job to keep us happy and entertained, but this more serious presentation of information should be made more public, even if it isn't on camera. This makes the situation so much more clear to us.


That's always been Channel Awesome's problem: they never come out and tell us something directly. They like to beat around the bush.
Nostalgia Critic Review Wish List:

Jetsons: The Movie
Krippendorf's Tribe
Star Kid
House Arrest
8 Heads in a Duffel Bag
Car 54, Where Are You? (movie)
Clifford
The Big Green
Dennis the Menace
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
Josh and S.A.M.
Red Tails
User avatar
DylanS
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:32 am

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby sturmovik » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:02 am

Thanks again for the explanation Rob and I believe I latched onto the prop issue since they were given such a prominent role in the now removed video. The message that I took away was "I'm Doug walker and if you donate some $ I'll make shows with all these awesome costumes and props that I'm showing you."

The Other Guy wrote:In all fairness to Doug, he had all of about 1 hour to shoot that and put it together. This was his con season, and in between those and Dragonbored post production and now another con that Blip wanted us at, he had zero time to put something compelling together.


Blip wants you to go to cons? o.0 That's odd, I didn't think Blip took a hands on approach to managing its video channels.

The Other Guy wrote:And to answer one of your questions: we never handed Doug the studio or just gave him props for the hell of it. The studio was always meant for these other shows, and they wound up having hiccups which kept delaying us. Demo Reel was never the prime priority. It was something that was concurrently going to happen while putting the game show together. In fact, the cheapness of Demo Reel was, in part, because set design was going to the game show. Doug didn't realize how much resources were going to that and was in the process of a move -- so he got kind of pigeon holed there.


I always figured that the "cheapness" was a function of the story being about low budget filmmakers. The technicals were all pretty top notch so that wasn't cheap, but I guess the Mise en scène could be described that way. I guess it played into my expectations about the show. d.d b.b

Re: Demo Reel and the other shows that's really enlightening and assuming you're not trying to retcon things I don't think anybody could have guessed that DR was not going to be the new flagship show. It would have been nice for your folks to have put together pilots of your proposed shows to give your viewers a taste/reason to donate, get feedback to avoid another Demo Reel situation and show off the problems with the new space thus motivating the need for investment. BTW I still think you're going to see the not altogether unjustified opinion that as long as your show is funny or entertaining you could shoot it in a tent and people would flock to it. ZetaCheesecake may be trying to troll you, but that's a valid point. Your point is that a studio would increase production efficiency and my question is when will camera and editing technology make things like professional lighting and grips unnecessary.

The Other Guy wrote:But it's risky. REALLY risky. Hollywood and their cronies in the federal government have made it clear that they're declaring war on the internet. Read up and you'll find that SOPA was the opening shot, not the final blow. Now they're getting more and more sneaky about it. Original content, whether fans like it or not, is the only backup solution to making sure we have the financial and legal groundwork with which to keep this place going. Cause if the copyright nazis have their way, all of our review shows go down, and what will you have then? Not us. Not SFDebris. Hell, Youtube will be the first to go. Maybe we could hold out for a bit, but not long if Blip has to pull us.


Since you have an established and highly diverse fanbase another option would be to create an auxiliary force to help distribute your shows if the hosting services were to go down. Those TGWTG fans with hosting space and bandwidth to spare could be pre-positioned to run mirrors and supply video files, probably via Bittorent (does steaming Bittorent exist?). You would have to move to an all donation / schwag business model, but since the current ad supported model is probably not sustainable anyway that would probably not be deal breaker. With sufficient international participation you could get your creations out and insulate yourselves from liability.
sturmovik
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:23 pm

Re: Channel Awesome's Indiegogo Project

Postby JimB » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:57 am

sturmovik wrote:Blip wants you to go to cons?

Why wouldn't they? It's publicity for their shows, after all.

sturmovik wrote:Since you have an established and highly diverse fanbase another option would be to create an auxiliary force to help distribute your shows if the hosting services were to go down.

Since producing the videos would, depending on the specific legislation, be a criminal act, I don't think Channel Awesome could still try to draw profit from it without everyone involved going to jail the next time they have to turn in their taxes and admit their income is from a criminal act.
"If you've never heard the term 'white knight,' it means, 'I'm twelve years old, so you don't have to take me seriously.'" --Mark Hill

Oh, uh, and kupo.
User avatar
JimB
 
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to NC Episodes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ebertfan92 aka The Nostalgia Plagiarist, Moviefan12, rmlohner and 1 guest



Who is online

In total there are 4 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 759 on Tue May 11, 2010 1:21 pm

Users browsing this forum: ebertfan92 aka The Nostalgia Plagiarist, Moviefan12, rmlohner and 1 guest

Info

The team
Delete all board cookies
• All times are UTC - 6 hours

Rampage DVD
RocketTheme Joomla Templates