criterionforum.org

jindianajonz wrote:Wow, that seems ripe for abuse, especially considering people can fund (and then pull funding from) their own project.

But presumably the other side of that particular coin is that once you've crossed the threshold you're required to deliver on your promises? So if you've pulled that tactic, wouldn't you be setting yourself up for a bit of a headache?

(This is the nice thing about the Borowczyk project - the box set is happening anyway, so all the Kickstarter campaign does is ensure that all five features will be in newly-restored HD. So there's no chance of Arrow going "whoops - we didn't realise that it cost that much to put a multi-disc box set together!", and James White also has a pretty good idea how much restorations like this cost. And how long they take.)

What if I donated £3,000 right now to the Borowczyk project to ensure that it would be funded, but then immediately reversed this contribution?

swo17 wrote:What if I donated £3,000 right now to the Borowczyk project to ensure that it would be funded, but then immediately reversed this contribution?

The answer appears to be:

Kickstarter wrote:Backers may increase, decrease, or cancel their pledge at any time during the fundraising campaign, except that they may not cancel or reduce their pledge if the campaign is in its final 24 hours and the cancellation or reduction would drop the campaign below its goal.

MichaelB wrote:But presumably the other side of that particular coin is that once you've crossed the threshold you're required to deliver on your promises?

In theory, yes, but once the money is in some guys pocket how do you make sure he delivers?

MichaelB wrote:

Kickstarter wrote:Backers may increase, decrease, or cancel their pledge at any time during the fundraising campaign, except that they may not cancel or reduce their pledge if the campaign is in its final 24 hours and the cancellation or reduction would drop the campaign below its goal.

So then is it not true that if a project funds early but then drops below its goal and never recovers, the project header is still obligated to deliver on his/her promises? That was how I took mfunk's original comment:

Once you cross the threshold, it doesn't matter if people retract or reduce their pledges after that, the project will still remain in Funded status.

I guess it's not clear to me what threshold means here--is it the monetary goal or the time limit?

Looks like I was just corrected. So if a project is funded but there's 24 hours left or less, and you're the person who's saddled with the status of having a donation that, if retracted, would send the project out of Funded status, you can't retract or reduce your donation.

I think so. Right, Michael?

And Swo, the threshold I was referring to was the funding goal. The person asking for funds gets $0 if a project doesn't reach its goal in time.

Apparently some last minute penny pinchers decided they'd been too generous. At least Hal Hartley's used to working on a tight budget... and that Kickstarter have that rule about not being able to go under the goal once you're over it. Bless 'em.

Hal Hartley wrote:Project Update #37: Don't Stop, Please

A lot of people are DECREASING their pledges now that I've reached the goal. That puts me in a dangerous place. There are still six hours to go. If you can increase your pledge just 20 or 30 dollars, that would help counteract this. I can still fail here if people keep decreasing their pledges. So, go, go, go! I will make it up to you somehow!
Thanks.
Hal

But if there are six hours to go, presumably they can't decrease their pledges any more?

Yeah, based on what's been said, I imagine he's not aware of that. Regardless, the Kickstarter reached 0 hours with full funding, for which I'm glad.

So, I hadn't been keeping up with this but Hartley did indeed make the film and it's premiering at the Toronto Film Festival in September

Trailer here.

It seems like the kickstarter copies are out. Got my Blu today in the mail.

domino harvey wrote:Hartley has a Kickstarter going for Blu-rays of the trilogy

You beat me to it by an hour. I signed up immediately. The set itself looks impressive. He isn't just remastering all the films in HD. He's also producing new content: a behind the scenes making-of for the trilogy with both new and old previously unreleased footage, as well as an extensive booklet.

I think it's strange that he's going the DIY route now that ownership has reverted back to him. I'm sure Arrow or Criterion would have gladly put this out

Really? I'm not so sure. He knows his fans and has a huge worldwide mailing list of them. He has a clear idea of his audience, his market and the way he wants his work presented. In a sense, this situation for him is pretty ideal. He seems at home with all aspects of self-distribution except theatrical. I suppose he'd rather not have to finance new films this way, but once they're completed? Why not?

For over $100 it's way too expensive for three films. Svankmajer had a few more films and cost the same...

dda1996a wrote:For over $100 it's way too expensive for three films.

Yeah, as I was going down the list of incentives, I couldn't believe how long it took/how high it went before you actually get a copy of the set. I'd like to support Hartley, but too rich for my blood at the moment given it's only 3 films and I already own one of them (Ned Rifle, to whose campaign I did donate generously).

There's only a week left on Hal Hartley's "Henry Fool Trilogy" blu-ray kickstarter. The cost to get them on bluray is a little steep (around $115, I think), but the money is also going towards him making a new nonfiction film about the making of the films and his career over the past twenty years (to be included in the set). As of now, it's 76% towards the goal. I'm hopeful that it is a successful campaign. If you want to support it, now's the time.

It's genuinely encouraging that Hartley's Kickstarter made it. I would not have wagered a figure like HH could raise $100k - particularly with that reward structure - online in the year 2017, especially for a physical media release.

Considering the amount of people who donated, it isn’t exactly cause for celebration. Someone really opened their pocketbook. Which is all well and good, of course, but if 450 people are financially backing a physical media release, it’s hardly an indication that the format is alive and well.

Depends on how you look at it. Yes, this was far from an (ideal?) situation where thousands all gave a little. But it still shows a way forward that, like I said, I was highly skeptical of at the outset. Hell, the Dissidenz Films release of Lav Diaz's Death in the Land of Encantos only had 98 donors - even just that was enough to get a limited edition blu-ray released. I guess what I'm saying is that while the overall picture looks grim for physical media (and I would say for film culture as a whole, although that's a bigger discussion) - it's a net positive that the internet and crowdfunding platforms seem to be able to shore up some of the deficiencies of the system, a way of making commercially 'unviable' cinema still viable.

mfunk9786 wrote:Considering the amount of people who donated, it isn’t exactly cause for celebration. Someone really opened their pocketbook.

Pure speculation on my part -- pay close attention to the backers, and it will reveal that two people kicked in $10k each, while another donated $5k. These three angels may have helped Hartley cross the finish line...

Theres not dedicated Hal Hartley thread, so I'll ask here:
I just watched his short film, Ambition. In it the main character quotes a film where women also kill themselves by throwing themselves out of a window or beneath a train. I am sure I read or heard that recently somewhere, but can't remember where. Anyone has a clue?