As an indie filmmaker, I have put money into my own projects. If I was the net worth of Ron Howard & Brian Grazer my movies would have had bigger budget. The ideal that no one uses their own money is not true. You do with your first projects. Of course once you reach success, then others will back you. Still if you have a project that the studios don't think will be a blockbuster, then they won't back it.

"Veronica Mars" has opened a can of worms where established filmmakers are now going to Fans wallets to fund their pet projects. When the studios fund a movie, they have input into its development. Here the fan may get some nice perks, but will have no say so in the project. We will have to accept whatever the filmmakers dish out.

I think a few projects from name filmmakers are OK. I gave a few bucks to "Veronica Mars." Still, it seems like Hollywood may be taking advantage of crowdfunding and the truly indie filmmaker gets overlooked.

Director Kevin Smith considered Kickstarter, but he decided not to.
http://mashable.com/2013/05/16/kevin-smith-says-no-to-kickstarter-for-clerks-iii/

Of course Kickstarter gets a percentage of all projects, so for them, this is fine. Still I don't know how some filmmakers can justify asking fans to back a movie. If the studio won't back it, does that mean it is a good project? And again, if a studio backs a movie, they get profits from its success. With Kickstarter, you get a perk.

I hope if Mr. Howard and Mr. Grazer go through with this, they offer some Incredible Perks!

There's a sound logic behind the Kickstarter thing. "Friday Night Lights" never truly lit up (sorry) the ratings when it was on TV. People who watched it loved it, but it was never more than a modest success ratings-wise. Obviously, then, the reason why a movie, despite being constantly mentioned, hasn't been made yet is because studio execs don't think there's a demand for it. Creating a Kickstarter is a way to prove there is.

The real shame is that there are probably a lot of really good projects on kickstarter, projects that could not get off the ground without crowd-sourcing funds, that will be neglected because people are turned off by recent slate celebrity's asking for money. Friday Night Lights was critically very well received and had a very loyal fan base. I find it very hard to believe their isn't an investor out there who would fund this project.

Someone should start a kickstarter-esq site that treated the funders like investors and let's them share in the profit.

It's one thing if Brian and Ron asked for investors, who would be justly rewarded should there be profits.

But to ask for money – no strings attached – like beggars in the street, and then keep all the profits for themselves is diabolical.

All the more so since they won't be spending a single cent of their combined $240,000,000 that currently line their pockets.

Ronald, or Ron, or whatever, and Brian: come over here and take off your shoes so that I can throw them at your faces. Then spend your $240,000,000 reconstructing your faces with good surgery. And then you can hold out your hands like beggars for two more episodes of an excellent television show.

See you in ten days.

I'm really torn on this whole celebrities using crowd-funding thing. On the one hand I get that if a project can only exist by the support of those who want to see it most, that they can have a hand in making it happen. BUT when someone in the "system" invests in a film they get a return on the earnings of that product. Perhaps there should be a new tier of Kickstarter/Indiegogo where projects above $X Million pay back investors in % points for perks instead of a T-Shirt.