Forum - View topicNEWS: Under the Dog Producer: Netflix, Crunchyroll Offering OVA Distribution
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonaka Machine Gun B
 Posts: 819 |
|
|||||
I meant in the vein that Netflix puts up its own money into the production and not just getting streaming rights. Knights of Sidonia is a "Netflix original series" about as much as Cowboy Bebop is a "Cartoon Network original series." |
||||||
|
||||||
|
EyeOfPain
Posts: 312 |
|
|||||
Once again, where are you getting the idea that either Netflix or CR is interested in anything more than streaming the OVA episode that is set to be produced, thanks to this Kickstarter campaign? |
||||||
|
||||||
relyat08
 Posts: 4125 Location: Northern Virginia |
|
|||||
|
I actually feel like Netflix would be a viable production option. They are based around a Western Audience, this clearly targets that audience, they have started direct distribution of Hunter X Hunter and Knights of Sidonia, they have produced a lot of shows(non-anime) already and those have seemed to be very successful for them, and they definitely have the money and the viewership to support something like this. I feel like they would do a better job of respecting the artistic freedom of the creators considering some of the other work they have had a hand in as well.
To be clear, I know that this article isn't saying anything about them funding any part of this project. This was mostly just me sharing my sort of dream-hypothetical scenario. In any event, extremely thrilled that this is now funded and really looking forward to seeing as much of it as possible. All I'm worried about now is getting a completed work from beginning to end. Not having a solid conclusion will sort of piss me off. |
||||||
|
||||||
MarshalBanana
 Posts: 5309 |
|
|||||
They said that they would take the idea for a film to a publisher, they had offers before the kickstarter about turning it into a 26 episode TV show. But they wanted to keep 100% creative freedom and by having a successful OVA they have leverage to retain full creative control over the film. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||
The only way they will get that is if they can fund it out of their own pockets, like Mel Gibson, or Ookawa Ryuuhou, the Happy Science anime series guy. Or find an angel investor. 26 episodes is over $6 million for the bare animation production by their own estimates, not including other misc. expenses. Or they can work "for free" on their own time like Makoto Shinkai's early days, which would take forever to finish. Despite all this rhetoric about being so anti-production committee, which does have some merit... in a previous interview they mentioned they are still looking for investors. In other words, a production committee. |
||||||
|
||||||
Kadmos1
 Posts: 13549 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
|||||
|
Speaking of the Happy Science guy, it will be 30 years on Oct. 6, '16 that he started the religion.
|
||||||
|
||||||
agila61
 Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||
Actually "investors" =/= "production committee". There are a number of investors in western media productions that have nothing like the artistic control of a production committee. The distinction between an investor that is an executive producer and an investor that just has a claim on the revenue of the production is a substantial one. Indeed, even if someone was a major investor in a Japanese member of a production committee, that would not necessarily imply the kind of final say in production decisions that the production committee members themselves have. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||
There is little distinction in practice because most members in production committee are investors in some way and no member can unilaterally override the other (otherwise, there would be no incentive in joining). Even by Yura's own words, each member just cares for their own end of the deal, not really caring about the project itself, but the corollary is that they don't have executive control of the project either. Like music companies (e.g. Lantis, King Records, Starchilds, being common production members), they care about about promoting their artists' new single. And that's it. Each member basically wants an ROI like an investor, except whose "return" could be promotion of their production instead of royalities, residuals or revenues from the project; or it could be both. Essentially if you want to make any distinction it would come down to details of the contract, but given that a contract can be anything, such a distinction would be fuzzy at best, and philosophically between this type of mutual exchange for funding, there is no distinction at all. In addressing their cited problems of production committees about "strings attached" even pure financial investors very much have strings attached, given that are investing looking for a return and so usually require some assurances or concessions on the producers' end, which comes right back around to the original issue. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group