Kung Fury – a comedy funded through Kickstarter [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Kung Fury – a comedy funded through Kickstarter [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg/
123 comments
I've never heard it called Retrowave before (thought that is a good name for it). I know it by the names Outrun or Synthwave.
Carpenter Brut, Perturbator, M|O|O|N, Miami Nights 1984, Lazerhawk or basically anything from the Hotline Miami soundtracks are all good for anyone wanting more.
Carpenter Brut, Perturbator, M|O|O|N, Miami Nights 1984, Lazerhawk or basically anything from the Hotline Miami soundtracks are all good for anyone wanting more.
Don't forget Kavinsky!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavinsky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavinsky
Com Truise is another solid choice.
Or Jan Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hammer) if you want to hear some of the real sound from the 80s. For those interested (and able to "stomach" the real thing) any track from his Miami Vice soundtracks are great - I think there's a selection of them on Escape from Television on Spotify.
More "authentic 80's synth" soundtracks: Harold Faltermeyer, Vince Dicola, pre-BTTF Alan Silvestri, Tangerine Dream, John Carpenter.
I particularly enjoy Mitch Murder; Interceptor is a fantastic Retrowave album with a hint of Chiptune.
Guess what movie he just did the soundtrack for!
> Nobody in the thread has yet called it what it is: retrowave.
My favourite retrowave right now, and it's so blindingly obviously retrowave you don't even need to know its a thing, is this piece:
Todd Terje - Delorean Dynamite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUOIvT9hzD8
It's a combined tribute to everything great about the 80s DJ scene (and Todd Terry), with a clearly tougue-in-check ironic reference to us here in the future looking back it.
I'm loving it.
My favourite retrowave right now, and it's so blindingly obviously retrowave you don't even need to know its a thing, is this piece:
Todd Terje - Delorean Dynamite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUOIvT9hzD8
It's a combined tribute to everything great about the 80s DJ scene (and Todd Terry), with a clearly tougue-in-check ironic reference to us here in the future looking back it.
I'm loving it.
I've heard it more often referred to as Vaporwave, your basic point is sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporwave
Synthwave is another one too
> It wholly appropriates the aesthetics of a subset of 80's media and condenses it into a "historical fantasy" world that is easier to digest than the authentic thing.
That helps a lot actually.
That helps a lot actually.
Also called new wave retro or futureretro
Lots of nostalgic 80s TV, movie, and video game sampling.
Here's a play list for those interested:
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL52109BD7632583B2
Lots of nostalgic 80s TV, movie, and video game sampling.
Here's a play list for those interested:
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL52109BD7632583B2
I've heard before this music with groups like Digitalism, Anoraak, Bestrack, GRUM, ULTRNX, etc, but I never thought it had a style name. I included it all in the NuDisco scene [1]. So thanks for the tip, plenty of groups to listen to now!
[1] https://pro.beatport.com/genre/indie-dance-nu-disco/37
[1] https://pro.beatport.com/genre/indie-dance-nu-disco/37
A couple of "mistakes" that I caught while watching, thought HN might find them interesting:
- There's a reference to Viagra (6:20) but it hadn't been invented yet.
- The "hacking time" sequence around 10:30 contains Java [1] which obviously came from the future.
There are a few others, perhaps intentional. I won't spoil them here :)
[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/7478u4gkvnmjg6p/Screenshot%202015-...
- There's a reference to Viagra (6:20) but it hadn't been invented yet.
- The "hacking time" sequence around 10:30 contains Java [1] which obviously came from the future.
There are a few others, perhaps intentional. I won't spoil them here :)
[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/7478u4gkvnmjg6p/Screenshot%202015-...
I'm pretty sure these things are easily valid in a universe where Vikings rode dinosaurs and wielded machine guns.
Don't forget the laser raptors. The presence of laser raptors provides context for anything.
The "hacking time" sequence around 10:30 contains Java [1] which obviously came from the future.
He did an iama yesterday and someone pointed this out. Turns out he went to r/programming asking for someone to write him some code that would hack time. someone sent him Java... or Hackerman invented java so he could write once run any Time.
He did an iama yesterday and someone pointed this out. Turns out he went to r/programming asking for someone to write him some code that would hack time. someone sent him Java... or Hackerman invented java so he could write once run any Time.
Actually Hackerman time travelled itself by accident to 2015.
That is clearly C with macros.
They fight on the Hubble Telescope which was not lunched until April 24, 1990.
I also believe hackTime() was added to the DateTime() API in Java 12, which wasn't released until 2011.
Anachronisms are a no-op when the whole film is build around time travel.
Slowly but surely it is becoming possible to "consume" nothing but Internet for entertainment, even if you demand video. It's still got a ways to go. But Hollywood probably ought to be more scared than it is. (Hollywood qua Hollywood isn't necessarily going anywhere, "the best" are always going to congregate somewhere, but the "current regime" is probably going to very shaken up in the next few decades.)
Yeah absolutely, I had some amazing highly personalized collections of youtube channels on different subjects that I could watch instead of TV pretty much 24 hours a day.
Google killed off collections the other day because it makes the viewing experience "better" or some stupid garbage that nobody will ever be able to explain and will certainly be replaced by a worse answer at some point. But for a couple years I basically had a half-dozen highly-personalized tv stations I could watch.
Google killed off collections the other day because it makes the viewing experience "better" or some stupid garbage that nobody will ever be able to explain and will certainly be replaced by a worse answer at some point. But for a couple years I basically had a half-dozen highly-personalized tv stations I could watch.
If something is nice Google either kills it or makes it not nice.
I wrote about this a few years ago. http://rocknerd.co.uk/2012/10/08/no-film-is-not-in-unique-ne... (The kid is eight now and she still thinks it's great.)
Here’s something instructive: YouTube: A Dinosaur Story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfdZju4J0Y4 That’s a three-hour movie done by two kids in their loungeroom with toy dinosaurs. Ridiculously low production values, make-it-up-as-we-go-along story by a couple of kids who seem to be about nine or ten. It’s genuine unintermediated young children’s folk culture, on the internet. HOLY CRAP. PUNK ROCK FOR EVERYONE.
The reason this is noteworthy: it’s one of my five-year-old’s favourite films. She’s watched her assorted Disney DVDs about half a time each, she’s watched this movie repeatedly and tells bits of it to her classmates. I boggle, but I cannot deny the observation that they’re doing something right that Disney isn’t, on a budget of zero.
She was also incredibly excited when she saw YouTube videos of kids making Thomas the Tank Engine fan videos using wooden railways just like hers. “They’re making their own stories!” (Example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg1cUl9rd9g Of course it’s rubbish. That’s not the point.) The powerful drive for a culture of your own starts early.
The recording industry used to try to justify not being taken out and shot by claiming blockbusterism was necessary to music, which was of course just a lie. Bands can (and do) now do albums with a microphone and a laptop. Microphone optional. Record at home, put it up on Bandcamp, the physical barrier to recording and distribution is gone. I remember the eighties, and just how bloody hard it was even to record, let alone distribute the result. Sure, the studio result is better, but that’s optional now. For getting the damn song out of your head and into the world, convenience beats quality every time the two are head-to-head.
Culture is everything humans do to impress each other, and it’s diseased unless it’s owned by all of us. The arrangement where you have creators here and consumers here and never the twain shall meet is a twentieth-century perversion we are well rid of.
Here’s something instructive: YouTube: A Dinosaur Story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfdZju4J0Y4 That’s a three-hour movie done by two kids in their loungeroom with toy dinosaurs. Ridiculously low production values, make-it-up-as-we-go-along story by a couple of kids who seem to be about nine or ten. It’s genuine unintermediated young children’s folk culture, on the internet. HOLY CRAP. PUNK ROCK FOR EVERYONE.
The reason this is noteworthy: it’s one of my five-year-old’s favourite films. She’s watched her assorted Disney DVDs about half a time each, she’s watched this movie repeatedly and tells bits of it to her classmates. I boggle, but I cannot deny the observation that they’re doing something right that Disney isn’t, on a budget of zero.
She was also incredibly excited when she saw YouTube videos of kids making Thomas the Tank Engine fan videos using wooden railways just like hers. “They’re making their own stories!” (Example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg1cUl9rd9g Of course it’s rubbish. That’s not the point.) The powerful drive for a culture of your own starts early.
The recording industry used to try to justify not being taken out and shot by claiming blockbusterism was necessary to music, which was of course just a lie. Bands can (and do) now do albums with a microphone and a laptop. Microphone optional. Record at home, put it up on Bandcamp, the physical barrier to recording and distribution is gone. I remember the eighties, and just how bloody hard it was even to record, let alone distribute the result. Sure, the studio result is better, but that’s optional now. For getting the damn song out of your head and into the world, convenience beats quality every time the two are head-to-head.
Culture is everything humans do to impress each other, and it’s diseased unless it’s owned by all of us. The arrangement where you have creators here and consumers here and never the twain shall meet is a twentieth-century perversion we are well rid of.
My son used to watch lots of TV at 4, but by 5 he basically stopped in favour of Youtube - mostly things like gameplay videos (Minecraft...). Now he's 6 and I actually can't remember the last time he watched a TV channel..
My daughter has had her own computer since she was two, which is the joy of a techie household full of discards. She watched CBeebies streaming from the website, but has also shifted to Minecraft gameplay videos. (Which are, in all seriousness, what the kids of today have instead of Saturday morning cartoons.) I told her horror stories of how in my day, we had three channels and they only showed stuff when it was on and no other time and you couldn't just play it again. She laughed at our pain.
Yeah, I've explained to my son we didn't have Youtube when I was a kid, and the look of total shock and disbelief was quite amusing.
I mean, she'd seen the CBeebies stream, so she understood the concept of a programmed channel.
These days I watch more hours of twitch.tv than I do films and TV shows combined.
This is wonderful. Does it remind anyone else of Danger 5?[0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYXHzOqnMpk
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYXHzOqnMpk
Yes, especially with Triceracop and Hitler. And lots of guns shooting. And the vocal styles.
Surprisingly similar.
One might almost imagine Kung Fury was heavily inspired by Danger 5. At around 7:30 in the YouTube video, they add Hitler. And then he shoots the phone; a trope memorably used in Danger 5. Also, the cop with the triceratops head - people with dinosaur and animal heads are another major trope of Danger 5.
I'm still appreciating Kung Fury, though. Just an observation.
I'm still appreciating Kung Fury, though. Just an observation.
I asked them to release it on GOG, to have an official DRM-free download option. If you buy it through their site: http://kungfury.com (to support creators) you get access to it on vhx.tv, but you can't download it from there.
Of course you can download it from Youtube using something like youtube-dl, but it's not as straightforward.
Of course you can download it from Youtube using something like youtube-dl, but it's not as straightforward.
(I was a backer though) But I can download it from vhx.tv (an .mp4 file).
Backers can, but those who buy it now - can't and I don't really see any good reason for it.
An exclusive perk for backers only?
Looks like it, but it's weird since it's released for free on Youtube anyway. So why should they prevent you from downloading it especially when you paid for it?
Because they already sold the download option to the backers. People want exclusivity, and those people who have the mp4 are secretly (though not necessarily consciously) feasting on your tears of DRM-frustration because they have something you don't.
This might sound cynical, but that's how people are . There was a documentary that came out last year called I Dream of Wires about analog modular synthesizers, which are going through a renaissance right now thanks to low-cost short-run manufacturing and a much wider audience for electronic music than existed during the previous modular heyday of the 1970s. So they raised lots of money on Kickstarter, and one of the rewards for backers was exclusive access to a 4 hour Blu-Ray copy, with tons of additional footage that would be cut out of the theatrical version, but which you would certainly want to watch if this was your particular nerd obsession. Anyway, the film got made OK, but (as is very typical) the producers vastly overestimated likely interest in the film and discovered the hard way that it was too niche of a subject to appeal to regular documentary distributors. Having gone a bit over budget and spent some personal money to get it finished, they naturally wanted to break even, so after what they thought was a decent interval, they started selling the extended 4-hour Blu-ray edition to the general public on their website.
Bad idea. The people who had bought that thinking they were getting something exclusive were furious, and stalked the filmmakers across every electronic music forum where they popped their heads up, calling them fraudsters and thieves. They weren't any worse, off, as such; they had got their Blu-Rays (although I think they had to wait a long time for them, as with many Kickstarter campaigns that fall way behind schedule), and they included all the promised content delivered to a professional standard. But they thought they had bought a limited edition, and threatened the makers with lawsuits - the result being that the DVD release got pushed way back and the extended 'ahrdcore edition' has had the price jacked up to $199 (which almost nobody will ever spend) in line with the donation requirement for the original reward.
This might sound cynical, but that's how people are . There was a documentary that came out last year called I Dream of Wires about analog modular synthesizers, which are going through a renaissance right now thanks to low-cost short-run manufacturing and a much wider audience for electronic music than existed during the previous modular heyday of the 1970s. So they raised lots of money on Kickstarter, and one of the rewards for backers was exclusive access to a 4 hour Blu-Ray copy, with tons of additional footage that would be cut out of the theatrical version, but which you would certainly want to watch if this was your particular nerd obsession. Anyway, the film got made OK, but (as is very typical) the producers vastly overestimated likely interest in the film and discovered the hard way that it was too niche of a subject to appeal to regular documentary distributors. Having gone a bit over budget and spent some personal money to get it finished, they naturally wanted to break even, so after what they thought was a decent interval, they started selling the extended 4-hour Blu-ray edition to the general public on their website.
Bad idea. The people who had bought that thinking they were getting something exclusive were furious, and stalked the filmmakers across every electronic music forum where they popped their heads up, calling them fraudsters and thieves. They weren't any worse, off, as such; they had got their Blu-Rays (although I think they had to wait a long time for them, as with many Kickstarter campaigns that fall way behind schedule), and they included all the promised content delivered to a professional standard. But they thought they had bought a limited edition, and threatened the makers with lawsuits - the result being that the DVD release got pushed way back and the extended 'ahrdcore edition' has had the price jacked up to $199 (which almost nobody will ever spend) in line with the donation requirement for the original reward.
> Because they already sold the download option to the backers.
That's not reasonable. They could get more backers if DRM-free release (for everyone) was a simple part of the base goal. I.e. selling DRM-free as a perk only reduces the number of their backers. I only support those projects which have a clear DRM-free release stated in their goals. And I'm not alone.
> People want exclusivity, and those people who have the mp4 are secretly (though not necessarily consciously) feasting on your tears of DRM-frustration because they have something you don't.
This sounds sick. I don't care for exclusivity, I care for art. And actually such kind of attitude in the project would make it feel repealing for me. And of course as with any DRM, it doesn't stop one from copying. That's all besides the fact that Youtube doesn't have DRM. It just makes downloading more manual than it could be.
That's not reasonable. They could get more backers if DRM-free release (for everyone) was a simple part of the base goal. I.e. selling DRM-free as a perk only reduces the number of their backers. I only support those projects which have a clear DRM-free release stated in their goals. And I'm not alone.
> People want exclusivity, and those people who have the mp4 are secretly (though not necessarily consciously) feasting on your tears of DRM-frustration because they have something you don't.
This sounds sick. I don't care for exclusivity, I care for art. And actually such kind of attitude in the project would make it feel repealing for me. And of course as with any DRM, it doesn't stop one from copying. That's all besides the fact that Youtube doesn't have DRM. It just makes downloading more manual than it could be.
They could get more backers if DRM-free release (for everyone) was a simple part of the base goal.
I have to say, prove it. My theory is that most people don't care about DRM the same way you do, and that more people like owning something than want to make it widely accessible, based on the abundant evidence already available about their willingness to buy exclusive rewards. What do you base your assertion about the potential number of backers upon?
This sounds sick. I don't care for exclusivity, I care for art.
That's nice of you, but it's a fact that we live in a consumer society and one of the most common sales tools is to exploit the law of supply and demand by creating artificial scarcity - even by limiting the numbers of Kickstarter rewards designed to get people to donate before someone else. You can effectively solicit a higher donation level by restricting the availability of the perk, and I find it hard to blame people for exploiting a business strategy that is known to work.
In all seriousness, how much do you care for art? What $ amount would you be prepared to donate or put at risk by investing? I'm not asking this to win an argument, I'm genuinely curious about the economic value you attach to your ideological position. Would you be influenced by some combination, eg for $x you become a patron of the DRM-free copy but you also get a special T-shirt or other item that's not available to others, and if so to what degree?
And actually such kind of attitude in the project would make it feel repealing for me.
You've gotta sell what people want to buy. If you say you're going to be making the top-of-the-line quality product available as widely as possible later, then many people will reasonably ask why they should bother giving you money now. I don't think that people in the aggregate are as generous as you may be as an individual. Now, if you're quite wealthy and in a position make very generous donations that could balance out beautifully, but the basic business model of Kickstarter and similar sites is about raising lots of small donations from a crowd rather than targeting a smallish number of more substantial donors.
That's all besides the fact that Youtube doesn't have DRM.
Yeah but YouTube video quality is shit. Of course it's good by historical standards but then TVs used to be much less capable than today. Many people do not find the quality satisfactory for leisure viewing. If you watch the same video on YouTube and Vimeo (eg many people upload camera tests to both websites) you can see a substantail difference on Vimeo, and mp4 quality would be better again. I don't like watching YouTube on a television, in general. Admittedly this is more of a short-term problem, and it will all be 'good enough' soon enough, just as Netflix streaming was mediocre in quality for the first year or two but now looks fine most of the time (at least on a HDTV).
I have to say, prove it. My theory is that most people don't care about DRM the same way you do, and that more people like owning something than want to make it widely accessible, based on the abundant evidence already available about their willingness to buy exclusive rewards. What do you base your assertion about the potential number of backers upon?
This sounds sick. I don't care for exclusivity, I care for art.
That's nice of you, but it's a fact that we live in a consumer society and one of the most common sales tools is to exploit the law of supply and demand by creating artificial scarcity - even by limiting the numbers of Kickstarter rewards designed to get people to donate before someone else. You can effectively solicit a higher donation level by restricting the availability of the perk, and I find it hard to blame people for exploiting a business strategy that is known to work.
In all seriousness, how much do you care for art? What $ amount would you be prepared to donate or put at risk by investing? I'm not asking this to win an argument, I'm genuinely curious about the economic value you attach to your ideological position. Would you be influenced by some combination, eg for $x you become a patron of the DRM-free copy but you also get a special T-shirt or other item that's not available to others, and if so to what degree?
And actually such kind of attitude in the project would make it feel repealing for me.
You've gotta sell what people want to buy. If you say you're going to be making the top-of-the-line quality product available as widely as possible later, then many people will reasonably ask why they should bother giving you money now. I don't think that people in the aggregate are as generous as you may be as an individual. Now, if you're quite wealthy and in a position make very generous donations that could balance out beautifully, but the basic business model of Kickstarter and similar sites is about raising lots of small donations from a crowd rather than targeting a smallish number of more substantial donors.
That's all besides the fact that Youtube doesn't have DRM.
Yeah but YouTube video quality is shit. Of course it's good by historical standards but then TVs used to be much less capable than today. Many people do not find the quality satisfactory for leisure viewing. If you watch the same video on YouTube and Vimeo (eg many people upload camera tests to both websites) you can see a substantail difference on Vimeo, and mp4 quality would be better again. I don't like watching YouTube on a television, in general. Admittedly this is more of a short-term problem, and it will all be 'good enough' soon enough, just as Netflix streaming was mediocre in quality for the first year or two but now looks fine most of the time (at least on a HDTV).
> My theory is that most people don't care about DRM the same way you do
It's a common practice for many crowdfunded projects to pitch for more backers by stating that release is DRM-free. You can see people commenting about it, if it's not stated (and projects clarifying this point).
Take a look at fiasco with Veronica Mars crowdfunded film which was released with DRM. Backers of the film said all they thought about this failure. Interest in DRM-free releases was expressed very clearly there. If anything, crowdfunding is a major driver in putting an end to approach of the sick-minded publishers obsessed with DRM.
> In all seriousness, how much do you care for art?
As much as I'm interested in something. If I see a project that's interesting to me, I consider supporting it on condition that it doesn't plan to use such unethical garbage as DRM in result. How much would I invest in it? That depends on the project. I don't do it out of having unlimited funds. Not at all - my funds are pretty limited. I do it because I care for those projects and without my support they are less likely to be created. I don't see how exclusivity fits into this. It doesn't mean I'm against perks - if someone wants to invest more, it's OK if they get more rewards. But DRM is not something that should be added as a distinguishing factor to anything. Because it shouldn't exist to begin with. Would you support the project which says that if you pay more, they'll give ecological wrap for you, but for the rest they'll ship the product in poisonous package?
Another reason to support some projects is to demonstrate demand. For instance, I would support games which are released for Linux (if I'm interested in them too), but won't support those which don't plan a Linux release.
For instance, Underworld Ascendant added Linux support to the base goal after getting feedback about it. As you can see, this also reduces exclusivity - it's inclusive, because more users are reached when release is cross platform. DRM-free release is similar in this sense.
It's a common practice for many crowdfunded projects to pitch for more backers by stating that release is DRM-free. You can see people commenting about it, if it's not stated (and projects clarifying this point).
Take a look at fiasco with Veronica Mars crowdfunded film which was released with DRM. Backers of the film said all they thought about this failure. Interest in DRM-free releases was expressed very clearly there. If anything, crowdfunding is a major driver in putting an end to approach of the sick-minded publishers obsessed with DRM.
> In all seriousness, how much do you care for art?
As much as I'm interested in something. If I see a project that's interesting to me, I consider supporting it on condition that it doesn't plan to use such unethical garbage as DRM in result. How much would I invest in it? That depends on the project. I don't do it out of having unlimited funds. Not at all - my funds are pretty limited. I do it because I care for those projects and without my support they are less likely to be created. I don't see how exclusivity fits into this. It doesn't mean I'm against perks - if someone wants to invest more, it's OK if they get more rewards. But DRM is not something that should be added as a distinguishing factor to anything. Because it shouldn't exist to begin with. Would you support the project which says that if you pay more, they'll give ecological wrap for you, but for the rest they'll ship the product in poisonous package?
Another reason to support some projects is to demonstrate demand. For instance, I would support games which are released for Linux (if I'm interested in them too), but won't support those which don't plan a Linux release.
For instance, Underworld Ascendant added Linux support to the base goal after getting feedback about it. As you can see, this also reduces exclusivity - it's inclusive, because more users are reached when release is cross platform. DRM-free release is similar in this sense.
OK, but do you have any numbers to back up the economic side of the argument? I get that it's an ethical issue for you, but you lose me when you talk about 'sick minded publishers,' because different editions with or without DRM are simply what they have available to sell, and they're just allocating to wherever they see the best price.
If Alice will pay $10 for a streaming copy (with DRM), Bob will pay $30 for a DRM-free copy, but Carol will pay $50 for an exclusive DRM-free copy, the rational approach is to sell to Alice and Carol for a total of $60. Bob says that other people would be willing to buy the DRM-free copy later, but from the producer's standpoint the only thing that matters is who's willing to pay money up front because a) there are a lot of costs that have to be paid up front* and b) backend revenue is uncertain.
* Of course you can defray those up-front costs by asking people to work for free or deferred pay, which has been a very popular trend over the last decade. But it's awful to work that way and none of the projects I've ever done that for ever turned a profit.
Unfortunately Kickstarter doesn't provide a way to play the two off against each other, eg setting up 2 projects for DRM advocates vs owners and going with whichever one outraises the others.
Take a look at fiasco with Veronica Mars crowdfunded film which was released with DRM.
I did. I think it was a storm in a teacup, because the intersection between fans of a TV show and people who care passionately about DRM is just not that big. The primary issue seemed to be that people did not care for getting their digital download through Flixster and would rather have redeemed through iTunes or Amazon. As best I can see from the project page, ~22k people were willing to pay a $10 premium over the next reward to get a digital download in addition to a T-shirt, but not another $15 to get a DVD. About 10% of the comments post-release consisted of grumbling about the Flixster download (primarily that it was slow and/or buggy and unreliable; I'm not sure what percentage of them cared about the underlying principle), so it looks like maybe 2500 people who spent about $25,000 were pissed off, or ~4% of the backers contributing 0.5% of the budget.
The basic problem for producers is this: you can estimate the number of people interested in purchasing a restricted version of the film by looking at other projects which offer that and seeing how many of those reward offerings actually sold. I believe you that there are people sitting on the sidelines instead of donating/purchasing because they care about a DRM-free release, but how do I quantify what that demographic is worth?
If I see a project that's interesting to me, I consider supporting it on condition that it doesn't plan to use such unethical garbage as DRM in result. How much would I invest in it? That depends on the project. I don't do it out of having unlimited funds. Not at all - my funds are pretty limited. I do it because I care for those projects and without my support they are less likely to be created.
OK, but your lack of support has to be set against the number of people who are willing to pay for some exclusive right. In the case of Kung Fury that was about $90,000 - ~6000 people were willing to pay $20 for a 1080p download with exclusive content, vs $5 for the DRM-hobbled streaming version you paid for. So what I'm asking is: if you see a film you think you would like, what extra amount are you willing to pay to ensure it is made available DRM-free? It doesn't matter if you'd make a big donation of $1000 once a year to advance the cause, or you'd rather donate and extra $20 to 50 different projects, or even just 5.
But right now I have no idea how much you and other people who care about DRM are holding back. I looked at several different Kickstarter projects that offer DRM-free downloads (including Game Loading - Rise of the Indies, which raised over $60k AUD) doing a similar analysis (trying to ID how much people were willing to contribute for the digital download only, rather than the next reward with additional swag) and the numbers seem to be in the low thousands. Even if I scale budgets the numbers are a good bit lower, eg about $45,000 in DRM-free download purchases if I imagine that other projects had brought in the same overall revenue as Kung Fury and allocate the appropriate amount to download rewards.
This suggests that there's only half as much money on offer up front for DRM-free downloads as for exclusive offerings, and so that it's more rational to use a market segmentation strategy than to offer the same thing at the same price to everyone. From a producer standpoint, cash is the only thing that people are willing to accept as payment for work, and real cash now is much more persuasive than hypothetical cash later.
I mean, maybe you and other anti-DRM people should set up a fund and disburse grants or something, but only to people who commit to DRM-free movie and game releasing. That's how other people promote their causes. Money talks, as they say.
If Alice will pay $10 for a streaming copy (with DRM), Bob will pay $30 for a DRM-free copy, but Carol will pay $50 for an exclusive DRM-free copy, the rational approach is to sell to Alice and Carol for a total of $60. Bob says that other people would be willing to buy the DRM-free copy later, but from the producer's standpoint the only thing that matters is who's willing to pay money up front because a) there are a lot of costs that have to be paid up front* and b) backend revenue is uncertain.
* Of course you can defray those up-front costs by asking people to work for free or deferred pay, which has been a very popular trend over the last decade. But it's awful to work that way and none of the projects I've ever done that for ever turned a profit.
Unfortunately Kickstarter doesn't provide a way to play the two off against each other, eg setting up 2 projects for DRM advocates vs owners and going with whichever one outraises the others.
Take a look at fiasco with Veronica Mars crowdfunded film which was released with DRM.
I did. I think it was a storm in a teacup, because the intersection between fans of a TV show and people who care passionately about DRM is just not that big. The primary issue seemed to be that people did not care for getting their digital download through Flixster and would rather have redeemed through iTunes or Amazon. As best I can see from the project page, ~22k people were willing to pay a $10 premium over the next reward to get a digital download in addition to a T-shirt, but not another $15 to get a DVD. About 10% of the comments post-release consisted of grumbling about the Flixster download (primarily that it was slow and/or buggy and unreliable; I'm not sure what percentage of them cared about the underlying principle), so it looks like maybe 2500 people who spent about $25,000 were pissed off, or ~4% of the backers contributing 0.5% of the budget.
The basic problem for producers is this: you can estimate the number of people interested in purchasing a restricted version of the film by looking at other projects which offer that and seeing how many of those reward offerings actually sold. I believe you that there are people sitting on the sidelines instead of donating/purchasing because they care about a DRM-free release, but how do I quantify what that demographic is worth?
If I see a project that's interesting to me, I consider supporting it on condition that it doesn't plan to use such unethical garbage as DRM in result. How much would I invest in it? That depends on the project. I don't do it out of having unlimited funds. Not at all - my funds are pretty limited. I do it because I care for those projects and without my support they are less likely to be created.
OK, but your lack of support has to be set against the number of people who are willing to pay for some exclusive right. In the case of Kung Fury that was about $90,000 - ~6000 people were willing to pay $20 for a 1080p download with exclusive content, vs $5 for the DRM-hobbled streaming version you paid for. So what I'm asking is: if you see a film you think you would like, what extra amount are you willing to pay to ensure it is made available DRM-free? It doesn't matter if you'd make a big donation of $1000 once a year to advance the cause, or you'd rather donate and extra $20 to 50 different projects, or even just 5.
But right now I have no idea how much you and other people who care about DRM are holding back. I looked at several different Kickstarter projects that offer DRM-free downloads (including Game Loading - Rise of the Indies, which raised over $60k AUD) doing a similar analysis (trying to ID how much people were willing to contribute for the digital download only, rather than the next reward with additional swag) and the numbers seem to be in the low thousands. Even if I scale budgets the numbers are a good bit lower, eg about $45,000 in DRM-free download purchases if I imagine that other projects had brought in the same overall revenue as Kung Fury and allocate the appropriate amount to download rewards.
This suggests that there's only half as much money on offer up front for DRM-free downloads as for exclusive offerings, and so that it's more rational to use a market segmentation strategy than to offer the same thing at the same price to everyone. From a producer standpoint, cash is the only thing that people are willing to accept as payment for work, and real cash now is much more persuasive than hypothetical cash later.
I mean, maybe you and other anti-DRM people should set up a fund and disburse grants or something, but only to people who commit to DRM-free movie and game releasing. That's how other people promote their causes. Money talks, as they say.
> OK, but do you have any numbers to back up the economic side of the argument?
There is research which shows that DRM always reduces potential for sales. So crowdfunding isn't any different in this aspect. Remember, they profit from sales post release too, and not only from crowdfunding investors.
> I mean, maybe you and other anti-DRM people should set up a fund and disburse grants or something, but only to people who commit to DRM-free movie and game releasing. That's how other people promote their causes. Money talks, as they say.
In my experience, most crowdfunded projects shun DRM (at least all that actually caught my attention), which is an indication for me that voting with your money works. They clearly see that DRM-free releases gives them more backers.
There is research which shows that DRM always reduces potential for sales. So crowdfunding isn't any different in this aspect. Remember, they profit from sales post release too, and not only from crowdfunding investors.
> I mean, maybe you and other anti-DRM people should set up a fund and disburse grants or something, but only to people who commit to DRM-free movie and game releasing. That's how other people promote their causes. Money talks, as they say.
In my experience, most crowdfunded projects shun DRM (at least all that actually caught my attention), which is an indication for me that voting with your money works. They clearly see that DRM-free releases gives them more backers.
What surprises me however, is that some sensible people still use DRM.
Assuming my theory is true, because they wanted to encourage funding via Kickstarter. Offering exclusive perks is a pretty effective way of doing that. It's worked for every campaign I've backed, anyway...
See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9626713
IMHO such approach reduces the number of potential backers instead of increasing it. Clear cut DRM-free release on the other hand attracts more supporters.
All campaigns I participated in clearly saw DRM-free release as helpful for attracting more backers (those who reject DRM).
IMHO such approach reduces the number of potential backers instead of increasing it. Clear cut DRM-free release on the other hand attracts more supporters.
All campaigns I participated in clearly saw DRM-free release as helpful for attracting more backers (those who reject DRM).
> Of course you can download it from Youtube using something like youtube-dl, but it's not as straightforward.
You can get the 1080p version with "youtube-dl --write-sub https://youtu.be/bS5P_LAqiVg". Yes, you want the subs for the funny music descriptions.
You can get the 1080p version with "youtube-dl --write-sub https://youtu.be/bS5P_LAqiVg". Yes, you want the subs for the funny music descriptions.
I used this method:
youtube-dl -f 248+251 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg'
Watching this last night made me feel old. I just don't get it. The ridiculousness and therefore the comedy seems to exist for the sake of being ridiculous. It isn't grounded in anything. That makes it lose it appeal very quickly for me. It reminds me of some of the old SNL movies. It takes a premise that was fun, funny, and interesting and stretches it into something that can't sustain itself. Different strokes I guess...
Maybe you are not old enough?
This film is pure concentrated 80's cheekiness and really takes you back. If you were do destroy bad 80's popular culture and keep only 30 minutes of it for reference, this would be it. Of course it does not work alone for many, because everything in it is reference back to the 80's.
It's very well done. I got 80's flashback from just those tracking errors in the beginning of the tape alone (funny how associative memory works).
deeper analysis:
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/37mw8y/kung_fury_ha...
This film is pure concentrated 80's cheekiness and really takes you back. If you were do destroy bad 80's popular culture and keep only 30 minutes of it for reference, this would be it. Of course it does not work alone for many, because everything in it is reference back to the 80's.
It's very well done. I got 80's flashback from just those tracking errors in the beginning of the tape alone (funny how associative memory works).
deeper analysis:
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/37mw8y/kung_fury_ha...
You need to be older. I'm 48 and I thought it was hilarious because I could spot everything.
This movie is amazing. Every scene is just genius :)
So much of this is straight out of the jokes my friends and I would have as kids in the 80s. I mean, middle-finger lasers? "That's my bicep." We so did that. A lot of that.
Even the meaningless swearing to try to look "cool" was spot on.
So yes. Maybe not "genius" but it so precisely hits the spot that it's undeniably good.
Even the meaningless swearing to try to look "cool" was spot on.
So yes. Maybe not "genius" but it so precisely hits the spot that it's undeniably good.
Is it though? I watched more than half of it. It is a bunch of satirical scenes full of memes copy n pasted together with almost nothing in the way of actual storytelling, which makes it less of a movie and more of a collection of youtube clips.
...and this "bunch of scenes" exactly how a lot of 80s movies/animations were. Watch an episode of Thundercats/He-man/Dungeons and Dragons/Mysterious Cities Gold [1] (I loved that show).
tl;dr the homage to the 80s is not just the visual style but also extends to the story telling.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ki99YBVKyw
tl;dr the homage to the 80s is not just the visual style but also extends to the story telling.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ki99YBVKyw
Mysterious Cities of Gold? Damn, twp, you just hit me hard in the nostalgia :)
It was a classic (very simple) hero's journey that strung those scenes together. And the scenes were pitch perfect riffs on eighties action movie tropes. The whole thing was incredibly on point from start to finish.
It's a parody, it's supposed to be like that.
It is satire, so enjoy it as is :)
The best satire is the one that doesn't rely on slinging obvious jokes in your face, but rather on presenting nonchalant absurdity. The more anarchic and loud styles can also be brilliant (Marx Brothers), but they're quite difficult to pull off and frequently end up being forced and stupid.
> The best satire is the one that doesn't rely on slinging obvious jokes in your face,
Except that this is satirizing a style where obvious jokes were regularly used.
Just watch the first 60 seconds of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrLcHfwppu0
Except that this is satirizing a style where obvious jokes were regularly used.
Just watch the first 60 seconds of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrLcHfwppu0
it's not a satire at all, it's a parody,i'd even say a tribute. To understand the difference, an obvious example: Robocop is a satire.
The word you're looking for is homage: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_(arts)
Satire is a genre, which uses parody (literary approach to the story). So it is both - satire and a parody.
[deleted]
Satire requires some kind of political statement or social criticism. Kung fury isn't a satire.
One could argue it's a social criticism of 80's exploitation films and Michael Bay movies.
> Michael Bay movies.
which are also social criticism themselves ... a social criticism of a social criticism ? now everything looks like post-modernism lol... Seriously, there is no social criticism here, just tropes of 80's movies.
which are also social criticism themselves ... a social criticism of a social criticism ? now everything looks like post-modernism lol... Seriously, there is no social criticism here, just tropes of 80's movies.
I don't see satire as necessarily being socially or politically driven. It can for example be directed at art itself (which it is here).
were you a late 70s or early 80s kid? I feel like a younger generation wouldn't understand this too much.
It was fun for the first 10 min or so. After 20 min, it was quite stale, and by the end I was sick of it. There is talk about them extending this thing into a feature-length film, but I think that would be terrible.
What might work instead is to perform a dual-parody, of both 80's tropes and the modern trope of giving away the plot in the preview(s). In this format, instead of 30 min of formless memes, they would publish 2-4 "previews" of the movie, and that's it. Same content, just published as previews.
What might work instead is to perform a dual-parody, of both 80's tropes and the modern trope of giving away the plot in the preview(s). In this format, instead of 30 min of formless memes, they would publish 2-4 "previews" of the movie, and that's it. Same content, just published as previews.
Yeah, skip the feature. Far better to do an episodic series with each installment being ~24 min.
And then you could divide them into "seasons" covering discrete story arcs.
Perhaps a longer version would have more character development, but then backers would say it was boring. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a maximum limit on the number of lines spoken before a special effect or an action scene must be played.
"Before I could pull the trigger, I was hit by lightning, and bitten by a cobra."
> Every scene is just genius
I question your definition of "genius". It's a fun parody for sure. But don't make it look bigger than it really it.
I question your definition of "genius". It's a fun parody for sure. But don't make it look bigger than it really it.
> Every scene is just genius :)
Specially the arcade-style fighting scene. Pure fucking genius!
The style and attitude of this movie (and that of the Danger 5 TV series) are incredibly well suited for parodying things we feel nostalgic about. Unlike the disappointing way in which Iron Sky tried to take itself seriously.
Specially the arcade-style fighting scene. Pure fucking genius!
The style and attitude of this movie (and that of the Danger 5 TV series) are incredibly well suited for parodying things we feel nostalgic about. Unlike the disappointing way in which Iron Sky tried to take itself seriously.
Was instantly reminded of Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dofacvjRkc
Surprised no one mentioned this already. I was a KS backer for Kung Fury and pretty sure that Blood Dragon gave them some "inspiration". Love them both!
Seems like it borrows a lot from Axe Cop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHGfSBr2FrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHGfSBr2FrY
My son and I thought the same thing. The fact that they were able to upgrade it to live action and still pull it off was an accomplishment.
The production quality is surprisingly good for something I found through a link that includes the text 'funded through kickstarter'.
Check this trailer out too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTidn2dBYbY
Yeah, this is pretty impressive. I assume the production team probably has a lot of experience. Thanks!
That guy is 28! What is it with swedes that makes them so non-dilettantes?
Cool array of '80s home computers at 10:20, including ZX Spectrum with cassette player and microdrive.
I'm in Colorado today can't wait to get done work, head back to my hotel, and enjoy some of what this fine city has to offer while watching this.
That is so bogus ... Hacker man used pow(x,2)... why would he do that when he could have just done x*x? I mean, that's so freshman CS student...
He also pressed Break and the voice said "Enter" ;)
He always presses Break instead of Enter. That's some next level hacking right there.
He remapped break to enter.
I started not liking Triceracops but at the end I was sold.
For the people for who this went wooosh, can you chime in if you lived through this time period and remember the media or not?
(full disclosure, I thought it hit the nostalgic feelings I have from that time almost perfectly)
(full disclosure, I thought it hit the nostalgic feelings I have from that time almost perfectly)
I was a kid in the 80's and I thought the movie was pretty accurate.
Kung Fury is more about the faux-80s that was brought about by Far Cry: Blood Dragon.
Not that that's a bad thing, but "true 80s" flicks are a bit different IMO (ie: Breakfast Club, Back to the Future and the like).
Not that that's a bad thing, but "true 80s" flicks are a bit different IMO (ie: Breakfast Club, Back to the Future and the like).
Saw two (was it three?) decapitations in the first two minutes. One thing which distinguishes the 80s "genre" was that those things were rarely shown outside movies like The Omen. TV was deliberately sanitised, protagonists developed nice, tidy holes when they got shot, they had time for a few last-minute words, they expired with dignity.
It's grotesque on purpose. Note the burning baby carriage and "Try cocaine" billboard in the beginning. And that goes all way through, as core of its satire.
Pretty sure that the baby carriage is a reference to Battleship Potemkin [1].
[1] https://www.google.ch/search?q=battleship+potemkin&espv=2&bi...
[1] https://www.google.ch/search?q=battleship+potemkin&espv=2&bi...
Yeah, seems like it.
I realise that, but "80s action comedy" isn't really true. 80s action comedies include such gems as The Naked Gun, Beverly Hills Cop and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
What's the referent for this movie, if it's "80s action comedy"? I can't think of anything like it, it's more like Duke Nukem frankly.
What's the referent for this movie, if it's "80s action comedy"? I can't think of anything like it, it's more like Duke Nukem frankly.
You're aiming to high when you reference The Naked gun, Beverly Hills Cop and Bill & Ted. This film references the lower budget fare more than the popular big budget films. Don't think of the films you'd see of the cineplex in the 80s, think of the films you'd either see late night on one of the local UHF TV stations or on VHS, often starring Chuck Norris or some no-name mediocre white martial artist. Also emphasis on Action, not the Comedy (or think of Kung Fury as a comedic take on 80s low budget action films).
I was a backer, but also grew up in the late 70s/80s and this film skewers my childhood movie memories to near perfection.
I was a backer, but also grew up in the late 70s/80s and this film skewers my childhood movie memories to near perfection.
It is a parody on '80s action comedy. That's exactly how I understood it. Given that films like The Naked Gun themselves are a parody, Kung Fury came out pretty much as it did :)
References here are obviously Knight Rider and the like.
References here are obviously Knight Rider and the like.
Escape from New York,
Big Trouble in Little China,
maybe even Howard the Duck
I think the baby carriage is an homage to the Odessa Steps scene of Battleship Potemkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Potemkin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Potemkin
Speaking of movie patterns, I noticed that Hollywood seems to be dropping sex scenes lately. In the 90s/early 2000s had to have protagonists in romance and a sex scene. Recently, it's hard to find a popular movie with one.
Let's face it, studios liked sex scenes because they were low-cost and (for many people) compelling. Often the most boring and irrelevant part of the movie, though.
Conversely, I am struck by how much really unpleasant violence there is today.
Conversely, I am struck by how much really unpleasant violence there is today.
I believe it peaked in the 80s and is going down since. I just watched the magnificent "Slugs" (80s gore). I didn't expect so much nudity.
Paul Verhoeven and David Cronenberg would beg to differ.
Well that or whatever they were in gets blown up and you never actually see them die. But explosions have remained a popular death to this day, so they don't really date 80s movies.
Searching IMDB for 1980-1989 keyword "Decapitation" shows 259 movies.
But those aren't action movies from the 80s.
Did anyone else notice that Hackerman looks like the 1980's edition of Bill Joy?
HACKERMAN'S HACKING TUTORIALS - How To Hack Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEkrWRHCDQU
HACKERMAN'S HACKING TUTORIALS - How To Hack Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEkrWRHCDQU
You don't enjoy retrowave for its writing or storytelling, generally speaking. Treat Kung Fury like an extended music video and it makes way more sense.