Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Neil Gaiman and Amber Benson About Their Kickstarter Vampire Movie

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the ask-what-you-will dept.

Movies 103

Writer and novelist Neil Gaiman and Amber Benson of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame have teamed up to star in a new vampire movie called, Blood Kiss. Kickstarted by ST:TNG and Emmy-winning writer Michael Reaves, Blood Kiss is a film noir vampire movie set in Golden Age Hollywood. Of his acting debut Gaiman says, "I'm willing to pretend that the prospect of acting doesn't terrify me in order to help Michael Reaves make his film." The trio have agreed to take a break from the blood and answer any questions you have about the new project or their past work. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one per post.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Overdone? (3)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783497)

Given the plethora of vampire-related media in recent years, do you believe there is still a market for this type of film? What will you bring to the table that has not already been done?

Re:Overdone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783569)

They will bring Neil Gaiman, Amber Benson, and Michael Reaves to the table. This is enough.

Re:Overdone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783749)

They will bring Neil Gaiman, Amber Benson, and Michael Reaves to the table. This is enough.

Even if you appreciate Neil Gaiman's writing, you do realise that he's acting in this? It's possible that he'll be good at that, just as it is for any other randomly selected person, but why would his acting in it be a positive? It sounds like a desperate ploy to get anyone with any sort of 'star' name. This does not bode well.

Re:Overdone? (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#43787899)

I have heard Neil Gaiman do voice acting work – audio play adaptation of a Gene Wolf story – (I am not counting his readings of his own audio books.) He was good. He does have a great voice.

Acting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801755)

From the webpage it sounds like you don't relish the idea of acting Neil. What made you decide to do it and what is Mr. Reaves holding over you?

Re:Overdone? (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783635)

I came here to ask this.... although I was going to go with something along the lines of "What makes you think we need another vampire movie"

Of course, lets take a look at the movies we can be expecting soon... Another Superman movie (Man of steel), Fast and Furious 6 (AKA return of the dead characters), Hangover 3, Thor 2, Jurassic Park 4, Star Trek Into Darkness (reboot part deux), and on and on. Why do we even expect new stuff anymore?

Re:Overdone? (1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783779)

and the numerous movies starring your mom.

Re:Overdone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783801)

Well, I'm not going to mod you up...but I thought this was funny.

Re:Overdone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783883)

and the numerous movies starring your mom.

Score:5, Funny

Re:Overdone? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783823)

..., Thor 2, ...

"Oh Annie, you're breaking my heart!"

Re:Overdone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784599)

Can't mod you, sorry, there's no option for Cynical but Technically Correct.

Re:Overdone? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783755)

Not sure there has been a plethora in "recent" years. Vampires have always been popular. there are almost 2000 IMDB entries with the keyword "vampire".

Vampires (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783771)

suck.

Re:Overdone? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784921)

1.) Amber Benson,
2.) Neil Gaiman
3.) I'm reasonably sure these vampires won't glitter.

Re:Overdone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785491)

3.) I'm reasonably sure these vampires won't glitter.

So they are planning on abandoning the tween demographic? Please tell me there will at least be vampire stares!

Re:Overdone? (1)

sela (32566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43786573)

For a contribution of 2000$ or more on kickstarter, you can sponsor a vampire stare. For a contribution of 10000$, you'll get a gracious glitter from an emotionally staring vampire named after your dog.

The Company (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783535)

WorldNet is one of the leading technology solution providers for tourism industry. With the mission of delivering simple, robust and scalable solution, WorldNet is working closely with his clients and partners to deliver a robust, maintainable and flexible solution that meets challenging demands today and future.

what are the vampires like? (2, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783537)

what are the vampires like? are they cool like masquerade, goofy like buffy or just plain retarded like twilight?

yes this is intended to sound like buffy and twilight are uncool/stupid and that masquerade is cool/interesting. if their faces change to bad masks like buffy then gtfo and if the thing is like twilight then gtfo. don't care about the story. blade style is ok as well, it's somewhat akin to masquerade anyways(the basic stuff minus the "special" shit).

Re:what are the vampires like? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783647)

Or perhaps they are pre-Stoker vampires that are random whatever semi-cannibalistic creature that poses as humanoid but not necessary corporal humans.

Re:what are the vampires like? (2)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783693)

For the record, I thought Buffy's vampires were pretty bad-ass. They were, in fact, a form of demonic possession, only the possessed was a dead body. But zombies are more "in" lately.

Re:what are the vampires like? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43785211)

But zombies are more "in" lately.

They're less into talking and more into gnawing - fewer opportunities to screw things up.

Re:what are the vampires like? (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43785825)

Nah, just wait until we have glittering zombies. Game over.

Re:what are the vampires like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43789147)

You'd think so, but someone managed to screw up zombies too.

Not glittery, but talking, emo and annoying as hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07s-cNFffDM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1588173/

Re:what are the vampires like? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784235)

and that masquerade is cool/interesting.

I, too, enjoy wearing my trenchcoat and "The Cure" band t-shirt while standing around at night looking socially awkward.

Re:what are the vampires like? (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about a year and a half ago | (#43790247)

Hopefully they will be awesome like in Necroscope.

Re:what are the vampires like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43793373)

Or amorphous monstrosities like Hellsing.

Re:what are the vampires like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43795599)

Are the vampires going to be sparkly or run around with swords in leather pants or are you going to stick with a more traditional bloodsucker?

Why do you need kickstarter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783551)

Household names teaming up with an industry award winner? Leave the crowdfunding for the people without deep pockets and industry access/connections.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783667)

Household names teaming up with an industry award winner? Leave the crowdfunding for the people without deep pockets and industry access/connections.

Hmm. I'm in two minds about this:

0. If you get paid to do work, then Kickstarter funds are payment for that work and should reduce the end cost to consumers. Work totally funded by Kickstarte? Distribute it for "free" since we paid you to do work. You want more money? Do more work for us, like a car mechanic, home builder or any other labor market in the world not trying to sell ice to eskimos -- er, bits to folk with computers...

1. Let the big guys legitimize Kickstarter and other crowd funding. This is the transitionary period that can finally spell the eradication of publishers. Each time they Kickstarter it's another nail in the coffin of Publishers trying to make mony via artifically scarce information. (What's scarce is the ability to do work, market that, not the infinitely reproducable bits). Everyone should crowd fund 100%. Completely eliminate all piracy and copyright law would be moot -- Only work when money is garaunteed, then you don't need to monopolize your work (you have your monopoly over your work before you do it, not afterwards).

What I want to know, is which of these are they aiming to further, and if they've talked to their Publisher about how this, and if they're OK with you trying to kill the Publishing business model via leveraging Kickstarter?

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784317)

I'd be cool with the crowdfunding if the movie was released to the internet for free OR if the kickstart investers get a return on their money. Otherwise, this is bogus.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43793021)

OR if the kickstart investers get a return on their money

Yeah, I never understood the Kickstarter model of taking all the financial risk while giving all the reward away.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (1)

levi47 (799253) | about a year and a half ago | (#43794045)

I think that a kickstarter such as this should have a funding level that the film is released entirely free digitally in addition to their pre-production level. Place this level somewhere around the profit they estimate to make with moderate dvd sales and theatrical release. Then, offer for sale the DVD\Blueray for a reasonable price and release to theaters. This way people can help lower the risk of producing something that might not be super popular and people can still support the effort after the fact by purchasing the dvd\blueray or seeing it in theaters.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (-1, Flamebait)

retech (1228598) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783677)

AMEN! Gaiman is a complete dick for sucking the funding from indy projects. He's got the cash and pay for this out of pocket. Proving his true colours once again.

Give me all your money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784067)

So, I have a certain amount of money, and I also volunteer (mainly for litter cleanups on local waterways). By your logic, since I don't pay people to do the cleanups for me, and since I accept assistance from nonprofits (in the form of boxes of free trash bags), I'm a complete asshole?

I think I'd rather live in my universe than see the universe through your shit-colored glasses.

Re:Give me all your money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43788403)

I think you should go take your meds. This movie is not a bunch of people volunteering to pickup litter. They will make a nice profit from this, while sucking the cream off of crowd funding funds.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784083)

Anyone named Neil or any variation on spelling, will be almost without exception, a complete and total Douche-bag. The only exceptions I could possibly think of would be NPH and NDT. If you think of someone you know or have known named Neil, they will be a douchebag.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43788605)

How about NRP and NWM, not to mention NKS?

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (4, Insightful)

sela (32566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784479)

Your logic is completely faulty here.

First, being famous doesn't preclude you from using Kickstarter. Even someone could get funding from a big studio, it means the'll have to cede some of the control over the movie to the studios, who would change it to get more commercial appeal. Kickstarter allows the creator to maintain creative freedom.

Second, it doesn't suck funding from indy projects. Actually, it works just the other way around. More big names bring more public awareness to kickstarter, and as a result, those small indy projects get a chance to get more money, NOT less.

And third, this is not a Neil Gaiman movie. This is a Michael Reaves movie. Neil Gaiman agreed to play in this movie to help a friend.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785281)

The problem is that he has those connections. He has made several films. He knows the people in Hollywood and knows how to fund a movie. Kickstarter is for those people who don't have those connections, but still have good ideas. And yes, there are a limited number of funders. Where do you think the money is going to go when an indie band wants to make their first album or the Rolling Stones want to make a new album? When an indie filmmaker wants to make a movie or Neil Gaiman wants to make one?

This will be the death of Kickstarter. It is going to essentially just be a place where the well connected can rip off their fans.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (1)

sela (32566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43786485)

You assume this is a zero-sum game, but it's not. The pool of potential funders is not fixed. When a well-known creator starts a Kickstarter project, it attracts a new wave of fans who come to help the specific project they are interested at, and then some of them stick around and help funding other projects. It's a win-win.

Besides, its up to the funders to get their priorities right. Personally, I wouldn't fund a Rolling Stones album because I believe they don't need my help. I would rather spend my money helping some small indie band, and help some project that couldn't happen without my help, and I'm sure many others will do the same. So I'm not worried Rolling Stones or George Lucas would dry the funding for those smaller indie projects.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43787093)

And you are assuming that no cannibalism will occur among the current Kickstarter crowd. If Neil Gaiman brings in 5000 new Kickstarter donations but cannibalizes 10,000 that would have gone to other projects, then he has hurt the little guy. This is the danger with famous and well connected people joining Kickstarter. They may make Kickstarter bigger overall, but not for everybody. And since they have the resources to make their projects elsewhere, they probably should instead of tossing grenades into this careful ecosystem.

Face it, the only reason that the rich come to a crowdsourcing site is to rip off their fans. Gaiman is rich enough he could probably pay for the movie out of his pocket and have 100% artistic control. He won't. Instead he will beg for money and the independent artists will suffer for it.

Re:Why do you need kickstarter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43788187)

And yes, there are a limited number of funders.

Hate to break it to you, but the number of funders changes all the time.

Unless of course you are seriously attempting to claim that every single last human being on this planet is now and forever in the future a current active kickstarter funder...

For example I have only kicked money into ONE kickstarter.
That means if I was to put money on a movie, I would be a NEW funder.

If some indy movie impressed me enough to donate money to, the fact all the current stuff, past stuff, and future stuff such as this big studio movie, does NOT change anything from the perspective of the indy that impressed me.

Now, if you are attempting to claim that everyone must always donate an equal share to each and every single stupid last thing on kickstarter, then sure you would have a point. But unless you do that, I'd venture a guess that literally no one at all does that. Even if you do, you are likely the only one.

Will Lincoln be in it? (2)

the_humeister (922869) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783559)

I'll only watch if the main character is a popular dead president.

Re:Will Lincoln be in it? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783707)

I'll only watch if the main character is a popular dead president.

Maybe he'll be the vampire this time.

Vampires are so over (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783587)

Somebody didn't get the memo that vampires are over.

You can track this at a Barnes and Noble store by noting how many bookcases in the teen section are devoted to a subject. At peak, there were four cases of "Teen Paranormal Romance" and two of "New Teen Paranormal Romance". That dropped to three cases total, then two. "Survival" books are big now - there are two cases of Hunger Games imitations, not including the table of Hunger Games merch.

Re:Vampires are so over (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783651)

Can we be over zombies now, too? pretty please?

Re:Vampires are so over (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783733)

I think the Vampires vs. Zombies genre is just now heating up.

Re:Vampires are so over (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783703)

if twilight is dead then great!
the little vampire books were kinda fun as a kid though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_kleine_Vampir [wikipedia.org] they should get a resurgence(no idea about the movie though).

but did barnes & noble really have a shelf dedicated to that shit? at least finnish bookstores aren't that kind of insane(or finnish teens don't read or have more sense..). the funniest labeled shelf I saw was at londons forbidden planet: "macho guys with guns". around here they're just fiction or non fiction. some bookstores having a scifi/fantasy shelf as well..

Re:Vampires are so over (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784153)

Sorry, it ain't over yet.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=vampire [google.com]

Search Interest generally spikes in October with the highwater mark being October 2011. However looks like May 2013 has the highest search interest in vampires for the month of May, ever and all-time interest should peak this October.

Interest in Zombies and Werewolves may have reached a plateau.

Actually, his quote was ... (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about a year and a half ago | (#43790019)

Neil Gaiman gave an interview in 2009 to Entertainment Weekly : http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20301186,00.html [ew.com]

Where are we now, in the grand vampire cycle?

Vampires go in waves, and it kind of feels like now we're finishing a vampire wave; at the point where they're everywhere. It's probably time to go back underground for another 20 or 25 years.

Theyâ(TM)ve reached the saturation point.

I think so, and it definitely sort of feels like classical vampires have been around enough that if they could go back in their coffins, the next time they come out [they could] mean something really different. That would be cool.

Re:Vampires are SEX and DEATH (1)

painandgreed (692585) | about a year and a half ago | (#43795087)

Somebody didn't get the memo that vampires are over.

The vampire thing has been ongoing for more than a century and a half so far and probably will never be over. Before Dracula, there was Lord Ruthven who every author made their main vampire. The 19th century was full of books and plays about vampires. Thing is that vampires are allegories for sex, death, and even sometimes romantic love which people have tended to dwell on since they started telling stories. They may be over used at times, but will never be over until something else comes along to replace them.

Still a better love story? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783609)

Than Twilight?

Bazinga.

Blood kiss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783661)

If that's the best name they could come up with then I won't look forwards to the rest of the writing.

Is it going to be overrated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783669)

like MirrorMask, which was mediocre?

Thoughts on Vampire rules? (3, Interesting)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783709)

What are your thoughts on Vampire rules; such as classic vampires vs sparkling?
Over the decades we've seen Vampires (and Zombies) change and evolve from the classic rules and mythology to a whole plethora of variations. Powers, weaknesses, origins, turnings, etc. Such transitions have been slow, but now we have sparkling vampires made of stone. Do you feel that we should stick more with the classic mythos? Or are you in favor with your own spin.

Re:Thoughts on Vampire rules? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783959)

Such transitions have been slow, but now we have sparkling vampires made of stone.

I know you are talking about Twilight, but if I recall correctly, in Anne Rice's Vampire novels, the really, really old vampires looked like (& were as hard as) alabaster statues until they moved.

Re:Thoughts on Vampire rules? (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784445)

The original vampires in Anne Rice's books, the ones who created all other vampires, had alabaster skin but were more like marble statues. They were a king and queen who were possessed by a demon. Akasha later killed her husband and got the full power.

When Lestat found her and drank her blood, he gained some of the power. That is why when he tried to kill himself by lying naked in the Gobi Desert, waiting for the sun to rise, he didn't die. All he got was a tan.

Yeah, I read the books back in the day. Despite her flip-flopping back and forth on the religion bandwagon, her portrayal of vampires and how they came to be was/is interesting.

Dracula (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year and a half ago | (#43790301)

Well, even going back to Brahm, Dracula was less powerful in daylight but didn't necessarily kill him, it just reduced his strength and made him unable to use some powers (such as transformation, etc).

Still, he certainly didn't freakin' sparkle in the sunlight.

Re:Thoughts on Vampire rules? (2)

khasim (1285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784243)

Do you feel that we should stick more with the classic mythos? Or are you in favor with your own spin.

The problem would be FINDING the "classic" vampire. They've been changing ever since they were first invented. Mostly because the person telling the story needed a certain feature set for that story.

I'm not saying anything against Michael Reaves. But the main problem with most of the stories is that the reality created by the writer is inherently limited to the knowledge of the writer. So there are usually huge plot holes such as "if vampires are so cool then why wouldn't everyone want to be a vampire" or "if vampires are so powerful then why do they have to hide".

Re:Thoughts on Vampire rules? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43786031)

I realize that even the old-school vampire mythos was not exactly stable.

But the same way as how Zombies started changing at an accelerated rate around the 2000's... so have vampires. Sun varies from lethal, to dangerous, to a minor inconvenience, to it makes me weaker after X hours of exposure, to I look like a bedazzled-human . Rules for conversion vary, though those rules have almost almost varied since mid 1900s. Innate abilities change. Craving / behavior / personality changes.

But like zombies, there is kind of a fuzzy line between "These are old-school zombies" and "These are superhuman runner zombies" and "these are somewhere in between" You can put vampires on a similar spectrum.

The fact of the matter is though, with vampires they keep changing them around to be more and more "cool." I mean, some of the older stories... hell no I wouldn't want to be a vampire. But with the newer stuff, their abilities are amped and their weaknesses are nerfed. Why not?

Re:Thoughts on Vampire rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43786491)

Seems like "turning into a bat" has been ignored in most modern vampire fiction (TV and films) except for Hotel Transylvania; maybe because it's a lot easier to do animated bats than live action ones.

Some recent works try to bridge the mythology by saying that yeah, old vampires were like the stories, but now we have sunblock, artificial blood, evolution, powers/weaknesses increase only as vampires age, etc.

Re:Thoughts on Vampire rules? (1)

khasim (1285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43787621)

But with the newer stuff, their abilities are amped and their weaknesses are nerfed. Why not?

Exactly. You get eternal youth (at whatever age you "died") and all kinds of extras in exchange for a literal blood thirst. Which may or may not require you to kill a person (depending upon the writer) or animal.

So what effect would that have on society? And when did it start?

Are there "good" vampires and if so, why aren't they converting some of our best scientists? Why aren't they our space program? Stake them on Earth, send them to Mars and have a machine pull the stake. No need for food during the trip. Be the first vampire to see Saturn up close and then turn the ship back to Earth. How many astronauts on Earth would willingly "go vampiric" to do that?

Why do this? (4, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783791)

Didn't Twilight ruin Vampires for generations to come?

Re:Why do this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783903)

Vampires have been done to death as well as zombies.

How about a KickStarter for a new Serenity movie?

Re:Why do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785573)

Vampires have been done to death as well as zombies.

I see what you did there.

Re:Why do this? (1)

Terminus32 (968892) | about a year and a half ago | (#43791251)

True say!

My question (4, Funny)

Chillas (144627) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783845)

With Michael, Neil and Amber on board, this project has a very intriguing pedigree and I think stands a good chance at being something original and fresh. At the same time, the vampire story is feeling a little worn-out at this particular time, which might make it a hard sell for some. My question is, will Amber Benson marry me?

Re:My question (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784943)

You stole my question, before I could even ask it.

American Gods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783861)

Neil, no question just wanted to tell you I love your work

But what Slashdot REALLY wants to know is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783877)

What's making out with Alyson Hannigan like?

favorite (2)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783901)

Thanks to both of you for this interview!

Who is your favorite vampire ?

Question for Ms. Benson: (0, Redundant)

thedbp (443047) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784233)

Will you marry me?

Q&As (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784339)

Am I remembering things wrong, or have these sorts of interviews on slashdot become much, much less popular in terms of number of responses than they used to be? The only ones I've seen lately have had the post count in the tens, which seems like a waste of an opportunity. I feel like maybe they should stop doing them because apparently almost no readers care.

Singing (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784411)

Will Amber be singing? Some of us have been waiting a long time for the debut album but will take what we can get.

I hate the header font (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784485)

Nothing like reading a story about Nell Galman, whoever that is.

As a nerd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43784741)

Never heard of any of these fine people, maybe I'm on the wrong continent or just too old...

Question: Why should I look up from my server logs? Will the blood in Blood Kiss turn out to be engine oil and reveal that the vampires are actually robots?

That's it. (2, Funny)

ddd0004 (1984672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784863)

I'm founding Kickstopper.

Why is an avowed atheist, and dismisser of all (0)

landofcleve (1959610) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784891)

things supernatural making a vampire movie?

Re:Why is an avowed atheist, and dismisser of all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785153)

Because they can mentally separate the concepts of "fiction for entertainment" and "reality"?

Re:Why is an avowed atheist, and dismisser of all (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43787169)

Wait, since when are vampires considered supernatural?

In fact, please define "supernatural". Preferably using something else besides "things I don't understand" or "things I can't explain with the currently known science".

Re:Why is an avowed atheist, and dismisser of all (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about a year and a half ago | (#43792723)

You first. Please detail the inner workings of vampires that have been empirically and rigorously researched and studied using scientific methodology. Oh wait...no such thing as vampires as they are imagined creatures of supernatural origin, so there is nothing to study.

Re:Why is an avowed atheist, and dismisser of all (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43794997)

OK, so you're using my #2 example "things I can't explain with the currently known science".

I'm not saying vampires are real, I just don't like term "supernatural" as it's being thrown around without any sensible definition. Go back a few hundred years, and lightning didn't have a scientific explanation; many people probably attributed it to divine powers. Yet it was clearly a natural phenomenon.

I guess my point is that something either exists or it doesn't. "Supernatural" is a rather loaded term for something that simply doesn't exist. (Of course, I'm not perfectly sure that vampires don't exists, but if they did, there would be nothing supernatural about them.)

Underdone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785093)

If these guys say Vamps are overdone, are there any types of monster you find underdone?

Abuse of Kickstarter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785171)

Given that Neil has access to the Hollywood funding machine and has already made a couple movies, why should he be using Kickstarter to fund his project? Shouldn't Kickstarter be used for people who have a good idea but don't have those industry connections? Isn't Neil's tactic going to only start to push those people out and reduce their opportunities when every well connected person starts using it? It doesn't seem fair.

Can Nicholas Cage make a cameo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785643)

As a proported vampire himself, this would be amazing.

Vampyres of Hollywood? (1)

Scott Loving (2928975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43785665)

Without spoiling the plot, what separates Blood Kiss from the Vampyres of Hollywood series of novels?

Yay! (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | about a year and a half ago | (#43785815)

...ANOTHER vampire film / franchise!!!

I know, "But this is Neil Gaiman!!!" /facepalm

Funding (1)

DocGerbil100 (2873411) | about a year and a half ago | (#43785927)

The Kickstarter page asks for $50K, but considering the apparent costs usually involved in making anything other than the smallest-scale movies, as well as the references in the text of your KS pitch regarding venture capital, I'd like to know how much you *actually* need to get this film made and distributed.

There are only two vampire movies (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#43787881)

A few (two or three) variations of Dracula.
And "An interview with a vampire".

Oh, well if you are hardcore you might want to see Nosferatu.

Market? Yeah sure, there is a market. The stupid idiots watch everything that is marketed right.

I for my part can not stand vampire movies, most zombie movies (except "Brain Dead") or horror movies in particular.

The audience around me is submerged into the "story" and "feared". I see no story as nonly see the flaws in the "chain of events" ... obviously for the brain dead masses some effects that "scare" them are enough to make a movie "exciting".

Disclaimer: I never saw a vampire movie in the theater (except that movie with Pat Britt and Tom Cruise)

Hey but Neil writes nice books and I hear Amanda or is it Amber is a nice singer ... perhaps they have an IDEA!

Re:There are only two vampire movies (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43788283)

I think you are missing Salems Lot, which is a fairly good interpretation of the Stephen King book.

I'd also go for The Lost Boys, lightweight but with a good 80s soundtrack

Re:There are only two vampire movies (1)

wynterwynd (265580) | about a year and a half ago | (#43793363)

Try "Let the Right One In" - it's a vampire movie with a completely different approach. It's not a horror movie really, except in the circumstantial sense - more of a rather charming drama of sorts.

It's on Netflix on-demand, give it a watch and see if you don't find a vampire movie you truly like.

Kickstarter: Monster.com for celebrities (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43788795)

My question:

Don't you think celebrities should get the hell off kickstarter? Having both achieved success and fame in your chosen fields, why don't you use your undoubted influence and contacts instead of taking the lazy option of asking fans to shoulder the risk and provide project financing for you?

Kickster is a fantastic opportunity for unknowns and people with good ideas, who otherwise would find it hard to raise capital, to get their small projects off the ground through crowdfunding. I find it pretty shabby that it's now become a playground for individuals to use their celebrity to further their own ambitions and careers, thus making the pot available to those who don't have your name recognition all the smaller. It's not like your idea even has anything original or inventive about it. Neil Gaiman in particular - you're an international multiple best-selling author, so I doubt you're short of a dollar or two. Why go cap-in-hand to people considerably less affluent than you to pursue your hobbies and side projects?

What do you have to say to this?

matter of the heart (1)

itchybrain (2538928) | about a year and a half ago | (#43789085)

Wait. Will characters fall in love or sleep with each other, eventually or otherwise? If so, count me out.

The Buffy series was awesome but starts to lose its shine when every character 'buddies' up.

Series I can think of right now that do not do this are Sam Raimi's Hercules and maybe, Xena.

What do they mean this time? (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about a year and a half ago | (#43790057)

In a 2009 interview with Entertainment Weekly, Neil Gaiman mentioned his opinions on what vampires represented, and the published interview concluded with:

...it definitely sort of feels like classical vampires have been around enough that if they could go back in their coffins, the next time they come out [they could] mean something really different. That would be cool.

... so do the vampires mean something different this time?

Good Omens movie? (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about a year and a half ago | (#43790081)

As it says we're allowed to ask about past work --

Should we still hold out hope for a Good Omens movie, or is it just dead in the water?

(it's still one of my favorite books of all time ... I think I'm on my 4th copy as I've loaned it to over a dozen people over the years and don't always get it back)

Re:Good Omens movie? (1)

ZombieThoughts (1735956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43791061)

I was thinking this reading through all of these replies. My favorite work by Gaiman and Pratchett.

Thank you for mentioning it.

Worth removing the mods I did on previous posts.

Re:Good Omens movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43791187)

Oh, please screw the vampires, do a Good Omens movie! You could slip a vampire in there somewhere if absolutely necessary.

Vampire genre (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43790661)

As far as movies go, vampire genre should be far from done and dusted.. books maybe, but surely not movies.. Someone should make a movie from the Vampire Hunter D novels.

American Gods HBO series (1)

wynterwynd (265580) | about a year and a half ago | (#43793315)

Hi Neal - first off I want to say I'm a huge admirer and I can't wait to see you in Nashville this July! That being said, the tour is billed as the "Last US Signing Tour". Say it ain't so!

My question:

With the upcoming "American Gods" project for HBO, how much creative control do you have over the direction of series? Is there a firm beginning and an end to the story arc, as with the novel, or do you have to keep things open for possible future seasons?

Blood Kiss sounds interesting due to the sheer creativity pool involved, although I think the vampire genre is getting a bit washed thin and fraying at the cuffs lately. Hopefully this approach will be sufficiently unique as to revitalize it (entendré completely intended).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?