Fan Funding for Films

Anyone have any thoughts on whether or not a sufficiently organized and fiscally transparent fan base could fund the production of (a) film(s)? There was a demonstration of the power of the consumer (fan) with the resurrection of the TV series Firefly as Serenity, but I wonder if this was just the tip of the iceberg. The current production model appears to be take a risk on pretty crappy, catch-all material and if it hits a nerve and generates enough residual value to offset alternative projects, make a sequel. Would it not make more sense to have fans pay up/invest first as a palpable demonstration of a ready market? Why wait for the dollars to come AFTER production with the sale of DVDs when it may be possible for people to pay a smaller amount early on with more powerful current value of money, generate interest and participation and hopefully free marketing to the target audience?

For example - what if every fan paid $2 towards a documented, visible, bonded pay-pay account dedicated towards providing a significant amount of funding for the production of a movie. In return for their investment, each investor would be guaranteed a DVD of the described project at cost and a pro-rated share of the profits (if any). Once sufficient cash had been raised the fund administrators (principals or 3 largest investors) would take the cash to directors/executive producers for the pitch? The pitch should be a lot more powerful with numbers of fans and dollars behind it.

This application of the mondragon cooperative system of fan funding makes sense to me, but I'm interested in other's thoughts. After all wouldn't it be better for GREAT films, be they sci-fi, drama, mystery, what-have-you, to be pushed by fans rather than pulled by mediocre marketing efforts.

keywords: Firefly, Mondragon, breasts [just kidding]

Getting into Medical School

Well, it has been a busy series of months teaming with my wife to help her wend the torturous path into medical school. She's excited and thrilled to have gotten this far towards achieving a childhood dream. But the MCAT, essays, interview, letters, oh my! I understand how important it is to ensure that our health care professionals are dedicated, intelligent, and alert. But I question whether the system of hoops required for admission truly screen for the most empathetic or altruistic.

Why? Because the cost of health care, for both patients and general physicians, has become so outrageous that anyone who researches the field prior to applying probably figured out that only the intentionally penitent or sufficiently rich would do anything other than specialize, or look to a spouse to cover the loan repayments during the long, cold struggle through post-partem depression. Get in, do 7 - 9 years of residency, get your money, and get out - hopefully with legal skin intact.

Basically the system appears to have evolved - by dint of lawsuit, perhaps - into one that punishes the well-meaning and rewards those who seek medical treatment for convenience and consumption, rather than necessity or salvation. What type of doctors generally make the least money in healthcare? Those who provide primary care. Who could help lead our country back into affordable health care - those same people.

I find it interesting that we spend more money on correctors than preventers - but that would seem to fit into the thinking of a troup of monkeys, then, wouldn't it?