My problem with that is that nobody has yet MADE a solid alternative to traditional movie distribution. His options are basically traditional or give it away for free/donations. Television has gained the fun alternative of getting published by Hulu or Netflix, but there simply isn't money in that for a movie people will only really view one time. Since he obviously doesn't want to go broke here, and is funneling a lot of his own money in, why should he give it away? The people donating KNOW they aren't getting advance tickets, so this is a case of it really not affecting the pissed off people.

iTunes sells videos, and if you're determined you can strip the DRM. It couldn't be that hard for them to offer a DRM-free option.

Right, and in the meantime he is "selling off" a large part of the risk, while keeping a large part of the reward.

Now, on one hand, people investing in Kickstarter should be or need to learn to be aware that they are "investing", and with that, comes risk.

But on the other, here is someone who could make this happen, arrange financing, etc, but sees this as a way to be more "independent" (which, coincidentally, also means, "doesn't have most of the royalties and profits sent to the studio but instead to him"), who is asking us to put up the bulk of the risk (shared amongst many), and see very little seeds of the project (and certainly none of the reward).