I was going to post but then realised Sean said pretty much what I intended to.
I think people have a misconception that Kickstarter is some indie hero website for the small guy to finally get the credit he deserves and that it's a model which fights the classic studio setup. That's simply not the case. The Veronica Mars movie was a perfect example where WB green-lit the movie on the grounds that Rob Thomas and crew were able to bring some money to the table, I personally helped fund that project and I don't regret it, it was an enjoyable movie and in my view worth the money I put down in Kickstarter. Officially speaking, we wouldn't have had that movie without Kickstarter, sure people involved had the money to cover it, but they weren't going to and in that regards film is a unique animal. It's part business part art and everyone has a different (and usually strong) opinion on how exactly that split should be managed. Before I started working in film I had an IT help desk job and I certainly wasn't expected to buy any of the company computers with my own money, it's not a perfect metaphor but the concept still stands, these actors and directors have gained their money, in most cases, through successful films. If they are not wanting to part with that money that's really up to them, if we the public want to see the films created, then we can make it happen or not make it happen by putting our money behind it.
I think there's also this false perception that there is a limit to the money that is sitting in this "kickstarter backers" pool and if it goes to the big guys there's less left over for the little guys. That's not how I've seen it personally, even when I was barely able to find work I somehow always still able to find money for a coffee every morning. It's not true of everyone but most people have more expendable income available. It's more about what peaks their interest than some perceived limit to available funding.