Crowdfunding vs. Investors

[Jaime Valles]

see, though, those 20 actors and the owners of the 10 locations donated their time, effort, and space to you. I assume they did so happily, but not being paid, that was a form of charity as well. Also, you didn't mention how you fed them -- was the food donated, too?

I don't see this as too different from crowdfunding.

What difference does it make if people donate time/work/props/locations/catering, etc., or just donate money? Either way, it's giving value to you for your project, value you couldn't get just with the money in your pocket.

"at least in america most people who lack money lack money because they haven't worked hard to make more money. They get complacent with their job, they don't try hard enough to find work, etc."

wow. Boy howdy does this reek of both blinkered lack of awareness privilege and basic lack of knowledge... This can quickly get political, so i'm just gonna leave it at 'you need to get out more, look around and do some learnin', son'.

"i'll self fund it from the money i have which i made through working hard, as opposed to asking people for charity because i'm too lazy to make my own money to put into my passions."

and

"if a handful of filmmakers aren't able to put 25k together in a year or so it is pretty sad. It's usually a matter of not willing to sacrifice or clever enough to gather those resources on their own. Or a pattern of bad choices financially. Hope i didn't offend anyone because it has nothing to do with how good a person or filmsker you are."

lol. You almost got it right with "it has nothing to do with how good a person or filmsker you are." - stop, listen and think. Fundraising is a skill. It is a valuable skill. There is a reason why the position of "producer" and "executive producer" exists. If raising money was not a skill, and just about anybody could do it, most producers wouldn't get paid for raising money. Hello, yes, just as with acting, directing, candlestick making, some people are good at it, and many are not. You can be a perfectly fine director, and not be able to raise squat. You might be a great director, but lousy animal wrangler on set, or a lousy fundraiser. It says nothing about you as a filmmaker if you can't raise money.

There are many great directors (example: Bergman) who come out of systems where there was state funding - they didn't go out and raise the money, they got funded by the state. They were still great directors, and might have never had careers were it not for that system, and world culture would be the poorer for it. Some who got funding were lousy directors. Same as everywhere. How you got the money is no sign of your directing skills.

Here's a hint for people about how others make financial decisions: Don't judge. Nobody is expecting you to contribute to causes you don't like. But don't judge others. Live and let live. Open your mind. Learn something. And mind your own business - what someone does with their money does not affect you, you never have all the info about somebody else's situation, so why pass judgment?

every word of this.

 

[IronFilm]

Keep in mind, a lot of fundraisers are actually used for marketing purposes, not necessarily as a primary function to get funding. this is actually quite a common strategy,. ie. do a fundraiser before the film, or during a film, or after a film to raise awareness of it, build momentum etc.. its a type of PR. So before everyone gets too caught up it being charity, well in fact it might not be at all.

Just a thought and perspective I thought I would share.

Yup! I'd chase crowdfunding for a film even if it didn't need it

As it is a great way to help market your film to get its name out there, but also additionally any extra money it raises is a bonus to help polish up the feature film even further to a higher standard.