Spike Lee launches a Kickstarter for his next movie to raise $1.25 million
- Thread starter commercialguy
- Start date
Spike has a lot of fans. With a cool mil already in the kickstarter there's no way he can't pull in some favors and get a little bit of publicity to get the rest.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
In my time observing kickstarters, the biggest rush comes at the end. So I would have no doubt he'll make it.
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
I had breakfast on Sunday about 6 feet from George Romero (name drop :beer
. He was talking about how Lee had plenty of avenues to generate revenue and that it was ridiculous that he was asking ordinary people for cash. I agree. But, if people want to give him money, I guess he'd be stupid not to take it.
(It's not like I'm claiming to be friends with Romero, we were just seated next to one another)
. He was talking about how Lee had plenty of avenues to generate revenue and that it was ridiculous that he was asking ordinary people for cash. I agree. But, if people want to give him money, I guess he'd be stupid not to take it.(It's not like I'm claiming to be friends with Romero, we were just seated next to one another)
Last edited:
I had breakfast on Sunday about 6 feet from George Romero (name drop :beer
(It's not like I'm claiming to be friends with Romero, we were just seated next to one another)
What's the difference in asking someone to buy a DVD on the kickstarter, or whatever autographed thingamabob they want, and asking someone to buy a DVD after you make the movie?
Aren't they both ordinary people spending money on DVDs, only one is before the movie is made, the other is after? Doesn't Romero ask the same ordinary people to buy his DVDs?
Romero should do a kickstarter. I'd donate if he has a good pitch.
commercialguy
Member
John Singleton (Director of Four Brothers, Shaft, Boyz n the Hood, 2 Fast 2 Furious) shows support for Spike Lee...
Ian-T
Veteran
I’ve been following this thread on and off for a bit and am still puzzled why some people have animosity towards a Spike lee or Zach Braff for using Kick starter to fund an upcoming project. Why not? I don’t quite know how movies “normally” get funded but from what littleI understand isn’t it through some sort of studio? Isn’t there a lot of red tape to go through to get what YOU want out there when it comes to big studios? I read or heard of a number of stories where the creator or director does not have full creative control over their project because of all the bureaucracy. I don’tagree with Romero. What does an“ordinary” person even mean? People who are not rich? People who are not in the movie business? Not part of the Hollywood machine? Rich or not…in my eyes if they don’t have full control over their projects they are still “ordinary”people with an extraordinary past to me. I think this is a novel idea for both people who are “famous” as well as the “little guys.” One has a fan base while the other is trying to build a fan base. Let the “people” speak by throwing in their own hard earned cash towards something they are willing to take a gamble on. If it succeeds to make something great then they can pat themselves on the back for contributing to greatness. But if it sinks then oh well. They can either continue supporting their favorite director in future projects or choose to move on to something else…like an up-and-comer. But something like this gives everyone a choice to play the game or not. It's all good.
I think there are two ways to look at kickstarter:
1. (This is my view) Kickstarter is nothing more than a way to go around banks, investors, "Producers", and go straight to the consumer with your product.
Old way: get a loan from a bank, make a product like a gravy boat or a movie, hope it sells, pay back the bank or "investors". If it doesn't sell, throw it in the trash, investors lose their money.
New way wiht kickstarter: Go to the consumer directly, pre-sell them something. If enough people buy it, make it, no bank loan, send them the finished product. If not enough people buy it, don't make it, nothing is wasted.
2. It's all about evil greedy corporations versus the saintly Christ like "Indies". Kickstarter is for the angel Indies, so Spike Lee doesn't belong on there since he's worth 40 Million.
After you are rich, you graduate from saintly Indie, to greedy corporation, and now Spike is in the Greedy Corporation category so he's not allowed on Kickstarter.
Last edited:
Spike Lee is worth a reported 40 Million. Why doesn't he risk his own money to make the film? Well, my answer would be, why should he?
If not enough people want to see this film to pony up the kickstarter money, he shouldn't make it at all even though he has the money to do it. If there's no audience for it why waste those resources making something no one wants to watch?
If not enough people want to see this film to pony up the kickstarter money, he shouldn't make it at all even though he has the money to do it. If there's no audience for it why waste those resources making something no one wants to watch?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Gillvane has summed it up in option 1 rather well, but his summary of option 2 is unnecessarily biased and ridiculing. But hey, we've been down this path before, we've argued this whole thing out quite a bit. Read the "Veronica Mars" film project thread for the whole big discussion.
Ian, here's the thing -- kickstarter is a way for people to raise funds for a project. The question is -- does it MATTER whether you have other options or not? I don't think it does. If Joss Whedon came on and said "support my kickstarter and we can make the Firefly movie sequel you've always wanted", I bet a lot of people would sign up. Just like they did for Veronica Mars. Why? Because they're pre-ordering a DVD? Not necessarily. Because they're "saintly patrons of the arts"? Not necessarily. Maybe they just want to see the film made.
Does it MATTER that Joss should be able to reach in his own wallet and make it for cash? Not to me. If I have a chance to participate, I may very well choose to do so -- regardless of the reward. You know, sometimes I throw money in the Salvation Army bellringer's kettle too, and I don't really expect to get anything out of that either.
So I don't mind people being able to go to the people and get their project made. But apparently it really upsets some folks. Apparently they seem to think that kickstarter should only ever be used by unknowns. As if somehow Spike Lee's sucking up all the donations that otherwise would have gone to them? I don't know, I really don't get the whole mentality. It's like they seem to think that I have $5, and if Spike Lee's project is up there I'll give it to him, but if Spike was thrown off Kickstarter then I'll still somehow have this urgent need to donate $5 somewhere so maybe I'll search around and find their struggling project and give that same $5 to them.
But it doesn't work that way. You make a pitch, and I decide whether I want to support THAT PITCH. If I don't, then I don't. Doesn't matter who else is pitching. It really doesn't. All that matters is whether I want to support YOUR pitch or not.
But apparently that's not a universal view. Apparently lots of people think that somehow having people who aren't starving artists participating, ruins the intent of Kickstarter.
Kickstarter lets us vote for what projects we want to support, big and small. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Ian, here's the thing -- kickstarter is a way for people to raise funds for a project. The question is -- does it MATTER whether you have other options or not? I don't think it does. If Joss Whedon came on and said "support my kickstarter and we can make the Firefly movie sequel you've always wanted", I bet a lot of people would sign up. Just like they did for Veronica Mars. Why? Because they're pre-ordering a DVD? Not necessarily. Because they're "saintly patrons of the arts"? Not necessarily. Maybe they just want to see the film made.
Does it MATTER that Joss should be able to reach in his own wallet and make it for cash? Not to me. If I have a chance to participate, I may very well choose to do so -- regardless of the reward. You know, sometimes I throw money in the Salvation Army bellringer's kettle too, and I don't really expect to get anything out of that either.
So I don't mind people being able to go to the people and get their project made. But apparently it really upsets some folks. Apparently they seem to think that kickstarter should only ever be used by unknowns. As if somehow Spike Lee's sucking up all the donations that otherwise would have gone to them? I don't know, I really don't get the whole mentality. It's like they seem to think that I have $5, and if Spike Lee's project is up there I'll give it to him, but if Spike was thrown off Kickstarter then I'll still somehow have this urgent need to donate $5 somewhere so maybe I'll search around and find their struggling project and give that same $5 to them.
But it doesn't work that way. You make a pitch, and I decide whether I want to support THAT PITCH. If I don't, then I don't. Doesn't matter who else is pitching. It really doesn't. All that matters is whether I want to support YOUR pitch or not.
But apparently that's not a universal view. Apparently lots of people think that somehow having people who aren't starving artists participating, ruins the intent of Kickstarter.
Kickstarter lets us vote for what projects we want to support, big and small. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Barry_Green
Moderator
And here we have an example, in two posts, of why Gillvane frustrates me so. In the prior post, I would have a hard time disagreeing with him more. In this post, I can't possibly agree with him more!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
At the moment I'm ambivalent about the use of Kickstarter by those who could 'easily', for some value of 'easy', get funding elsewhere. I see this in the same light as say, "Sundance Film Festival", at one time a venue for 'unknown/independents (not setup entities with done deals at major studios...) artsyfartsy films'. Then some number of names started producing, and getting screenings, and the number of 'unknowns' declined, to the point were Sundance as I recall a couple of years ago that 'a shift back to 'roots of Sundance'' was in order... whether that was just so much marketing hyp... don't know... but it does suggest that as more celebrities participated, with fare that was pretty much what one expects from Hollywood, one wonders where is there a venue for 'different', that at least has some visibility.
In the present case, given the person is Spike Lee... given that Woody Allen has been making his films without 'kickstarter' and able to control his product completely, I don't know what sort of project that Lee would be having that would require he go outside his usual and customary financing. Why not setup a 'fan' site, sell memorabilia priced based on 'significance', like autographed scripts for $100's, baseball caps with production logos, $10, 'first press' DVD/BD, with mass printed production stills, $50, and who cares how much his target may be.
With the name brand of "Spike Lee" I'm sure there would be no problem getting interested parties driven to the site...
reygun
Well-known member
I'm not a fan of Spike Lee. I especially would have NEVER EVER have known about this "indie" project of his. But, like many other (thousands I believe) have seen and read his project through Kickstarter alone. He pays nothing off the top, thus already capturing a mass of free marketing for this project.
He doesn't need to produce a sell site, buy into adwords, produce SEO...etc. It's all there for pretty much anyone to promote their project with no upfront cost.
He's a very smart man. He's a wealthy man. He's a businessman.
Is he douchey? <That's subjective.
He doesn't need to produce a sell site, buy into adwords, produce SEO...etc. It's all there for pretty much anyone to promote their project with no upfront cost.
He's a very smart man. He's a wealthy man. He's a businessman.
Is he douchey? <That's subjective.
Last edited:
I admit to ridiculing the people crying about Spike Lee getting money on Kickstarter. I didn't know how to write that option more objectively. Maybe someone in that camp can do a better job.
I see "Pre-ordering the DVD" and "just wanting to see the film made" as pretty much the same thing. Obviously you wouldn't get a DVD if the film wasn't made?
Yes, you may order an autographed T-shirt instead of the DVD, but that just seems like splitting hairs to me. It means you pre-ordered an autographed T-shirt instead of pre-ordering a DVD. Hey, some people collect DVDs (I just stream myself) and some people collect Tshirts.
I collect baseball caps so I can relate, but it seems like 99% of it is a pre-order no matter what it is, except for the 1$ donation you get nothing for except "the gratitude of the film maker".
The percentage that Kickstarter gets, what 6%?, is more than worth it to let them keep up with the site management, etc. Why would you want to maintain a site between projects, OR start a brand new site for every project?
Barry_Green
Moderator
They're not. "Seeing the film get made" isn't the same as "seeing the film." Just knowing that it exists, instead of being trapped in a writer's or director's mind, is a big thing for a lot of folks. It means it'll be on TV. It means it may be a theatrical experience you want to go to. It may mean licensed material, and more fans as it gets more popular. It may mean songs from the soundtrack on the radio. It may mean riffs on late night talk shows or SNL. It may open the door for sequels. It may mean that it's available at all times, in all places, on Netflix. It may mean that you get to throw a screening party with all your friends and dress up like your favorite characters and make authentic or appropriate foods or invent drinking games for it.
And all of that may have nothing to do with wanting to pre-order a physical object.
I know you don't get this, but -- sometimes people just want something to happen, and they're glad to be a part of it. And they don't have to get a physical object in return.
Did you know that sometimes, people donate to charities?
Ian-T
Veteran
Exactly!! That right there sums it up for me.
Ian-T
Veteran
LOL...Gillvane and I have had many back to back discussions over the years. One thing's for sure....he keeps me on my toes.