refocusedmedia
Veteran
Interesting watch:
Spike Lee launches a Kickstarter for his next movie to raise $1.25 million
- Thread starter commercialguy
- Start date
maranfilms
Veteran
"I'm bringing new people to kickstarter" lol, Anyways, It was nice to see him give her a ration of ****, and stand up for his cause. I wish more would do the same.
Weak. I just can't bring myself to say anything else. My goodness. So entitled and at the same time i can't see this guy as the 'little guy' he's killing himself to prove he is... spike, you're off my book man. over and out. last rant on this guy. sorry dvx, this has been the source of prolly my most negative comments...
Batutta
Major Contributor
Here is a celebrity using their fame on a crowdfunding site in a better way. James Franco's indie-a-gogo for Palo Alto Stories, a series of short stories he wrote, and which he's giving to three unknown filmmakers to make a feature out of. He says he put up some money himself but needs more, and he's donating all profits from the movie.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/palo-alto-stories-by-james-franco
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/palo-alto-stories-by-james-franco
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
What's the difference in this Franco project, Spike Lee's project, or a project by Joe the unknown starving film maker?
They all have a chance to sell pre-orders of their DVDs if people like the product pitch. Why is one good, and the other bad?
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
So you're telling me that the only point of Kickstarter is for people to pre-order DVDs? If that were the case, it would be as simple as having one perk option available: "Pre-order a DVD of the film for $20!" If all Spike was using Kickstarter for was an honest way of cutting out the middle-man so he can "give his fans what they want" directly, he'd need 62,500 backers to pony up $20 for DVD pre-orders.
But in the real world, if Spike reaches his goal, it will be with a little under 7,000 backers, and based on the current numbers, only about 37% of those would even get a DVD out of it (a little over 1,950 (62%) of the current 3,130 backers fell short of the $50 donation required for a DVD). But don't forget, if you pledge $500, you can get a pair of Nike's WORN by Spike Lee!
The difference is that for James Franco, it's about allowing four "Joe the Unknown Filmmakers," none of whom have ever directed a feature film, to direct their first films with Franco's help, and then donate the profits to a charity for kids.
And Joe the Unknown Filmmaker's KS campaign is about supporting someone who's asking for a shot to make it. Spike Lee made it a long time ago, and if he had any humility or any class, he wouldn't be asking $500 for used shoes to help him make his vanity project.
This isn't a new business model, it's a get rich quick scheme. Kickstarter was created as a way for people to support struggling artists in their desire to create; I think it's just blatant greed and ego that brings people like Braff and Lee to the well when they clearly already have water.
-EMB
I know this had kind of come across as a rant, but it's not really intended to be. Like I said before, I don't really have that much of a problem with rich a--holes using Kickstarter to take advantage of their fanbase and make vanity projects (or maybe I do...), it's mostly the arrogance of Lee's half-assed project that for all the world knows, he hasn't even bothered to write a script for yet, that pisses me off.
Scott F
Pug Life
+1. wow, so much anger in that interview right out of the gate. Painful, makes my head spin. I do agree somewhat with Lee's thoughts on the whole global marketplace killing film (ala Lucas & Spielberg article) but no time to elaborate on that.
In much better news, Adam Carolla easily made his $1 million dollar mark with about 13 days to go. A much classier act in terms of crowdfunding message, rewards & appreciation to fans.
Nothing about Kickstarter is "for struggling artists only". It was always a business model where you find out if people want your product BEFORE you make it, with pre-orders.
That is the beauty of kickstarter. You're making say, cat gravy boats. Should you make 5,000 of them and HOPE they sell based on your research? OR, pre-sell them and then make them if there's enough demand in a kickstarter? This takes out the risk and financing aspects of a product launch so you don't make something when there is no demand for it and end up just tossing it in the dumpster.
Yes, it's about pre-sales. Someone wants a DVD, someone else wants a Producer credit, someone else wants Spike Lees sneakes, whatever. Why do I care if they want a DVD or a Q&A with the film maker? Either way those services are pre-sold and if you sell enough of them you go into production, if not you don't waste time on a product that doesn't have enough demand.
Franco's project is the same as Spike Lees, pre-sales of DVDs and other services.
If you like the Franco project better and wish to pre-order one of the DVDs or services, how does that make it any different or any better than the Spike Lee project?
Some people like drama, some science fiction, some like the Franco Project, some like the Spike Lee project enough to pre-order.
I don't see how one is good and the other bad just because you're not interested in it.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Not really, it was a business model for those who could not secure traditional financing to have it "crowd-funded" instead. This is precisely why people have taken such issue with rich celebrities exploiting the platform. It shouldn't really be that difficult or complicated to see why, either.
IMO a film maker isn't a good or bad person based on his or her bank account. He or she is just a film maker. Either you like the project enough to pre-order a DVD or service from them, or you don't. But just because you're not interested in a project doesn't make the film maker a bad person, and just because someone is rich doesn't make their project any more or less deserving of pre-orders for DVDs and other services.
Would I NOT watch a movie from James Cameron because he's rich? Would I watch really bad crap from a film maker just because she is poor? Why would anyone do that? I don't care if it's James Cameron or some homeless guy. Either I want to see the movie or I don't.
Would I NOT watch a movie from James Cameron because he's rich? Would I watch really bad crap from a film maker just because she is poor? Why would anyone do that? I don't care if it's James Cameron or some homeless guy. Either I want to see the movie or I don't.
Kickstarter has never mentioned anything about your bank account making you eligible to start a project. Like, hey, millionaires need not apply.
Non-traditional financing, crowd sourcing, applies to a millionaire just as much as a person that is penniless. The point is pre-orders to judge the market, and skipping banks for financing and going straight to the consumer.
The point is not, we only support projects from poor people and we don't like projects from rich people. It's never been about that, or if it has I've never seen that in the Kickstarter literature.
I think aspiring film makers that thought the reason they weren't getting anywhere is because Hollywood was keeping the little guy down WANTED kickstarter to be only for poor aspiring artists, but it never was about that.
This is my example. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Spike Lee goes to a bank and takes out 1,5 million in loans. He makes the movie. People buy the DVD, and Spike pays back the bank (hopefully), and makes a profit.
Instead, Spike Lee goes to kickstarter and people pre-order the DVD. Spike gets 1.5 million and makes the movie without the bank involved.
The only difference I see is that the banks are out of the loop, AND the money doesn't get wasted if there is no demand for the movie.
Does it change everything because Spike Lee sells his tennis shoes instead of just DVDs, or because a celebrity offers a Question and Answer session as well as DVDs as one of the pre-sale products? I don't really see how that changes the equation. Yes, there are some interesting items you can offer in the pre-sale to make money besides DVDs. So? How does that make a kickstarter only good for people with no money, and bad for people that have money?
Spike Lee goes to a bank and takes out 1,5 million in loans. He makes the movie. People buy the DVD, and Spike pays back the bank (hopefully), and makes a profit.
Instead, Spike Lee goes to kickstarter and people pre-order the DVD. Spike gets 1.5 million and makes the movie without the bank involved.
The only difference I see is that the banks are out of the loop, AND the money doesn't get wasted if there is no demand for the movie.
Does it change everything because Spike Lee sells his tennis shoes instead of just DVDs, or because a celebrity offers a Question and Answer session as well as DVDs as one of the pre-sale products? I don't really see how that changes the equation. Yes, there are some interesting items you can offer in the pre-sale to make money besides DVDs. So? How does that make a kickstarter only good for people with no money, and bad for people that have money?
refocusedmedia
Veteran
No one is saying it was some sort of official decree or anything. But it was definitely the way it was understood to be by the majority of those who knew about it or used it. The negative public response by said majority of people is evidence of that.
I get it though, I mean what would anyone rather do... deal with the studios and give up most profits from your films, or bypass them and have your audience literally pay you to make a movie and then pay again to see it in the theaters? The answer is a no-brainer, of course. It's just kind of like a millionaire using a community bake sale to put a sculpture on their front lawn.
Last edited:
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
For products, yes, it's a business model. Make a cool new iPhone case, or reimagine the Bolex as a digital camera and pre-sell it to fund production. Sure, great. Everyone's getting their money's worth, and no-one's asking for millions of dollars in charity to make their vanity project. That equation is out the window when it comes to art, whether it's Spike and his "funny, sexy, bloody" movie that's "not Blacula."
From Kickstarter's About page:
and
You're trying to tell me that people giving money to their local church to keep it running and help it fund programs for the community are actually just paying the pastor for a seat at the Sunday morning service.
If KS was just a pre-order platform for DVDs of your film, there would be a sales tax on the "donation" and an income tax on the money received. I'm not saying it can't work as such (though at an average pledge of $62 for Veronica Mars, $66 for Wish I Was Here, $151 for that horrible Lindsay Lohan flop, and $178 for "the newest hottest Spike Lee joint," I don't think cutting out the middleman is really beneficial to the consumer). I'm saying it's not DESIGNED to be a sales floor for DVDs or an auction house for used sneakers. It's designed so that fans can help projects "come to life, not to profit financially."
And in that light, I think multi-millionaire celebrities are abusing the system. I never said it's only intended for the starving arist, I'm just saying it's meant for projects that you CAN'T make without the help of friends, family, and patrons of the arts. Not vanity projects that celebrity filmmakers are too lazy to even try to find a good financing deal for (because you KNOW they're out there, even the ones that would be happy to let Spike have final cut). Aronofsky did it. Wes Anderson did it. PTA did it too.
-EMB
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
The difference is that these ARE NOT purchases, they're pledges with perks as rewards. Nobody's going to pay $100 for a Red Green Show coffee mug, they make a $100 pledge to support PBS and get the mug as a reward (the only real way the perks come close to an actual commercial transaction is as an incentive to pledge a larger amount because someone wants a pair of dirty shoes instead of a one-sheet from an old movie). You can't deny that KS is a support platform for artists, not a celebrity memorabilia store.
-EMB
maranfilms
Veteran
Why should he have to use his own money to fund the film, it's been established that it's not a very good investment to fund your own films. Make it with other peoples money if you can, if your not able to, and do decide to use your own money, it's most likely going to be a loss, monetary wise. Some do it for the experience and as a way to network and learn. Keep in mind, with Spike going this route, he will essentially have creative control, something you don't when working for a large studio.
People pay to go see a movie and then afterwards go buy the DVD for their collection when it releases all the time. Why wouldn't they do the same with a kickstarter movie?
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
- Never said he should use his own money, though frankly, if you're not willing to use your own money because you know it will be a loss, what the flying f--k are you doing using someone else's money?
- He doesn't have to work with the big six to get a movie made. If he can't find one person or group of people with access to money who BELIEVE in his film, other than himself, then it's not worth funding in the first place. There are so many indie distributors developing and acquiring indie projects, from Focus Features to Open Road to A24, and for every indie distributor, there are twelve dozen more people/companies with access to what, in Hollywood, is "a measly" $1.2mil. And the idea that you can't get final cut anymore is just bulls--t. Maybe not with $250mil adaptations of century-old science fiction tomes, but for an on-the-cheap genre flick from an established, Oscar-nominated director? Again, bulls--t.
There's also the quid-pro-quo method, where Spike goes to the studio and says, "Hey, I'll direct Oldboy for you, if you'll also put up $1.2mil for me to make my little passion project." Chris Nolan's been doing that for a decade now. And if guys like Jim Jarmusch and Uwe Boll can still find money to make their movies, then I'm convinced it's just laziness that keeps Spike from doing so.
-EMB
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
I guess we can agree to disagree, because you're not going to convince me that Kickstarter is anything but a collective pledge drive to support indie filmmakers, and I'm not going to convince you it's anything but a buy-here-pay-here for s--tty films.
-EMB