Batutta
Major Contributor
Then why make 2 million his goal? That's what he budgeted for. Anyway, I said some, not all.
Zach Braff takes his 'Garden State' follow-up to Kickstarter
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
Then why make 2 million his goal? That's what he budgeted for. Anyway, I said some, not all.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
GardenState was 2.5 million total.
It's possible, and his net worth is likely 10x that. Who knows. For all we know the money people ARE with him and this is icing on his greedy little cake. Sorry, I never feel bad for any multimillionaire holding out his hat on kickstarter. I just don't. Maybe if he was doing something spectacular, like funding a NASA project or something of that nature.
It's possible, and his net worth is likely 10x that. Who knows. For all we know the money people ARE with him and this is icing on his greedy little cake. Sorry, I never feel bad for any multimillionaire holding out his hat on kickstarter. I just don't. Maybe if he was doing something spectacular, like funding a NASA project or something of that nature.
Greed is always what someone else wants. What you want is fine, what they want is "greedy".
If you love to play guitar then you "need" an expensive guitar. If you don't play guitar, you think why can't they be happy with a 100 dollar guitar? anything else would be "greedy".
Why can't you go to the library to post on forums? Do you really NEED a computer in your house? People are starving in third world countries and you have your own computer. Isn't that "greedy"?
No one with a film project on kickstarter is holding out their hat. They aren't the Red Cross or the American Cancer Society. They are selling DVDs. It's no different than selling coca cola, Nike shoes, or Iphones. Poeple want them, they buy them. If you don't want a DVD of this movie, you don't pay the kickstarter.
Granted it's a bit of a gamble buying the DVD before you see the reviews of the movie on Rotten Tomatoes, but that's part of the appeal of it as well, taking a chance on something.
That's the rock bottom, what they can legitimately go forward with and feel ok about promising people a DVD in return for their contribution and not turn out a birdemic.
I'm sure they would feel more comfortable with a 20 million dollar budget, what is generally considered a "low budget" for a Hollywood movie.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
First of all, not one of his reward tiers give away a DVD copy. Not a single one. So I don't know where you got that from. There are rewards, so you can argue they are 'selling those', but we all know that there are two distinct kickstarter models and this is the one that offers rewards, often worth a small fraction of the donation amount.
Second, I feel your response was inaccurately taking my point to the extreme; pushing it out of the realm of relevancy. It's very esoteric of you to read into my post like a college poetry exercise, but I was not commenting on the cosmic nature of greed and it's relativity to the human race. Zach Braff is totally holding out his hat! Isn't that is the point of kickstarter? It's the "Hey, I need YOU to give ME money so I can make/do/sell this" business model. He is asking for donations on a website that is exclusively made for people to get things funded because they don't have the resources to do it in the first place. Well that is great and all but the only difference here is that Zach Braff holds the purse strings, keys, and Rolodex to the indie-film kingdom. Why does he need us?
Zach Braff is a past acclaimed film director from his success with Garden State.
Garden State had a reported budget of 2.5m and it made over 35m on release, not counting video sales/rentals.
Zach Braff was a network lead for over seven seasons on NBC and ABC.
He has more Hollywood contacts (actors, producers, directors, you name it) than you could possibly imagine.
All of this success has made him reportedly worth over 20m+
Continuing on... If you read my first post in this thread, I give credit to ZB (and all others (rich celebrities and studios) who will do this) for the brilliance in abusing the kickstarter model. I respect it in the same way I respect when a corporation or millionaire finds a clever tax loop hole... it's a legal choice, but my gut tells me it's not the *right* thing to do. Now, it is true that this is technically none of my beeswax, and people are free to ask for money and to give money as they please. I do however like to make the strong case when it questionably shakes my inner compass of what is right and wrong and may very well effect me in a positive or negative way in the future, should this (once again) change the kickstarter and indie film paradigm.
I was charmed by the Kickstarter model I first witnessed: the wonderful potential for the Kholi's of the world... but not now. Not when it's for the multimillionaire celebrities from behind studio/industry walls.
But again, kudos to them for working the system so irretrievably in their favor. A part of me wishes I too had the power to solicit free investment capital from others upon which I, and only I, would reap the rewards of success while being immune to losses of failure. A venturalist's dream, wouldn't you say?
Last edited:
Ok, so the "reward" is an advance screenings of the movie with a Q&A instead of DVDs. It's a different product, but that doesn't substantially change anything I posted. I'd equate it to going to a rock concert and meeting your favorite artist backstage. What would those tickets go for? I'd say it's pretty much in line with the price of the "rewards" for this kickstarter, probably a bit more.
I fail to see why Braff's net worth or how much he has in his piggy bank is relevant. An advance screening of the movie and a Q&A with Braff is worth what it's worth in the free market whether Braff is a Billionaire, or he spent all his money in Vegas and he's broke.
Making a movie is a business venture. You should always use other people's money whenever possible if you get a good deal on that money, and this is a great deal for the film makers. There is absolutely no reason they should not do this, there is absolutely nothing "immoral" or "wrong" about it. They are not taking advantage of a "flaw" in the kickstarter model.
Read the guidelines:
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines
There's nothing mentioned in there at all about this is only for poor people, and we didn't intend rich people to use it. Your wealth or lack thereof is not relevant to your kickstarter project.
I suppose you could decide to participate in a kickstarter based on whether or not you perceive someone to be "rich" or "poor" but I think most people base their decision on whether the project is producing a good or service that appeals to them, and whether or not they have some level of confidence people have the ability to produce the project.
People liked Garden State, so they like this project. Braff has a proven track record so there's a good chance he can pull off a successful production. I imagine whether or not he "needs" the money, or he's "greedy" or "rich" wouldn't be a concern for most people.
I don't buy a pair of Nike shoes because I think Nike "needs" the money, and I don't worry if they have billions either. I wouldn't be more or less inclined to go see my favorite band in concert because they were rich, or because they lost all their money and were poor. I'd go because I thought the experience was worth the price of the tickets.
What if Richard Branson the President of Virgin, a certified Billionaire did a kickstarter and came out with a product or service I thought was really cool and I could get one before anyone else? I wouldn't refuse to participate because he's a Billionaire. What sort of sense does that make?
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Unless he (Branson) was doing something of massive proportion or of humanitarian roots, this would be the epitome of what I am talking about.
I guess we need to agree to disagree.
And, Nike is much different. When you buy a pair of shoes, you are buying an actual product at market value and should you want to invest in Nike, you can buy NKE on the NYSE and the company gets your capital while you own a part of the company and thus potentially gain in their sucecss. That is the paradigm I'd love to see happen with indie films and crowdsourcing. It would need to involve the SEC, I believe, but that would be the day. Crowdsourced shares. Then all those who give actually have a potential to MAKE money. Of course "Hollywood" accounting would need to shape up and become a bit more honest if this were to happen.
Last edited:
I can certainly agree to disagree, but why would you change your mind about the project because of the net worth of the people doing it?
Look at the Puking Cat Gravy Boat.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/54477278/puking-kitty-saucy-boat
What's humanitarian about it? Nothing, it's a puking cat gravy boat. You get one as a "reward" for 35 bucks, a great deal for a puking cat gravy boat IMO.
Now assuming you'd like a puking cat gravy boat (and who wouldn't?) you're telling me that you'd be inclined to participate if these people are poor, but not if they are rich?
Let's say they were rich and could make the gravy boats without a kickstarter. What's the point in them just investing in making these things if there's no market for them, and then throwing them in a land fill? Why not do a kickstarter instead and judge the market first?
Also, how do you know they are rich or poor? Maybe these are people on welfare with a dream of making a puking cat gravy boat business. Maybe they are trust fund babies and one of their parents is as rich as Donal Trump. Do you know? No, of course not.
But you're telling me you want the puking cat gravy boat if they are poor, but suddenly you DON'T want it if you find out they are rich? Why?
I want the puking cat gravy boat whether some homeless kid did it and put the kickstarter up on a computer at the library, or if Richard Branson Billionaire did the kickstarter. Makes no difference to me. Either it's a good product at a good price, or it's not.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Again, you seem to calculate my position by assuming it extends to anything I have not ruled out. Just because it's not done by a celebrity or a millionair, doesn't mean I'm on board with it. Anyone can make anything they want. I even state that ZB is doing nothing technically wrong. The gravy boat example is the OTHER type of kickstarter I aforementioned. This is the example where you are basically just paying for a product up front, unlike the film we've been talking about. Yes we don't know who this person is, rich or poor, but that partially illustrates how the ZB example is so much different from this.
This is almost 100% completely different in my opinion. This is the other KS model, not the one we've been discussing, which is an even more unique example at that. Again, you really make some good arguments, and because I've stated that my only issue with ZB is those of subjective morality, I can definitely see the points you make. However, with examples like these (gravy boat) but I find you often reach a little too far for points and it often doesn't directly relate. I think this side example is off the point and doesn't reflect anything relevant to the original issue of debate.
hscully
Veteran
Me too. I eagerly await implementation of Title III of the JOBS act. I think it's going to change the landscape for film investment and investment generally, lowering the barriers for people to invest. That's what I hope for.
I also don't have a good feeling about big celebrities garnering donations on Kickstarter. I used Indie Go Go because it ties to Fractured Atlas a 501c3 umbrella, letting someone like me, offer at least the benefit of a tax deductible donation. I highlight that it's a donation because it is. I go "hat in hand" without compunction because that's what's available to me to get my stuff out there. It's a slog.
If I could offer investment, at that level, I would be over the moon. It would literally change everything.
You do understand that it's going to make your upfront cost on making a film far more expensive right? Because you can't just put up a shingle and shout out, "Investment opportunity!"
hscully
Veteran
My little concern is already incorporated. I also have to take tax responsibilities for donations. What other upfront costs do you mean? If you're referring to the responsibility to report, I think the sites will absorb much of that. The SEC requirements to make sure investors act responsibly are a sticking point for regulators and people seeking funding. The last I can find about it I found here. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/b...e-crowdfunding-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Maybe another thread is appropriate as this one is about a celeb using Kickstarter, but since Ryan brought it up I just wanted to chime in that I agree that this would change things in a way I would love to explore
craigbowman
Veteran
Kickstarter campaign has worked successfully for Zach since it has exceeded the goal set with still 26 days to go.
I don't think the sites care to police you to make sure your investment opportunities are legit. That will most definitely fall into your lap.
Yes, and that's unlikely to change. The point of the law is to help investors not get taken for a ride (and even then, plenty of people lose their shirts). I would hate to see those regulations relaxed for crowdfunding, since 99.99999% of those looking for funding that way aren't likely to have the term "business savvy" applied to them any time soon.
hscully
Veteran
The aggregators will have responsibility to report, that's all I meant.
I wouldn't take anyone for a ride. Those seeking investment are responsible. I can get investment now, just not small investment. Two good things, in my opinion, would happen: I could seek investment from people I know and who trust me but are currently shut out, and they could invest. The SEC failed to make the rules, that's all that happened. They can't figure out, according to them, how to protect small investors, in effect protecting large investors. Why is that so great? The law has passed.
It's not even necessarily scams though. Even with all the good intentions in the world, if you don't perform your due diligence, you could get in over your head, and the end result is the same: money spent, no product.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I really don't like the idea of someone with 20M net worth and a giant book of connections asking for handouts for ANYTHING. Others who disagree have some valid points as well, but from my own feeling after kicking it around a bit...it just seems seedy to take donations from people who have far far far far far less than himself.
It reminds me of the rich guy in a group of friends never picking up the tab and asking the others for 5 bucks to get a Latte, because all he has is hundred dollar bills in his wallet.
lol
It reminds me of the rich guy in a group of friends never picking up the tab and asking the others for 5 bucks to get a Latte, because all he has is hundred dollar bills in his wallet.
lol
Dude, come on.
I really think it's not nearly as much of an "issue" as you'd like it to be, and seriously, you know you're arguing one way and not the other.No one is being hurt by this. No one at all. Everyone involved is getting what they want. It's all win.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
I disagree. I sincerely believe that this is taking advantage of a platform meant for those without the position, money, or access that someone like Braff has. I think both this and the 'Mars' campaign set a disturbing precedent where the studios will begin to look at crowdfunding as a way to mitigate risk for what they perceive to be their less-dependable properties, as well as a way by which they can extract even more money from the audience.
I understand that the people helping fund these campaigns are doing so of their own free will, but the point is that they shouldn't have to. The studios or whomever should be less ignorant of their consumer demand and more willing to put out content that people are (obviously) willing to pay for. I'd feel differently if the JOBS act was in place and these funds were actual investments, but as of now this is people having to pay twice to see the content they want, because the studios are too stupid or "risk-averse" to put it out themselves.
Beyond that though, is the other paragraph in my comment you quoted:
"It's hard enough to get a film made without connections, traditional funding, or pre-existing success or popularity... and now these people have to compete with millionaire celebrities with access to all three? And on the very platform designed for them to exist without such competition, no less."
When Kickstarter is filled with popular IPs or filmmakers getting their next projects funded because studios are now either too greedy (and want to extract more money from willing consumers) or too stupid (to greenlight projects with obvious demand)... how much room do you think that leaves for you and I? Cream always rises to the top, sure, but it's no longer an even playing field when Joe Filmmaker is having to compete with actors with millions of followers/fans or shows that had successful runs on major networks.