Zach Braff takes his 'Garden State' follow-up to Kickstarter

If these celebrity campaigns are expanding the awareness of crowdfunding to the degree that I don't have to explain it as part of a pitch, as well as validating it as a viable means of film finance, i'm for it. I don't see this having an effect on why campaigns for microbudget movies succeed or fail. it's a different animal.
 
refocusedmedia said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and I know it's not the popular position to take. Sure, everyone has a chance to make a presentation on Kickstarter...but if it is over run with "popular" celebrities, guess who the public will give their money to. The celebrity. Look at how fast he reached his goal, rest assured it's not because he had the best idea in the world.
It's because he's the funny guy from TV.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I agree with you and I know it's not the popular position to take. Sure, everyone has a chance to make a presentation on Kickstarter...but if it is over run with "popular" celebrities, guess who the public will give their money to. The celebrity. Look at how fast he reached his goal, rest assured it's not because he had the best idea in the world.
It's because he's the funny guy from TV.
Click to expand...

In my experience having run a campaign for a microbudget movie, "the public" isn't looking for underfunded indies by people they don't know starring actors they never heard of. out of 387 backers I'd say maybe 10 had no connection to us. I was successful because i was able to motivate friends, fans, family and acquaintances who knew me and the rest of the team to back us. I really don't see a competition for crowdfunding dollars here. their audience isn't our audience. and that being said, these large campaigns, if anything, have exposed a lot more potential backers to kickstarter, and it could even have a small positive effect on the number of people who actively seek out and discover projects to back. But i don't see how fans of zach braff and veronica mars take anything away from us. i think it helps to some degree.

and let's not forget. celebrity isn't an automatic. this one is struggling to reach their $2 million goal and will likely fail. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/318676760/darcis-walk-of-shame

there's also something to learn from them. Blue Like Jazz took a book with a solid fanbase and successfully crowfunded a movie. Driven was a doc about an MMA fighter whose fans stepped up to back the movie. Ryan Koo built a solid following thru his No Film School blog and crowdfunded Man-Child with great success. what's stopping us from crowdfunding projects with built-in popularity to give us a leg up?
 
refocusedmedia said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I disagree entirely. People don't cruise crowdfunding sites looking for projects to fund and then get drawn in by the razzle-dazzle of a studio project, when they would have otherwise landed on your "yours" or "mine." The type of person who would fund an unknown project with unknown people is not the same type of person who wants to fund property with a built-in fan base.

Me, I think studio participation could be fantastic in the sense that it'll get things made which otherwise wouldn't have been because it was too risky. The big complaint is that Hollywood is out of ideas and nothing's original. This might actually get things besides The Hangover Part VII approved and made.

The crowdfunding that name properties gets is AS different from the crowdfunding the truly unknown indy project would get as it would be with traditional financing. It's a totally different crowd of people who will put their money forward.

As Zak says, raising the profile of crowdfunding can only help crowdfunding in general.

I do think a great deal of the pushback against this is from a sense of territorialism -- "hey, this is for ME, not for YOU!" -- as if it's a personal affront or an invasion of privacy.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I agree with you and I know it's not the popular position to take. Sure, everyone has a chance to make a presentation on Kickstarter...but if it is over run with "popular" celebrities, guess who the public will give their money to. The celebrity. Look at how fast he reached his goal, rest assured it's not because he had the best idea in the world.
It's because he's the funny guy from TV.
Click to expand...

the "public" was never going to give a completely unknown film maker funding. Braff getting funding is irrelevant. You (the unknown film maker) weren't going to get funding before Braff and Veronica Mars, you're not going to get funding afterward, unless you've created a buzz of some kind. 10 million hits on youtube, won Sundance or another big festival, got 10K followers on Facebook for your movie page, etc. Otherwise it's just your friends willing to support your kickstarter, and they were going to do that with or without Braff doing a kickstarter.

You also get funding if you do something on a popular subject. Like Kieth Richards from the Rolling Stones is your buddy and he's going to let you do a documentary on him, or something like that.
 
I could be wrong, but here's my opinion on "holding your hat out".

Charities hold their hats out. We want you to donate to help the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, or whatever the latest tragedy is for example. Tax deductible or not, you get zip, nada, nothing, for your contribution except the warm fuzzy feeling of helping your fellow man. There are no "perks", "rewards", nothing.

Now some people like to act like when they donate to a Kickstarter it's the same as donating to help Vicitms of Hurricane Katrina. It's not.

In this case people are getting tickets to an advance screening with a Q&A from Braff. There's someone in this thread that bought those tickets and thinks he's getting his money's worth. That's no different than buying a DVD, or a puking cat gravy boat. You pay, you get something you value. Braff isn't "holding his hat out".

Braff is going to travel to your town and do a Q&A and some people are willing to pay for that. No one is going to give you tickets for an advance screening of a movie and a Q&A with a movie star when you donate blood, or help the American Cancer Society. You can pretend you're giving to charity if you want, but you're just buying entertainment.

It's no different than if you bought tickets to go see Beyonce. They go for well over 200 bucks for good seats.

Braff isn't begging for money, he's not asking for charity, he's providing a service just like a Beyonce concert and you can buy it or not depending on if you think it's worth it.

beyonce-gq-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
All good responses, they make sense. I still have a vision of a dude in a Mercedes pulling up to a food bank and grabbing a bunch of bags off the truck. lol, I know that's kind of ludicrous but that's automatically what pops into my head. Even with that, I can and have been swayed by the excellent points of the posters above.
 
This is a nice discussion I had to chip in. Great arguments on both sides, I'm leaning more towards the it's not right part of the argument.

Maybe I would be more accepting to Zak doing this if he had no investors at all. But he clearly states that he does have people ready to fund the project but he would lose "final cut" if that happens. As filmmakers we all know how important final cut on a project is, but some movies have been saved because the filmmakers didn't have final cut, because a lot of times someone on the outside looking in can help make your project much better. So that is my beef, the guy already has the money(not his own) but still feels he should use this kickstarter thing, in someway or another it's kinda of taking advantage.

But no one is forcing people to donate so more power to him. However it's almost automatic for him having the fanbase and notoriety from his name.

By the way, I did see Garden State and I liked it.
 
I think the real winner here is Kickstarter and the percentage they get... great business model. :thumbsup:
 
capitalP said:
So that is my beef, the guy already has the money(not his own) but still feels he should use this kickstarter thing, in someway or another it's kinda of taking advantage.
Click to expand...

But who's being taken advantage of? Kickstarter? They are loving it. They get a percentage of 2 million dollars. The Fans that get an advance screening and a Q&A with a movie star they like? They wouldn't plunk down the money if they didn't think they were getting their money's worth.

Who could Braff be taking advantage of?
 
Great arguments from both sides.

At first i though more power to him, great.

But then Ryan and Refocused Media (and others) arguments swayed me to their way of thinking. But then Jim & Gillvane (and others) made some great points and swayed be back again.

The fact is; there are projects out there that I would love to see get made; but I know they wont because the studio would never greenlight them. So if a film with an existing fan-base (or famous actors) that I wanted to see came up on kickstarter, then I would definitely pitch in.

The sequel to Dredd 3D; I'm talking to you....
 
Braff's comments on one of the Reddit threads about his Kickstarter:


"Take a deep breath. I don't have 22 million dollars. I am putting PLENTY of my own money into this movie. This is not some type of scam. If I wanted to print more money, I'd just go back to TV. This is about making a smaller, personal film for my fans with no compromises. In terms of the script, I only showed it to 2 producers; my favorite ones; (Stacey Sher and Michael Shamberg) They produced Pulp Fiction, Reality Bites, Django, my first movie and many more. They said yes. As I explain on the page, I could have this film financed yesterday if I agreed to deal points I think are unfair. The day will soon come when fans can invest in a film like a stock and reap the financial rewards if it's a success. That is not yet legal. So in the meantime for $10 you can essentially subscribe to an online magazine about filmmaking and I guarantee you, you will like the content I put up. This isn't a con. It's a hail mary pass to make something for you without casting some ****-head in all the roles."

You can read more and see their context using his account: http://www.reddit.com/user/zachinoz
 
Last edited:
I hate it when people respond to a discussion by saying something like 'Take a deep breath'. As if people talking about this are panicking or having a fit or something? I mean, people are only talking about the Kickstarter campaign because he wanted people to be talking about the Kickstarter campaign.
 
simonpwood said:
I hate it when people respond to a discussion by saying something like 'Take a deep breath'. As if people talking about this are panicking or having a fit or something? I mean, people are only talking about the Kickstarter campaign because he wanted people to be talking about the Kickstarter campaign.
Click to expand...

it's like saying "relax" to someone starting a fight... never seems to work
 
Stuff like that doesn't really do anything for us non-name filmmakers as far as who chooses to contribute to our films but it DOES change public's perspective. Nothing worse than some rich lady you were going to approach for money getting her thinking hat on suggesting kickstarter because everyone is raising a ton of money there (this actually happened to me).
 
Kholi said:
Ken Lavine responds, and gets a ton of response to his response...
Click to expand...

I read the blog and a few responses (better things to do), left at this novel reply:
Maybe Kickstarter isn't the proper venue for Braff's crowdsourcing. Maybe there should be a separate exchange for known artists to put their visions and properties in front of people, who are not necessarily in the industry, and those people can vote (with their dollars) for what they like and want. That's the best of both worlds: Kickstarter for the indies and something else for the establisheds.
Click to expand...

And I support Braff, no Zack attack here, but it's an interesting thought...

Kholi said:
great points beaten to death in the comments section.
Click to expand...

Whew... thank god that never happens around here! :happy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top