Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

But your argument has nothing to do with size of the fanbase...nor does mine. You could have used that same argument for my wacom analogy. Of course their are shallow details that may not perfectly mirror the situation! I chose an analogy where the important aspects were mirrored; one that was a rebuttal to your silly argument. It was simply to show that your idea that "as long as all parties know what they're providing/getting then no harm no foul - and certainly nothing to examine let alone complain about". It's a silly side to be on. To act as if an entity can't be sleezy if their intentions are known is incredibly naive.

An XBox and this kickstarter are not alike. They are two completely different things. A game console is bought to play games, it has a primary function as a device. This has no relevance to being an extra or getting some production diary entries.

It's a shitty deal?

So that is your argument in its entirety? That what is offered is not worth the cost? Fine! Say that. You want to make it about morality and character and all sorts of other things. You don't see $10 worth of value at the $10 tier, or $10,000 worth at the $10,000 tier. Do you suspect that everyone should or do you believe it's subjective like anything else? If everything I didn't like offered at a price I wouldn't pay could only be sold by greedy assholes would that say more about them or my view of the world?

 

[Burger]

So that is your argument in its entirety? That what is offered is not worth the cost? Fine! Say that. You want to make it about morality and character and all sorts of other things. You don't see $10 worth of value at the $10 tier, or $10,000 worth at the $10,000 tier. Do you suspect that everyone should or do you believe it's subjective like anything else? If everything I didn't like offered at a price I wouldn't pay could only be sold by greedy assholes would that say more about them or my view of the world?

My argument is pretty well documented throughout this entire thread if you care to read it.

Feel free to throw money at whatever you like but if you think I shouldn't be allowed to question it, like EviLore said, you'd better deal.

 

[EviLore]

An XBox and this kickstarter are not alike. They are two completely different things. A game console is bought to play games, it has a primary function as a device. This has no relevance to being an extra or getting some production diary entries.



So that is your argument in its entirety? That what is offered is not worth the cost? Fine! Say that. You want to make it about morality and character and all sorts of other things. You don't see $10 worth of value at the $10 tier, or $10,000 worth at the $10,000 tier. Do you suspect that everyone should or do you believe it's subjective like anything else? If everything I didn't like offered at a price I wouldn't pay could only be sold by greedy assholes would that say more about them or my view of the world?

People can say what they want about the value proposition of the Kickstarter. You're still trying to get people to shut up and accept whatever proposal is in front of them (whether they back it or not), and that is an unacceptable stifling of discussion which you should not continue.

Since a Rolex analogy was used earlier: "Rolex unveils $25,000 balsa wood watch infused with Michael Fassbender's scrotal grease! $50,000,000 in revenue and climbing!" If that were the premise of a thread, would you be in there telling people that they can't guffaw and decry it, because it's a transparent product offering? That's essentially what you're doing. You should stop.

 

[jimi_dini]

What makes you think I'm upset?

He probably reads your post and then sees your avatar. lol

 

[Burger]

He probably reads your post and then sees your avatar. lol

Listen here, Missy, I've become bitter, and let's face it, crazy over the years. And once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat!

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

An XBox and this kickstarter are not alike. They are two completely different things. A game console is bought to play games, it has a primary function as a device. This has no relevance to being an extra or getting some production diary entries.



So that is your argument in its entirety? That what is offered is not worth the cost? Fine! Say that. You want to make it about morality and character and all sorts of other things. You don't see $10 worth of value at the $10 tier, or $10,000 worth at the $10,000 tier. Do you suspect that everyone should or do you believe it's subjective like anything else? If everything I didn't like offered at a price I wouldn't pay could only be sold by greedy assholes would that say more about them or my view of the world?

I've danced this dance with you in the past, as I'm sure many gaffers have. You really don't have any intention of having a discussion, which is painfully obvious.

KHarv sed, "Guys I'm so mad at how other people spend their money!" said a guy on a fucking video game forum."

Your argument has never really moved beyond that...which is sort of ironic.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Criticism is starting to reach the mainstream media:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/holly...er-zach-braff-finally-has-millions-of-dollars

 

[KHarvey16]

My argument is pretty well documented throughout this entire thread if you care to read it.

Feel free to throw money at whatever you like but if you think I shouldn't be allowed to question it, like EviLore said, you'd better deal.

You aren't simply questioning the value. The implication is that your appraisal is objective and those who don't share it lack the intelligence to realize that.

People can say what they want about the value proposition of the Kickstarter. You're still trying to get people to shut up and accept whatever proposal is in front of them (whether they back it or not), and that is an unacceptable stifling of discussion which you should not continue.

Since a Rolex analogy was used earlier: "Rolex unveils $25,000 balsa wood watch infused with Michael Fassbender's scrotal grease! $50,000,000 in revenue and climbing!" If that were the premise of a thread, would you be in there telling people that they can't guffaw and decry it, because it's a transparent product offering? That's essentially what you're doing. You should stop.

The value proposition isn't the issue really being discussed here. It's one thing to say that what is being offered is not worth the price and another to say that the person offering that thing is an immoral greedy scammer looking to take advantage of poor sobs who can't possibly know any better. The constant refrain is that this guy has some money and therefore it is immoral for him to ask others to help fund his project in exchange for things they presumably want. If he is offering things for a price that plenty are willing to pay, how can that be so clearly immoral and wrong? Calling it such implicitly brands those who find these items worth the cost ignorant or stupid. This is personally my issue and why I think arguments based on such a premise are flawed. It's condescending. I'm not attempting to stifle any discussion above and beyond convincing those making those arguments that they're bad.

Your Rolex example is taking the value proposition theme to an extreme. No one would buy such a thing and I find it unlikely a desire for such a watch was ever demonstrated (unlike this movie, which has an audience). But from the perspective of a backer, paying $10 to help ensure a movie they liked gets a follow up from a guy they also like, plus some emails to update them on the process, may very well sound like an enticing offer. $10,000 to appear in the movie AND help fund it AND go to the premiere and all the other little pieces being offered can, I think, easily be justified by someone with $10,000 to spend. Certainly far, far more than a Rolex watch priced many thousands of times higher than the cost of its materials can be.

 

[Divvy]

Criticism is starting to reach the mainstream media:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/holly...er-zach-braff-finally-has-millions-of-dollars

This is a terrible article.

In the video above, Braff explains why he avoided the traditional financing routes, and it's all the stuff you could have guessed: Money people make you choose different actors than you wanted, make you change your script, make you not able to do everything exactly the way you wanted, basically. Writes Braff, "I was about to sign a typical financing deal in order to get the money to make 'Wish I Was Here,' my follow up to 'Garden State.' It would have involved making a lot of sacrifices I think would have ultimately hurt the film." And that sound you hear is a million people simultaneously groaning.

Way to hand wave his argument away without even addressing it. Plenty of filmmakers have expressed getting away from the traditional model because of these exact reasons. Kevin Smith made Red State without a financial backer and he's been saying how he can't go back to the traditional model because it's so much worse.

The criticism is twofold. First, the thinking goes, the more that famous people take over Kickstarter, the less room or attention or money there'll be for small, plucky filmmakers with no name recognition who try to get their projects going the only way they can,

I have yet to see proof of this at all. This is basically the media publisher's argument against piracy, "Each copy pirated is a lost sale!"

He wants to make a sequel to Garden State, quite possibly the most maligned film of the last 10 years. Yes, of course, a lot of people love Garden State: I mean, the guy's got almost $10 billion off this damn Kickstarter already. But people who express opinions on the Internet, almost as a rule, despise Garden State down to its marrow.

Everyone on the internet hates Garden State, except the people who are funding him. That's a criticism because...?

 

[Burger]

You aren't simply questioning the value. The implication is that your appraisal is objective and those who don't share it lack the intelligence to realize that.

I also called him a cunt. Don't forget that bit.

 

[Symphonic]

Looks great! But I have no money! Oh well! Hope it makes it! Oh boy! Diggy doggy! Zip zop bop biddy baby! Love Garden State! Would like to watch this! Hope he gets the money! Hope he spends the money on the movie! If not well shit! Oh well! But love him! Cool!

 

[johnhmarshall]

The sad irony in all of this is that by using kickstarter he has already compromised the integrity of his film. Regardless of the quality, public oppinion will be ablaze with equal handfuls of criticism and praise.

Thats a hell of a lot of pressure to put on a small personal film, especially if the main reason for utilising such a method was to create something pure. After all, every backer will be hoping the film was worth their money, whilst every detractor will look for a weakness to attack.

In his pitch, Zach mentions about wanting to have full control of the film. If the final cut feels overlong and self indulgent, he will be panned for not utilising a more traditional system of funding e.g: Everyone needs an editor, or someone to put the clamps down. Its through that pressure that something magical can occur.

In a way, his film may just be a footnote, forever known as "that kickstarter film"

I dont want people to think i am against Zach. Garden State came along at just the right time in my life (sixteen and applying for film school) and to see a young charismatic guy go Orson Welles was inspiring to say the least.

 

[linsivvi]

The sad irony in all of this is that by using kickstarter he has already compromised the integrity of his film. Regardless of the quality, public oppinion will be ablaze with equal handfuls of criticism and praise.

Thats a hell of a lot of pressure to put on a small personal film, especially if the main reason for utilising such a method was to create something pure. After all, every backer will be hoping the film was worth their money, whilst every detractor will look for a weakness to attack.

In his pitch, Zach mentions about wanting to have full control of the film. If the final cut feels overlong and self indulgent, he will be panned for not utilising a more traditional system of funding e.g: Everyone needs an editor, or someone to put the clamps down. Its through that pressure that something magical can occur.

In a way, his film may just be a footnote, forever known as "that kickstarter film"

I dont want people to think i am against Zach. Garden State came along at just the right time in my life (sixteen and applying for film school) and to see a young charismatic guy go Orson Welles was inspiring to say the least.

First of all, I don't see what public opinions after the film is made has to do with the integrity of the creative process of the film.

Secondly, he does have an "editor". In fact, two, and he named them. Studios don't "edit" a film, they just interfere with the creative process to make sure they get the best return for their investments. The people who are "putting the clamps down" are usually just making sure the product reaches as large a demographic as possible. So unless you want to measure the quality of a film by its box office, the studio system is not going to help here.

Lastly, this film might be crap, or it might be good. I don't see how people can predict the quality of the film without even reading the script. The people who are being critical of this project have absolutely nothing to do with how this film might turn out.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

It's condescending. I'm not attempting to stifle any discussion above and beyond convincing those making those arguments that they're bad.

But then, in turn, are you not being condescending? :\ Certainly trying to impose your own belief onto others.

I still believe it's immoral to fund his movie via Kickstarter. I'm not saying it's bottom end of the immoral scale if there was such a thing, but it doesn't sit right with me. If this was say... the original Blair Witch Project back in the 90s using the internet to fund their movie, I'd be fine. But it's an actor/producer/writer/director/whatever that has been within the movie/tv industry for over a decade and is somewhat successful/has a cult following.

I don't think he's been fully transparent about it, and I don't agree with the reward structure. All the kickstarters I've seen have given you a physical copy of the item you fund - this doesn't. It gives a screening, but not a DVD copy? Why?

I'm not sure that just because people are funding and buying into the different tiers that should prove that this whole funding thing isn't immoral. I can't follow that logic. It's like suggesting that just because someone sells a ton of copied stuff at a car boot sale that isn't immoral. Obviously there's no direct link between copied items and this movie, however the link is that people buying absolve all morality issues.

EDIT: A bollocks, didn't see they were banned :\

 

[Lord British]

Zach: "I can't make this all on my own"

 

[RedNumberFive]

People need to stop throwing money at this self absorbed hack and fund that GAFfer's movie about the haunted Creed concert tickets.

 

[Jac_Solar]

• If you become an extra ($2500 reward) or receive a cast credit ($10,000 reward), you must be a US citizen or have a US work visa, and not be a member of SAG/AFTRA.

I just found out what SAG/AFTRA is after googling it, but I still don't understand why members can't be a part of this. What's up with that?

 

[Mr. Luchador]

I just found out what SAG/AFTRA is after googling it, but I still don't understand why members can't be a part of this. What's up with that?

I'm assuming extra costs/you'll have to be paid.

 

[TrutaS]

Well you guys made me change my mind about this kickstarter. I do agree that if the guy has the money for it (likely much more than enough) he shouldn't be asking for it just because he doesn't want the risk.

However the means through which he is trying to get the money are honest in my opinion, with little to no intrusion to your daily life and really the value of what he offers is straight-forward so people know exactly what they are getting with the ammount they pay. I see no scam here honestly. Scam would be if no movie got produced or people didn't get the rewards they were offered. Or if the movie was just pure crap (for the standards of those who payed for it).

But as I said, personally I don't see value here and I'm not inclined to participate in charity for those who don't need it. If the movie comes out and gets good reviews I will buy a ticket and watch it.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Wow. $1.5 million in a day. Crazy.

 

[Incitemaybe]

Aw, Garden State is perfect as it is :-(

Well, hope he has some good ideas.

 

[LongDongJunon]

Aw, Garden State is perfect as it is :-(

Well, hope he has some good ideas.

It's not a sequel, it's just a follow up as in "the next movie directed by Zach Braff"

 

[KalBalboa]

"Thanks to Kickstarter, Zach Braff Finally Has Millions of Dollars"

Love that title.

 

[element]

I'm so confused how people are using things like Ouya as a defense. If anything Ouya is an even worse offender as they HAD private investment and are still asking for $1000 or more. What do you think the private investors return on his $1000 is going to be? They are going to get a lot more than a devkit and invite to the launch party.

Kickstarter is not an ROI based system.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

I really like kickstarting things. I probably kickstarter about one project a month maybe, I just funded one of those voxel exploration games called planet explorers. So I think this is cool and all.. But holy Christ that movie sounds lame. Garden State has not aged particularly well either. I was just thinking about that the other day.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I don't see it as immoral or disingenuous at all. Zach has used an alternate system before due to the constraints that traditional Film routes offer when he wrote All New People and did it on Stage. Similar to Kevin Smith's consideration of Broadway as an outlet for Clerks 3.

I think, that from the outside looking in, it's pretty easy to try to claim scam or ripoff because many of us don't actually know how the inner workings of traditional film publishing work so there may or may not be validity the reasoning he uses.

Does that mean no one should complain? I suppose not since no one knows one way or the other which side is most accurate in their discourse. Is it a bad deal? I would think that depends entirely on each person backing. But it's definitely not a case of Zach pulling the wool over anyone's eyes with what he's asking and what they'll be provided. Isn't that the major draw of Kickstarter anyways?

As for what risk he's taking.. I'd think his namesake. If this film doesn't deliver then his stock as a writer takes a serious dive (and he's been doing spec scripts and rewrites a bit since leaving TV). He can also lose the respect and patronage of his loyal fanbase if they contribute to this project and hate the results. He's got no one to fall back on. Can't use the excuse of the Producers or Big Film altering his product. Seems to me that while he's not putting his money directly on the line for this film, he's certainly putting his marketability on the line and that could very well affect his pocketbook in the long run. That's my two cents on the matter anyhow.

 

[TUSR]

donations have slowed down considerably. Still has like 29 days to go though.

 

[KalBalboa]

The only way I see the ripoff angle (I wont touch the ethical end of it or necessity) is that you can't get a copy of the movie for donating any amount.

But he'll recommend you some music. Hell, I give you a DVD for $40.

 

[LongDongJunon]

donations have slowed down considerably. Still has like 29 days to go though.

The last $200,000 should be fun times to watch.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Well you guys made me change my mind about this kickstarter. I do agree that if the guy has the money for it (likely much more than enough) he shouldn't be asking for it just because he doesn't want the risk.

However the means through which he is trying to get the money are honest in my opinion, with little to no intrusion to your daily life and really the value of what he offers is straight-forward so people know exactly what they are getting with the ammount they pay. I see no scam here honestly. Scam would be if no movie got produced or people didn't get the rewards they were offered. Or if the movie was just pure crap (for the standards of those who payed for it).

But as I said, personally I don't see value here and I'm not inclined to participate in charity for those who don't need it. If the movie comes out and gets good reviews I will buy a ticket and watch it.

The scam is that he's implying that the movie couldn't be funded through normal channels the way Garden State was and then he plans to make even more money off of the people that funded it.

Just look at Braff's Twitter feed too. Its swamped with his retweets of a ton of other rich-as-fuck buddies who all could have pitched in a million bucks of their own defending that its not a scam.

 

[Blackhead]

The scam is that he's implying that the movie couldn't be funded through normal channels the way Garden State was and then he plans to make even more money off of the people that funded it.

Just look at Braff's Twitter feed too. Its swamped with his retweets of a ton of other rich-as-fuck buddies who all could have pitched in a million bucks of their own defending that its not a scam.

He didn't say it couldn't be funded through normal channels. He said it was possible to land a studio investor but it came with many strings attached.

Its like the Penny Arcade kick starter. Yes, they could run the site with ads but Gabe and Tycho wanted to try a direct connection with the readers (NB: I didn't contribute to that either)

I think it's a slippery slope when you start cutting off people because they are too rich or too big a celebrity. Much like the censorship debate (I might not like what you're saying but I'll defend you right to say it) I don't like Zach's kickstarter but I think he has the right to put it out there...

 

[Mairu]

The only way I see the ripoff angle (I wont touch the ethical end of it or necessity) is that you can't get a copy of the movie for donating any amount.

But he'll recommend you some music. Hell, I give you a DVD for $40.

Your self promotion in a thread that's completely unrelated to your own Kickstarter isn't really any better. I don't think anyone can make the argument that Braff's Kickstarter is "taking away" from other more deserving Kickstarters. People generally don't allocate a set amount of money they want to spend on Kickstarter and then figure out what to spend it on within that.

 

[Divvy]

The scam is that he's implying that the movie couldn't be funded through normal channels the way Garden State was and then he plans to make even more money off of the people that funded it.

Just look at Braff's Twitter feed too. Its swamped with his retweets of a ton of other rich-as-fuck buddies who all could have pitched in a million bucks of their own defending that its not a scam.

That's not a scam, that's just your conjecture. You have no proof that he could do it just as easily without kickstarter and he's given very clear reasons why he doesn't want to fund it through normal channels and why he can't give out the movie to his funders.

Your self promotion in a thread that's completely unrelated to your own Kickstarter isn't really any better. I don't think anyone can make the argument that Braff's Kickstarter is "taking away" from other more deserving Kickstarters. People generally don't allocate a set amount of money they want to spend on Kickstarter and then figure out what to spend it on within that.

Exactly. This is the exact same argument the movie/game/recording industry uses against piracy to implement draconian DRM features into their products.

 

[KalBalboa]

Your self promotion in a thread that's completely unrelated to your own Kickstarter isn't really any better. I don't think anyone can make the argument that Braff's Kickstarter is "taking away" from other more deserving Kickstarters. People generally don't allocate a set amount of money they want to spend on Kickstarter and then figure out what to spend it on within that.

Yes, but I just specifically said I wont get into the ethical end of it for said reason. I also never implied or complained that he's somehow taking from me, so don't project that onto my posts.

I just think he should at least offer a means to buy the movie someone through "investing." It's a common practice with crowd-sourced film making (I'm not even using Kickstarter, for the record). He's offering song recommendations instead of a product.

 

[Angry Grimace]

He didn't say it couldn't be funded through normal channels. He said it was possible to land a studio investor but it came with many strings attached.

Its like the Penny Arcade kick starter. Yes, they could run the site with ads but Gabe and Tycho wanted to try a direct connection with the readers (NB: I didn't contribute to that either)

I think it's a slippery slope when you start cutting off people because they are too rich or too big a celebrity. Much like the censorship debate (I might not like what you're saying but I'll defend you right to say it) I don't like Zach's kickstarter but I think he has the right to put it out there...

Slippery slope arguments are always irrelevant fallacies.

The problem is that one of the "normal" channels he's referring to could be his own bank account or one of those other guys he's quoting on Twitter. Of course, he'd have to actually be held accountable to them for the investment and/or shoulder the risk. This way he's insulating himself from a significant degree of risk.

The mere act of posting a Kickstarter implies that the movie wouldn't be made without it. At best its disingenuous.

 

[Divvy]

Slippery slope arguments are always irrelevant fallacies.

The problem is that one of the "normal" channels he's referring to could be his own bank account or one of those other guys he's quoting on Twitter. Of course, he'd have to actually be held accountable to them for the investment and/or shoulder the risk. This way he's insulating himself from a significant degree of risk.

The mere act of posting a Kickstarter implies that the movie wouldn't be made without it. At best its disingenuous.

He said he can't afford to pay for the whole movie itself. He also said that he wasn't depending on kickstarter to fund it in its entirety since he is paying out of pocket and with foreign distributers. How do you know that none of his friends have given him money directly or through this kickstarter? Besides, why is that a requirement in the first place? Should every kickstarter project require the founder to ask all their friends for money first?

He doesn't have much monetary risk, but he takes on a lot of artistic risk as he will have no one to blame but himself if he fails and thus people will be far less likely to back any of his projects in the future.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

The sad irony in all of this is that by using kickstarter he has already compromised the integrity of his film. Regardless of the quality, public oppinion will be ablaze with equal handfuls of criticism and praise.

Thats a hell of a lot of pressure to put on a small personal film, especially if the main reason for utilising such a method was to create something pure. After all, every backer will be hoping the film was worth their money, whilst every detractor will look for a weakness to attack.

In his pitch, Zach mentions about wanting to have full control of the film. If the final cut feels overlong and self indulgent, he will be panned for not utilising a more traditional system of funding e.g: Everyone needs an editor, or someone to put the clamps down. Its through that pressure that something magical can occur.

In a way, his film may just be a footnote, forever known as "that kickstarter film"

I dont want people to think i am against Zach. Garden State came along at just the right time in my life (sixteen and applying for film school) and to see a young charismatic guy go Orson Welles was inspiring to say the least.

"go Orson Welles"? Are you okay? Do you need psychiatric help?

 

[RedNumberFive]

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

lmao who did this.

 

[arab]

garden state sucks. how unfortunate that this will get funded.

 

[Angry Grimace]

lmao who did this.

https://twitter.com/timheidecker/status/327252017334603776

 

[Messofanego]

https://twitter.com/timheidecker/status/327252017334603776

As if I could love him even more.

I don't really see the huge issue with this, it seems he's been pretty transparent about it but I haven't read the whole thread.

 

[johnhmarshall]

First of all, I don't see what public opinions after the film is made has to do with the integrity of the creative process of the film.

Secondly, he does have an "editor". In fact, two, and he named them. Studios don't "edit" a film, they just interfere with the creative process to make sure they get the best return for their investments. The people who are "putting the clamps down" are usually just making sure the product reaches as large a demographic as possible. So unless you want to measure the quality of a film by its box office, the studio system is not going to help here.

Lastly, this film might be crap, or it might be good. I don't see how people can predict the quality of the film without even reading the script. The people who are being critical of this project have absolutely nothing to do with how this film might turn out.

Perhaps i didn't articulate my point well enough. This will no longer be a small personal film anymore, it has been branded as a kickstarter film. You take a cursory glace at some of the articles and oppinions that have been posted in the last few days. Its gonna be a tough crowd either way.

Also, the studio system exists for a reason. Even independent films have some form of investment deal, to assume that every indie film is privately funded and given full creative control is ridiculous. Even investors of indie films try to call some shots. Its there money. The kickstarter process means he doesnt have to answer ro anyone.

Also, its not prediction. Its speculation. We're just simply discussing every avenue

"go Orson Welles"? Are you okay? Do you need psychiatric help?

Whether you like him or hate him, it was an impressive sight to see a young actor make a critically acclaimed film and not only shoot it, but star, and direct it.

Not many people can inspire that kind of courage from investors. Maybe you should consider how much of an acheivement it really was, irregardless of quality.

 

[border]

Slippery slope arguments are always irrelevant fallacies.

No. Slippery slope arguments are informal fallacies. Which is to say, they are not always fallacies.

And there's just as many slippery slopes in this thread against Braff as there are supporting him. "OMG NOW KICKSTARTER IS GOING TO BE NOTHING BUT B-LIST CELEBRITIES BEGGING FOR MONEY!"

Whether you like him or hate him, it was an impressive sight to see a young actor make a critically acclaimed film and not only shoot it, but star, and direct it.

He also wrote it.

And while I wouldnt necessarily try to take away from Braff's accomplishment, I'd probably note that Kevin Smith did the same thing too. In the world of indies I don't think it's completely unheard of, given that when you are self-financing you get to do whatever the hell you want. It's a much greater achievement for Welles, who was able to sell himself within the confines of the rigid studio system of Old Hollywood.

 

[johnhmarshall]

He also wrote it.

And while I wouldnt necessarily try to take away from Braff's accomplishment, I'd probably note that Kevin Smith did the same thing too. In the world of indies I don't think it's completely unheard of, given that when you are self-financing you get to do whatever the hell you want. It's a much greater achievement for Welles, who was able to sell himself within the confines of the rigid studio system of Old Hollywood.

Very true, i'm surprised no one has heard of "Orson Welles it" as a phrase. its one i've seen bandied about in literature for years.

Of course comparing the two is hyperbole, though its a standard i would imagine many of his imitators would of liked to of been held up to.

 

[Kafel]

we're going to make it GAF ! thank you for the

Spoiler

stupid

noise you make around this project !

 

[Wiktor]

if you think I shouldn't be allowed to question it, like EviLore said, you'd better deal.

You have right to question the Kickstarter's details itself. The problems start to happen when people are questiong other people's decisions to support it or not.

 

[Staccat0]

My filmmaking friends and I were bored and decided to waste a few hours shooting this scene last night:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/and-now-somebody-has-filmed-tim-heideckers-zach-br,97033/

We tweeted it to Tim and a few places have picked it up.

My poor wife got duped into acting across from the prince of all saiyans. Take it easy on her, we were just dicking around and she isn't an actress. The joke was mostly that it would be a weird thing to do, but it's full of stupid "easter eggs"

 

[oatmeal]

My filmmaking friends and I were bored and decided to waste a few hours shooting this scene last night:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/and-now-somebody-has-filmed-tim-heideckers-zach-br,97033/

We tweeted it to Tim and a few places have picked it up.

My poor wife got duped into acting across from the prince of all saiyans. Take it easy on her, we were just dicking around and she isn't an actress. The joke was mostly that it would be a weird thing to do, but it's full of stupid "easter eggs"

Hah!

Girl acting is not good (your wife, sorry ), guy is good, though.

Nice job.

 

[inm8num2]

Brilliant job, Staccat0!