-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Zach Braff wants your Kickstarter money for a Garden State follow up
- Thread starter Blablurn
- Start date
- Status
I don't think so, but it beat Melissa Joan Hart's kickstarter to $36k.
EvilDick34
Banned
Good Lord, a lot of butthurt people in this thread, get over yourselves. I will because of the haters in this thread(and because i love Braff) back his film on KS.
I actually watched the whole hour-long video -- pretty interesting. It's a little disheartening to hear that a fair number of creators are actually cheating by backing their own projects. I wonder what the telltale signs of self-backing are? He seems a little vague about it, since I don't think he really wants to call people out.
Burger
Member
"Don't criticise this thing I like!"
So Braff is putting in his own money now. How much? Not telling.
Can't have a digital copy, gotta make profits from selling to those theatre chains yo.
What a cunt.
EvilDick34
Banned
You don't have to back his KS, so again why are you so upset?
Burger
Member
What makes you think I'm upset?
Look, it's a thread about a thing. The people who back it go "omg awesome I pledged my monies," and the people who don't go "this is dumb, millionaire go spend your own money." And then the virtues of the project and backing the project are discussed.
If you think people shouldn't be allowed to question whether this Kickstarter is worthwhile, well, you'd better deal.
If you think people shouldn't be allowed to question whether this Kickstarter is worthwhile, well, you'd better deal.
I do feel like they might have been better off offering a limited number of digital/DVD copies at a high donation level, to be delivered months after the theatrical release. At least that would silence the people complaining that you don't get to "own" the thing you backed.
That way theatrical distributors wouldn't be annoyed, and home video distributors would only have to worry about their sales being lowered by a fixed number of people.
That way theatrical distributors wouldn't be annoyed, and home video distributors would only have to worry about their sales being lowered by a fixed number of people.
homeworkfilms
Member
I am in the pro side of this funding model. The money here goes to artists in a precarious industry, from sound, to lighting, to craft services. Yes i get that would happen wherever he got funding but it is worth affirming that it isn't 2 million in his pocket. This isn't just a Braff vanity project. He is also correct that in directing this at the fans and by performing fan service he can circumvent real restrictions that would be put on him with a studio funding model. I think this is a great use of kickstarter. Having said that I don't really pay attention to his work and wasn't the biggest fan of scrubs so count me out!
Burger
Member
He's made it pretty clear that this is a business venture by wanting to monetize the project. It's not about covering costs, it's clearly about getting to do the film he wants and make a profit at the end of it.
In summary he's getting his fans to pay for his film production which he hopes will result in him, not his fans, making a profit on the end. This is the reason he can't give them a copy of the film they helped pay for. 11973 of which have paid him between £30 and $2500.
Sure this 'model' of funding allows him more creative freedom. But it also allows him the potential to make a fuckload of cash, with little risk. Where is the downside for Braff?
Exactly.
Best post in the thread.
It's funny how some people claim critics of the kickstarter are "butthurt" or are "complaining". And they think that people only care about "owning" the product. Erm, no. That's just one example of many others that have been discussed which illustrate this really isn't a project made in good taste. There are many flaws - don't attack us because we point them out.
Braff is making an exception for himself to have the best of both worlds - minimal risk, complete creative freedom, and maximum potential for profit. And most of all he's telling his backers, "Fuck you, you don't get a copy. I'm selling the movie to a distributor!" So why crowdfund if you're going to sell off the project anyway? Well, Burger already explained.
How is this different than any other project that will allow its creators to launch an ongoing business or a product that can be sold and marketed to consumers beyond the Kickstarter backers? Does there have to be "downside" for creators that get funded?
Burger
Member
Most kickstarter projects I've seen are for 'things' and if successful at the end, you get the 'thing'. You know, give us $5 and get a "THANKS!" but give us $25 and you get the thing. This is for a thing except at no point do you get a copy of the thing. You are instead part of a zero cost focus group on your PC.
I'm not saying there should be a downside for creators, but there should be significant value for people backing. Clearly some people think there is enough value. I wonder if some people may be disappointed later when it turns out they helped a rich guy make loads of cash, or the movie stinks or worse, fails to be made. Imagine if it's like Terry Gilliam's The Man Who Killed Don Quixote...
Didn't you see? If you pledge $2500 you visit the set and *might* be an extra, but you'll still get a 'thank you' from Zach - a THANK YOU.
(Yes, there are other rewards at that level. Yes, that is not the only reason someone might pledge that much This post is a joke. No need for snarky or angry replies, but given the thread history it's sad I need to clarify this anyway.)
homeworkfilms
Member
The thing in a film's case is arguably a screening. Now 30$ minimum for a screening is a lot. I see that as the Braff TM premium over say a more reasonable $15 screening tier. Having said that it is still in line with getting something in return.
Burger
Member
Didn't you see? If you pledge $2500 you visit the set and *might* be an extra, but you'll still get a 'thank you' from Zach - a THANK YOU.
It also says you get to meet the actors. Like fuck you do. You will be told to stay well away from the talent. And you get to have lunch with the 'crew' who will probably tell you to fuck off as well.
An XBox is analogous to a very small handful of people paying to help fund a movie, get a few small things and a chance to have the footage they were in appear in the movie? No. An XBox is the latest version of a series of consoles that millions of people buy to play games.
Please describe the risk he bears with traditional movie financing. Also, define at what level of profit a project becomes unworthy of kickstarter.
Ah, incredulity. Great argument there.
Mr. Luchador
Member
Well this has had a negative effect on how I view Zach Braff. He's at least on -3 now.
Burger
Member
Millionaire filmmaker would have to invest more of his own money? Increasing exposure and risk? 2 million free dollars that you don't have to pay back is certainly advantageous.
It was a bit of a joke, maybe I needed a disclaimer like inm8num2
(I'm also incredulous that he's getting away with it btw)
With traditional financing he doesn't need to spend any of his own money. People are receiving things for their money in a kickstarter.
Mr. Luchador
Member
I know very little of the movie world, but I always assumed that producers/backers traditionally received their money back + % of profits (if the movie was a success)? I'm basing this entirely on Mel Brook's 'Producers' in case anyone was wondering where my incredible knowledge was garnered.
Questioning whether or not a Zach Braff project is worthwhile is entirely different from calling Zach Braff a scam artist. I'm not planning on backing this project but that doesn't mean I'll impugn Zach's motives for creating it. I don't understand why people are implying he's engaging in illegal activity.
Mr. Luchador
Member
I don't think it's illegal, just highly immoral. Yet, no one is forcing backers to back, so I guess there's no real harm at the moment.
But how is it immoral? I don't understand this accusation even a little.
Mr. Luchador
Member
Why don't you understand it? It's been discussed pretty heavily even in the short amount of time I've read over the thread.
Rich guy crowd funds to get richer. Avoids using traditional producers & backers, so doesn't have to distribute profits amongst them. Backers get advanced screen at x2 traditional ticket price, plus a bunch of other stuff that you'd normally get for free via a website or fansite - such as t-shirts, production diary, videoblogs, etc. Even the person who spends $10k to be an extra has to provide their own travel and accommodation.
Like I said, no one has forced these backers to back, and I'm assuming the people backing are fans such as yourself who want to see the next quirky offering Zach Braff has.
However, from my perspective, he can suggest its about creative integrity and all that, but it just comes across as making a movie for free and keeping any money that he makes. I'm somewhat jealous.
Mr. Luchador - The Movie. Crowdfunding coming soon, folks.
Rich guy crowd funds to get richer. Avoids using traditional producers & backers, so doesn't have to distribute profits amongst them. Backers get advanced screen at x2 traditional ticket price, plus a bunch of other stuff that you'd normally get for free via a website or fansite - such as t-shirts, production diary, videoblogs, etc. Even the person who spends $10k to be an extra has to provide their own travel and accommodation.
Like I said, no one has forced these backers to back, and I'm assuming the people backing are fans such as yourself who want to see the next quirky offering Zach Braff has.
However, from my perspective, he can suggest its about creative integrity and all that, but it just comes across as making a movie for free and keeping any money that he makes. I'm somewhat jealous.
Mr. Luchador - The Movie. Crowdfunding coming soon, folks.
Burger
Member
Who said it's illegal or that he's a scam artist?
I only called him a cunt.
It's illegal to setup a stock scheme like that apparently, or not illegal you just have to register your 'securities' with the SEC in the U.S. It's not illegal to give people the film they paid to be made, but they can't have that. For reasons.
Scams aren't necessarily illegal. Since there isn't a whole lot to the backer rewards, more so than what is usual, and it's a project that is already being made and easily fundable by Zach, he's essentially exchanging good will for donations that are then used toward his own lucrative financial investment. Clearly there are a lot of willing participants, but that isn't relevant for someone's personal opinion on how this feels.
It's probably not going away. Video game kickstarters take pride in transparency and inclusiveness, and hardware kickstarters actually give you a thing, but these movie kickstarters are cashing in on celebrity and well-liked IPs without necessarily offering much to the people shelling out. And they can, because we're a celebrity obsessed and revering culture.
I expect a lot of disappointed people among those who shelled out for the movie premiere + afterparty for Veronica Mars et al. You're not gonna be cracking jokes with Kristen Bell, you're going to be part of a swarm of nerds in an awkward ratio of nerd to cast and crew, probably more like a fan convention than a party, at best. But everyone wants into this scene, and few people have the right connections, so that's a dream I expect to see commoditized more and more.
Plenty of people with money use kickstarter to get projects off the ground that will make them more money. Who cares? I ask you the same question I asked Burger: what's the amount of profit a person can make from a project on kickstarter?
Also has to spend some of his own money and needs to send out all of these various things and services sold at each tier. He also still needs distribution.
You get free t-shirts at fan sites? Backers pay more for the screening than it costs to see a movie because they aren't just paying for the screening. That's the whole point and presumably someone who wants to see the movie wants the movie to be made and so chooses to give this person money to do that. If they got $30 of tangible items or services for their $30 investment there isn't actually money left for funding anything, right?
I have no plans to back this because it doesn't interest me. I just hate how people treat kickstarter projects in every single thread about a kickstarter project. It happens every time and it's never, ever made any sense.
He isn't making it for free. $2 million isn't enough to make a movie! This model requires him to pay money whereas a traditional model usually does not.
Do you really think he wouldn't get lots of money if the film is successful regardless of how he chooses to fund it? In this scenario he only makes money once the cost of everything is covered, including his own personal investment and the kickstarter tiered items.
Mr. Luchador
Member
So are you telling me he's not going to make much more money this way than he would have with a more 'traditional' source of funding?
I'm actually a fan of Kickstarters and crowdfunding, but not in this case.
I'm actually a fan of Kickstarters and crowdfunding, but not in this case.
I have no idea how much money he's going to make and I have no idea how much money he'd make with a traditional model. I know, though, that he won't starve using either model that produces a successful movie.
Burger
Member
How much of his own money is he putting in? Oh he's not saying? Well that's strange. Probably because it's entirely dependant on how much this kickstarter goes over the 2 million goal.
Garden State only had a budget of $2.5 million. Made $35 million. Most of which after costs went back to the sole investor. Guess who the investors are this time.
Ok? I don't understand the issue there.
People who want the movie to be made and expect nothing besides a finished movie and the items mentioned in the various tiers in return?
Burger
Member
After the backlash of people calling him a rich asshole, why not pay for it yourself etc. he put a new FAQ on his page, saying "Are you contribiting your own money?"
His response was basically "Yes." But he's not disclosing how much. Could be $2,000,000 mil, could be $1000. I suspect it depends on how much free money people throw at him.
Zach claims otherwise:
Ouya received similar complaints that the project already had investor backing and didn't need the extra money. The Pebble team were members of YCombinator's startup school and had access to the industry angels. Many hardware kickstarters never end up giving you a thing. Then there's this:
I don't agree with these assumptions. I don't think the people who shelled out for the premium Veronica Mars tiers are under any illusions that they are getting a dinner date with Kristen Bell. I think those people really really love Veronica Mars, moreso than they like the cast, and would indeed be happy if the event was more fan convention than 'party'.
I didn't support Veronica Mars either. I'm not sure there's any theoretical film or art project I'd actually 'fund' (as opposed to tossing out a dollar so i can get the updates). That said if Celebrities want to use kickstarter to bypass the Hollywood industry then fuck yeah, I'm all for it. You see it as exploitation, I view it as liberation.
Edit: Does anybody forsee a near future dystopia where celebrities start using publicity machines to advertise their kickstarter project? Like a Brad Pitt billboard in Times Square asking for $50 million dollars to make a personal documentary? Zach Braff obviously has a larger twitter following, and opportunity to Reddit AMA, much more so than the average indie film maker. I wonder where the self promotion crosses the line.
And again, even if that is true...so what? Whatever he invests is money he wouldn't have had to invest under a traditional model of funding. I mean at this point it comes across as some kind of hipster nonsense about how kickstarter was cool before it went "all mainstream, man" and simple spite that a person will potentially make money because people want something from them.
Also, why do you keep saying free money? Are you alleging that no one will receive any of the goods or services promised at the various levels? That he will receive money and then not have to make the movie?
Burger
Member
It's not a scam! He said so himself!
(I don't think it's a scam, but it's DODGY AS FUCK)
At least they got a copy of the movie! amiright?
Mr. Luchador
Member
Can countries start a kickstarter? Could do with wiping the national debt of mine.
TrumanBurbank
Member
Hope Natalie Portman is in this new film too. I would donate if she's in it.
Burger
Member
Because the money is free? Sure he has to email out a few scripts and get some t-shirt's printed but otherwise people are literally GIVING him money. He doesn't have to pay it back.
Extra's usually cost productions money to hire. Here you pay $2500 for the privilege. Free money.
We all give people money every day in exchange for things. Please point out the difference here.
Didn't realize that all of the extras in the movie will come from kickstarter. So the people who purchase this don't consider the experience worth any money at all? They also don't receive any other items from the tiers below that? (Hint: they do).
If this is free money everything ever sold was purchased with free money. This is stupid.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
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.
Burger
Member
It's a shitty deal?
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
But everyone knows about the terms of the deal so what gives?! [/sarcasm]
- Status