Zach Braff's new film on Kickstarter

Interesting read:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/cinetolo...rts-a-new-culture-of-celebrity-crowdsourcing/

... the commentary surrounding Zach Braff’s game-changing gambit has missed an important component: what he will do with his movie once that coveted final cut has been made. It is safe to assume Braff wants as many people to see Wish I Was Here as possible, which means pursuing a wide release — and this means, in America at least, he will face the task of selling his movie to the same people he walked away from.

Major Hollywood distributors and major Hollywood studios are owned by the same companies (until 1950, after the US government clamped down on vertical integration, they also owned the major exhibitors). An independently produced feature film needs to be bought by a distributor, and that distributor needs to be convinced there is value in taking on the production and the financial risks associated with it. There have been countless occasions when distributors have acquired indie films on the proviso that certain elements must be changed; one of the great living moguls, Miramax’s Harvey “Scissorhands” Weinstein, earned his moniker for that reason. If Braff finds himself involved in such conversations (“we want to release your movie, but this bit has to change…”) he will have inadvertently provided a biting satire of the cyclical nature of the American film industry. There is plenty of time left for the entrepreneurial indie star to meet the cowboy from Mulholland Drive.

There is a good chance a major distributor will embrace Wish I Was Here and market it as a left-of-centre feature from a filmmaker brave enough to work outside the system. But that deal would still need to be made, and the same people will be calling the shots. In the top end of town you dance with who they tell you to or you don’t dance at all, and in the end, the big guns dictate the terms. The essence of Zach Braff’s new role might not reflect the way he described it in his video, as a man contemplating “the next chapter of life in your 30s.” It may become a sort of reverse Robin Hood: a rich man taking money from the public and funneling it back into the same infrastructure he so passionately denounced.
Click to expand...
 
welsh_gambit said:
I don't have a problem with this either. I mean think if the movies that Hollywood thinks are too much of a risk. they could be funded or part funded that way. Imagine the feeling fans would get if they helped fund a new series of stargate or a dark tower movie.
Click to expand...

I don't care about how it good it feels to help fund your favorite thing if that special thing never needed a crowdfunding in the first place.

It becomes a kind of blackmail from the studios. "you wont have your Iron Man 2 unless you pay now". And the argument will be always the same "the investment is not worth it" (meaning, they will gain money, just not as much as they hunger for).
 
The issue I have with this crowdfunding campaign is that it's not like investing - Kickstarter backers will get certain 'rewards,' but there are about 10,000 backers so far who will still have to spend money to see the film (even if their donation amount was triple the cost of a movie ticket), still have to spend money to own the film on DVD/Blu Ray/Digital.

And not one of the people who are backing it will see any of their money back. They're not investors. Braff has done this to keep final cut and say over casting. Look at The Canyons. Casting involved what some might regard as poor decisions, and without a studio overhead getting final cut, Schrader was able to edit the film any way he wanted to, even declining the offer from better, more successful Directors to cut it for him so that it actually worked. The result? Nothing. Didn't even get a screening at Sundance.

Similar here, there's no accountability - there's no investors getting reports at the end of each week. There's no studio overseeing to ensure that the movie will in fact do well.

It's entirely possible that people from all over the world could donate 2mil+ to Zach Braff and he could deliver a pile of sh*t for a film that doesn't even get accepted into festivals, let alone a wide release

And there'll be no consequences. It's quite possible that the cut will be awful, or won't work, or there'll be casting decisions made that really shouldn't be. And it will be allowed to happen.
 
jax_rox said:
And not one of the people who are backing it will see any of their money back. They're not investors.

It's entirely possible that people from all over the world could donate 2mil+ to Zach Braff and he could deliver a pile of sh*t for a film that doesn't even get accepted into festivals, let alone a wide release
Click to expand...

Crowdfunding is not investing. Monetary gain is not something you expect. Laws have taken care of that, because if you could promise money to your backers, you would be entering a whole new territory.

The risk of not seeing anything for donating has always been present in crowdfunding. Remember those HD camera glasses that got kickstarted? It has been a year and a half since it got funded and no one has seen a result from it.

I think your argument is more of a concern about crowdfunding itself rather than this particular campaign. And I agree with you that the risks are prevalent and we sink money into them which we may never get back. That is why we need to make discerning choices based on the project creator's experience and commitment they've fulfilled etc.
 
Here's another interesting article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2013/apr/26/zack-braff-panhandle-money-kickstarter

...if the movie becomes a sleeper hit like The Blair Witch Project, which was made for $60,000 but grossed $250m worldwide, no donor will see any kind of return. The producers get to build another kidney-shaped swimming pool, but you'll be left with your pdf of the screenplay ($10), frameable art prints ($60) or a fleeting moment as an extra ($2,500).
Click to expand...

I think this is my biggest issue.
I even had less issue with the Veronica Mars project, as it was a film that was not going to be made unless it was funded by the fans.

This is different. This is a film that was going to be made regardless - Braff seems to be taking advantage of the system to fuel his ego. Chances are, if it wasn't funded, he would have had to sheepishly go back to the original investors and sign a deal anyway.

Realistically, Braff is pretty much getting 'money for nothing' - if the film bombs, he's no worse off, investors are no worse off, he has no more trouble getting financing traditional ways in the future. Perhaps future investors are a little more wary, but he'll still have similar options available to him.

If the film succeeds, Braff and his Producers stand to make all of the profits, after the distributor takes their cut.

Independent filmmakers struggling to find funding turn to Kickstarter, and most low-ball their target in order to get some money. You have short films asking for $2k, features asking for $20-$100k just so they have a better chance of getting something. Some of these succeed and some don't, but they're truly independent and you really are helping a 'struggling' artist by donating to their film.

I can see a not too distant future where the 'film' section of Kickstarter is taken up by projects such as:
Iron Man 5 - we need an extra million dollars if we are able to put in the really cool aerial shots we want
Batman reboot - we really want Steve Buscemi to play the villain in the Batman reboot, but we don't want to use up the budget, so help us raise $2million to get him in the film.
etc.

It could be the beginning of a precedent that may take money away from the struggling independent artists or filmmaker and puts it into the pockets of the studios and producers, for films that are already going to be funded, already going to be made etc.
 
I think it is interesting that fans are both funding movies, AND paying again to see them at the theater. In theory the goal of a movie is to make back its budget and ultimately turn a profit for the investors. I wish there were some method of accountability that returned that investment to the contributors should the project be successful. The beauty of crowdfunding is that it allows artists without means or access to pursue their dreams if the community feels the project is worthy of investment. It should not be (IMO) a financing vehicle co-opted by studios to fund projects with no risk or investment on their part.
 
As someone from the low end of the totem pole, I will tell you that the end is very near for the small time indie filmmaker on kickstarter. It was hard enough before the celebrities got involved. Now, you have a tag team of celebrities and over-saturation.

DSLRs + Youtube= Everybody is a filmmaker. Everybody is a filmmaker + a couple big kickstarter successes = Increase of fund seekers & Notice from Hollywood

Hollywood success + Over-saturation = Indie filmmakers having to compete with the production values of Hollywood and the sheer number of film projects

Where a year ago my small indie project was getting okay traffic and pledges from strangers, my current project (Better pitch and better video) is DOA. The bar has been raised and people are less prone to show interest in projects they have not heard about or seen.
 
Last edited:
jax_rox said:
The issue I have with this crowdfunding campaign is that it's not like investing - Kickstarter backers will get certain 'rewards,' but there are about 10,000 backers so far who will still have to spend money to see the film (even if their donation amount was triple the cost of a movie ticket), still have to spend money to own the film on DVD/Blu Ray/Digital.

And not one of the people who are backing it will see any of their money back. They're not investors. Braff has done this to keep final cut and say over casting. Look at The Canyons. Casting involved what some might regard as poor decisions, and without a studio overhead getting final cut, Schrader was able to edit the film any way he wanted to, even declining the offer from better, more successful Directors to cut it for him so that it actually worked. The result? Nothing. Didn't even get a screening at Sundance.

Similar here, there's no accountability - there's no investors getting reports at the end of each week. There's no studio overseeing to ensure that the movie will in fact do well.

It's entirely possible that people from all over the world could donate 2mil+ to Zach Braff and he could deliver a pile of sh*t for a film that doesn't even get accepted into festivals, let alone a wide release

And there'll be no consequences. It's quite possible that the cut will be awful, or won't work, or there'll be casting decisions made that really shouldn't be. And it will be allowed to happen.
Click to expand...

Well said, Jax_rox - I've been thinking the same thing as well. A better version, if allowed by securities law, is to have a crowdfunding where people can invest in the project.
 
I can't imagine the legal hurdles needed to manage "investors" that
number several thousand with many as low as $5. It would cost $40
to return $12 to every $5 investor.

I think we are seeing the future of crowd funding; big stars, big fan
bases, "exciting" perks and all, essentially, free money. It's not going
to kill the options for filmmakers like us - it's only going to make getting
strangers to donate more difficult. And that's already impossibly difficult.
 
When the novelty wears off, will people continue to give money for nothing in return? Stars may have drawing power, initially, but, in the end, people will put their money where they will see the most benefit.
 
Following up on Zen's post:

"MN: Have any industry types who’d rejected you before come and said, ‘You know, maybe we were too hasty. Can we get back in?'

ZB: Of course. It’s always like that for me. It was like that with 'Garden State. It was like that with the play I did a few years ago (the dialogue-heavy comedy 'All New People,' which played off-Broadway and then on the West End). People who were cold suddenly are hot after it comes out.

MN: Would you take any of their money now?

ZB: I think that would be in bad taste for all the people who are backing this. It wouldn’t be in the spirit of the thing."

- http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...rter-wish-i-was-here-20130503,0,2100578.story



If people feel 'cheated' by this, there are still a few days left to cancel your pledge.

I'd like to hear more details about this before forming an opinion and making a decision.
 
Braff just sent an email to his backers. Apparently the information in the article is wrong. The money is not coming from traditional backers. As said on his kickstarter page, the money will come from kickstarter backers, his own money and money from pre-selling foreign distribution which should all amount to 5-6 million.

Apparently all that happened today was that he took a loan from a financial company to fill the budget now against the money that would come later from the foreign distribution rights.
 
Now THAT is something I can get behind. These filmmakers want to adapt his short story so instead of just giving them the rights, he puts his name out there and actually fundraises for them? Good guy, that James Franco.
 
Fuck all this bullshit!

James Franco, from Palo Alto, CA, wants us to chip in ten bucks to help fund a few films that will likely not make any money, but if they do make money then the proceeds will go to charity. But they're very likely not going to make any money. And the filmmakers are all alums of NYU.

Yeah, forgive me but I ain't got much money to spare for NYU alums and people from Palo Alto, CA!

I went to Palo Alto High School. For those who are unaware, Palo Alto is the Beverly Hills of Northern California. I lived in an RV while going to school there, but the vast majority of my classmates drove fancy cars to school, and ended up attending ridiculously expensive universities. Go fuck yourself in the ass with a fucking indiegogo campaign!!!
 
So, CF, what I'm hearing is you haven't quite committed to supporting Franco's campaign yet...

You did see that he'll send you a narrated piece of video art for the paltry sum of $50, didn't you?

ART! Like, in museums and stuff. For just $50.

You can't buy much in the Louvre for $50.

Probably buys even less in Palo Alto.

Think about the children.

Narrated.

Franco.

Art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top