Zach Braff's new film on Kickstarter

I don't know. I've got really mixed feelings about this sort of thing (famous people cashing in on crowdfunding.)

On the one hand, it doesn't matter how famous you are, you're still an artist with a story to tell so I say, 'Good for him!'

On the other, much larger, hand, there are several things that really bother me about this, some in the general sense and some about this specific campaign. For one, he states right there in the beginning of the text and video pitch that he HAS GOTTEN A GREEN LIGHT WITH TRADITIONAL FINANCING. So he doesn't need Kickstarter. This is even the big difference of why I didn't have this knee-jerk reaction to the Veronica Mars project. That was a film that was simply never going to get made and the fans wanted it and made it happen. With the Braff campaign, it's a vanity project. And one he could have made without crowdfunding.

Another thing is the profit aspect. This movie will turn a profit. It's got names and it'll be paid in full without having to even recoup expenses. So 99% of the money made is net profit. And who gets that? Braff. If he wanted to win me over perhaps he should consider donating all profits to charity.

The cynical side of me is also very skeptical of if Braff is really the only one behind this. Studios and producers, big and small, are not idiots. They saw the potential of crowdfunding to get a real budget for a film and corporate entities are not above faking and lying on the internet. Just look at all these attempts at viral marketing where a restaurant/franchise will post some 'awesome' receipt that makes them look good to a site like reddit to get everyone talking about them. And I wouldn't put it past these folks who supposedly were going to give Braff money anyways to have said to him, "Look, we're going to do this but you have to crowdfund for the money and then we'll keep all the profits mwahahahaha." I've got a couple reasons for thinking this which I'll get to next. But long story short if I see anyone's name besides Braff on any of the 'money' producer credits, I won't be happy.

So that brings me to the video. Which everyone seems to be loving. Well, even if there wasn't a studio or producer pulling the strings on this campaign, you can bet your ass that thousands of dollars were spent crafting it. The language is designed to press all the right buttons in his geeky fan base (and I say geeky in a loving way.) "Oh, look guys! Here's your favorite Jim Parsons! I want him in my movie but the big bad guys maybe wouldn't let me cast him! A vote for Big Bang Theory is a vote for my movie, give me money!" Not only do I think that's some BS and why wouldn't they cast Jim Parsons in a small indie film who's demographic is overlapped with BBT fans? He's super popular and has won a ton of Emmys. It's not exactly a risky casting choice. So it's only serving the purpose of essentially extorting and exploiting fans.

Damn, I have to leave for work but I've still got more to say about this concept in general. *Ahnold Voice* Ahl Be Bahk.
 
I don't think the 2 millions are supposed to finance the whole movie. He will have other financing. The idea behind this is that he will have full creative control instead of the producers telling him what to do.

You make some good points though. I don't really think there are people behind and strings being pulled but anyway I like public financing instead of producer financing much more, it feels like Patronage and that's how artists are supposed to live.

The next step is making all movies free or very cheap for anyone.
 
[rant continues]

Ok, two more things.

Number one, this $2 million budget. It's a nice round number that is about the hollywood minimum that a small movie should cost to make. But has he really done a full line-item budget? If so, is $2 million really the number he got? When I look at crodfunding campaigns I expect to know where the money is going, should we not hold Mr. Braff to the same standards, just because he's famous? This is an exact quote, from the FAQ
Where does my money go?

Should we achieve our goal, all of your pledges will be collected and deposited into a bank account that my producers and I have set up for the sole purpose of funding the film.
Click to expand...
In anyone else's campaign this would raise a serious red flag for me.

Not only that, I would bet, given how ambitious the project is, that his line-item budget (assuming he has done his due diligence) came up significantly higher than $2 million, but $2 million sounds about right to the average person and has been chosen, marketing wise, as a smart number to get people to donate in the first place. Given the success of Veronica Mars and given how fast he's raising money, he'll surely surpass that. Again, bully for him. But we deserve to know what that money actually is going to go for (not just "Hey guys, more money means a cooler movie!" I don't put up with that from indie filmmakers, so why should he be any different.)

Lastly, and most importantly IMHO, is a general gripe about this new trend in general. Kevin Smith did an AMA recently and he mentioned that he briefly consided crowdfunding Clerks III, and why he chose not to:
As for funding the flick - we nearly Kickstarted the budget back in November (talked about at great length here: http://smodcast.com/episodes/giant-sized-annual-1-clerks-iii-audience-0/ ). But now I'm feeling like that's not fair to real indie filmmakers who need the help. Unlike back when I made CLERKS in '91, I've GOT access to money now - so I should use that money and not suck any loot out of the crowd-funding marketplace that might otherwise go to some first-timer who can really use it. So if I can get away with it, I'm gonna try to pay for CLERKS III myself. As much as I love the crowd-funding model (and almost did it myself in early 2009 with RedStateGreen.com), that's an advancement in indie film that belongs to the next generation of artists. I started on my own dime, and if I'm allowed, I should finish on my own dime.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree with this. It's not so much that these folks shouldn't be allowed to do it. But what I foresee happening is too many people with resources (and this includes the big studios,) see this platform as a cash cow. A way to get the fans to pay for the product twice (to fund and to buy tickets/dvds, etc) at little to no risk for the producers. What happens when someone or some company can afford to put thousands of dollars and dozens of staffers into creating and promoting a campaign is that it drowns out the voices of those for whom this platform was created, aka the people who really need it. If you don't think that Harvey Weinstein has his best minds working on how to tap into crowdfunding then you're fooling yourself.

Remember when Sundance used to actually be for indie films? Now it's for indie films with multi-million-dollar budgets, huge names and with 'indie' studios behind them that are little more than thinly veiled fronts for WB, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, etc. So then folks created other fests for real low-budget indies (SXSW, Slamdance, the various big-city 'X International Film Festival'). And those got to usurped by the studios' pictures again. This is what I'm afraid is going to happen with crowdfunding. Unfortunately, though, I think we're all powerless to stop it.
 
I still agree with ou about the big studios taking advantage of it.

But I disagree when you say we're powerless. We are powerful because there are no middlemen. I believe people will learn with time to recognize the true indie stuff and the sharks after their wallet. I think the whole Kickstarter community would benefit from some kind of organization that talks about whether a project is worth their money. It would serve as a guide for people willing to give money but clueless as to whether the project is not just a "studio scam". And still at the end of the day, these people can do whatever they want. Democracy at its finest.
 
Dreadylocks said:
Number one, this $2 million budget. It's a nice round number that is about the hollywood minimum that a small movie should cost to make. But has he really done a full line-item budget? If so, is $2 million really the number he got? [....] Not only that, I would bet, given how ambitious the project is, that his line-item budget (assuming he has done his due diligence) came up significantly higher than $2 million, but $2 million sounds about right to the average person and has been chosen, marketing wise, as a smart number to get people to donate in the first place.
Click to expand...

The thing is I would bet he's got half a dozen different variations of a line-item budget, each of which addresses a particular level of funding, and I would guess that the $2 million target is the point somewhere in the middle of those budgets at which he felt the likelihood of getting the money balanced with the risk of asking for too much. And I'm sure the final line-item budget will change quite a bit by the time the film goes into production. I can't see how anything he'd make available would necessarily represent the final expenditures other than in the vaguest terms, and I can't see most of it meaning anything to anyone beyond members of this forum or industry pros.

But we deserve to know what that money actually is going to go for (not just "Hey guys, more money means a cooler movie!" I don't put up with that from indie filmmakers, so why should he be any different.)
Click to expand...

Because he's already made a movie on the same scale (wikipedia lists Garden State's budget at $2.5 million), he has years of experience in the film and television industry, and is likely to be working primarily with skilled, experienced professionals to make this film. That, to me, is quite a bit different than the average no-budget indie film where someone with little or no real production experience is just pulling a nice round number out of their ass based on reasoning like "if we can raise $50,000 we'll buy ourselves a RED and this movie will be really awesome!!!!!".

(Kevin Smith said) What happens when someone or some company can afford to put thousands of dollars and dozens of staffers into creating and promoting a campaign is that it drowns out the voices of those for whom this platform was created, aka the people who really need it.
Click to expand...

I actually disagree with this completely. Here's the thing - if you're worried about Hollywood drowning out the voices of real indies in crowdfunding you probably don't have a very realistic expectation of how crowdfunding works. It is not an "if you build it, they will come" situation - and your competition isn't, and never has been, other crowdfunding campaigns, no matter how big or well-funded they are.

Your voice has already been drowned out - by everything else that can draw the attention of your potential audience. Television shows, movies, video games, cute cat videos, discussion forums, facebook, twitter, on and on and on. There are already many, many people and companies out there who are spending hundreds of millions of dollars with thousands of staff creating and promoting things that are sucking the attention and dollars of your potential audience away. It doesn't matter if they do it with a kickstarter or anything else - it's all about the finite supply of attention and doing whatever is possible and necessary to get a slice of it. It's easier to do when you have money, but even then it's not guaranteed.

If anything, having companies with money promoting crowdfunding makes things easier for indies - by raising the visibility of the crowdfunding concept among the general public. It's already hard enough to get your campaign out to an audience without also having to explain the concept of crowdfunding to them first. The more people that are already familiar with the concept the greater the size of the potential audience that is receptive to what you are trying to do.
 
Last edited:
TheArtist said:
Famous is not the problem.

"Rich" is the problem.
Click to expand...

You may have a point.

But the real question is, is Zack Braff actually "rich"? He may have some money, but assuming he has enough money to put $2 million of it into a movie (or that he even has $2 million in the first place) is whole other thing.

Just because some actors have aquired a level of celebrity doesn't mean that they're automatically rolling in dough. According to celebrityworth.com, Braff is "worth" around $22 million. But "worth" doesn't equate to liquid capital.

Right now, with my house, my car, and my "other" assets, I'd estimate that I'm "worth" around $250k. But I don't have $25K to put into a movie (10% of my "worth" since $2 million is around 10% of Braff's...)

Not to mention the first rule of Hollywood being: "Never invest your own money..."

I personally see no real problem with Braff going on Kickstarter to fund his project. The idea that the people investing in Braff's movie would invest in mine if only Braff wasn't on there is a false notion. Those people aren't investing because of their love of independent filmmaking, their investing because of his celebrity. They probably wouldn't even be on the site if they hadn't read about it on Yahoo.
 
Last edited:
That exactly why I put rich between quotes. It's very unlikely he has 2kk+ to throw at a movie. What i meant by rich is "having easy access to money", like Kevin Smith said.

But then again, Zach is not really the problem. The problem would be the studios taking advantage of this. And they are actually rich and don't need it. But it does makes the investment less risky.

Anyway, I just came across this post by freddiew who raised a Kickstarter campaign to fund his YouTube series. I like his approach and I think everyone should do the same.
http://www.rocketjump.com/blog/how-much-webseries-cost
 
I see Dready's point and it is a bit of concern to me. Where does this crowdfunding platform go when established name's get into it. What if studio's follow as TheArtist mentioned?

I'm not hearing a lot about the positive side, though. Someone mentioned that this is a way for a lot of people to be a small part of a recognized production. Depending on the rewards offered, it could also bring opportunities for indie film makers as well.

Right now, we've only seen a handful of these including Veronica Mars and Wish I was Here. And based on these, I think indie artists are freaking out a little bit that popular names will drive the money to 'them' and not to the 'common artist' as crowdfunding was meant to do.

However, this is only the beginning. The more popular names actually start crowdfunding, the more discerning the public will become about which project to fund or not insted of grabbing a chance to be part of one just because a recognized name is pat of it. In the end, the market will settle and people will decide among popular name projects and truly indie projects.

Imho, popular names entering crowdfunding is not something to be afraid of. It was going to happen sooner or later. Just have to wait for the surge and then let it settle.
 
I see no wrong with Zach Braff or anyone else who is rich/famous/has a large following going on Kickstarter or Indiegogo to raise funds.

They have every right to do that, and the fans seem to be happy to donate to their campaigns.

I only see this as a good thing for crowdfunding, the Veronica Mars campaign made worldwide headlines, many people who didn't even know about Kickstarter before reading about it in the news, maybe some of them will seek some other campaigns and they might even donate some money.

But in most cases like many of you have said, whether it be Kickstarter or IGG, you have to have a fanbase and a following to run a succesfull campaign.
The fact that the Veronica Mars movie got over $5 mil doesn't mean that there are suddenly $5M less for all the other campaigns.

The majority of the Veronica Mars donators have probably never donated before to a crowdfunding campaign, and most likely will not afterwards either.

They just announced that Futurama is cancelled again, I as a fan certainly hope that if they aren't able to get another network to pick them up, they would go to Kickstarter and fund a movie or another short season.
I would gladly donate even though the producers might be millionaires.
 
EuropeanDistributor said:
I see no wrong with Zach Braff or anyone else who is rich/famous/has a large following going on Kickstarter or Indiegogo to raise funds.

They have every right to do that, and the fans seem to be happy to donate to their campaigns.

I only see this as a good thing for crowdfunding, the Veronica Mars campaign made worldwide headlines, many people who didn't even know about Kickstarter before reading about it in the news, maybe some of them will seek some other campaigns and they might even donate some money.

But in most cases like many of you have said, whether it be Kickstarter or IGG, you have to have a fanbase and a following to run a succesfull campaign.
The fact that the Veronica Mars movie got over $5 mil doesn't mean that there are suddenly $5M less for all the other campaigns.

The majority of the Veronica Mars donators have probably never donated before to a crowdfunding campaign, and most likely will not afterwards either.

They just announced that Futurama is cancelled again, I as a fan certainly hope that if they aren't able to get another network to pick them up, they would go to Kickstarter and fund a movie or another short season.
I would gladly donate even though the producers might be millionaires.
Click to expand...

Imagine a future where crowdfunding becomes a less obscure, nerdy, geeky thing and much more popular and wide spread.

Now imagine the lambda guy who's visiting the website and is willing to donate. He sees your movie, someone he's never heard of. And next to it, he sees Batman Reborn by Christopher Nolan.

I do feel that if 5 millions go somewhere, that's 5 millions that aren't going somewhere else (not necessarily your indie movie but...).
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top