Jump to content
IGNORED

Wish I was here - Zach Braff kickstarter project


mchugh
 Share

Recommended Posts

I love Garden State, I had the sound track on repeat for ages, hopefully he'll do a good job with the music again. I saw his play the other year which was also pretty decent, I'm kinda surprised it's taken this long before returning to making another movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I start a kickstarter to make a rival to kickstarter?

Personally I really loved Garden State at the time, but looking back on it, it's pretty much indie-flick-by-numbers. And a millionaire asking for something he could fund himself or easily get through producers stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Zach Braff, but I'm not keen on this idea. He needs $2M to make a film, but he had a deal in place to make it, yet chose this path to have more control? My only assumption from that is he was being offered more by the studio, because if the studio were indeed offering the same $2M deal, I can't imagine creative control would be a big issue for them.

Why can't he fund it himself? If he believes in it enough to go to kickstarter, and believes in it enough to not want a studio involved, why not believe in it enough to stump up some money of your own? Disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My twitter feed is completely dominated by this, with a lot of normally placid film critics going apeshit at Braff. It's not hard to see why though. The Veronica Mars kickstarter was predominantly to pay the studio for the IP whereas this appears to be an attempt to fund the film with zero risk to Braff and any other investors involved, there isn't even a promise of a copy of the film for your donation, is there?

He's defended his position already on Buzzfeed this morning, saying that he's put a ton of his money into it but he's really coming off like a gigantic dick over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Zach Braff, but I'm not keen on this idea. He needs $2M to make a film, but he had a deal in place to make it, yet chose this path to have more control? My only assumption from that is he was being offered more by the studio, because if the studio were indeed offering the same $2M deal, I can't imagine creative control would be a big issue for them.

Why can't he fund it himself? If he believes in it enough to go to Kickstarter, and believes in it enough to not want a studio involved, why not believe in it enough to stump up some money of your own? Disappointed.

I'm incredibly torn about this. The Veronica Mars one I kinda got and understood. This was an established property, with a fan base that wanted to see a continuation of the programme in some form. The creator had tried for many years to get something going but just hadn't been able to find the money to support it. Put simply, it didn't look like it would happen if not for Kickstarter. I think it is slightly fairer to ask people for money to support a continuation of a show they obviously enjoyed than to expect people to support a brand new movie, starring a very wealthy and famous star. Call me uncharitable, but Braff probably has 2 million sitting in his bank account which he could use if he really believed in the project. Certainly, I am sure that he would be able to raise the money if he needed to. Now, of course, we don't know how much of his own money he is planning to put into the project himself but that's largely down to the fact he hasn't revealed much about what he envisages as the total budget for the project and if financial backing other than Kickstarter funds is going to be used.

So yeah, I'm not really on board for this particular use of Kickstarter as a way to enable wealthy and well known celebrities to make movies they really want to make. I'm not really sure why I feel more disposed to Veronica Mars doing it than Braff but it feels more like the Veronica Mars project is more of a labour of love to the fans, with the actors not receiving a large pay check for doing it and it is a project with a pre-existing fanbase who are happy to support it. Braff's one just feels a bit like 'I want to make a movie, cough up some money to fund it'.

The final point which is also interesting is that Braff isn't giving backers ownership of a finished cut of the film whereas Veronica Mars is. I think that alone is an important distinction as I think $35 got a digital copy of the Mars film pretty much when the film is released. Considering that two movie tickets will come to a fairly similar amount plus perhaps the eventual cost of purchasing the DVD then actually the $35 fans can spend now is actually a pretty good investment in the grand scheme (in fact, this is what the $35 gets you - 'You will receive a digital version of the movie within a few days of the movie’s theatrical debut, plus the T-shirt, plus the pdf of the shooting script.').

Going forwards, I'd like to see a slightly different approach taken to project's such as Braff's one. If he wants to ask fans for money then fine but I think it should actually get you ownership of the eventually movie. Kinda like owning a share in the film so if the film does well then money goes back into the hands of the people who put the finance in place originally. Let's say that a movie will cost $10m in total (including every cost incurred) and $2M of this is raised through a kickstarter like endeavour. Assuming that when all said and done the movie has made a profit of $20m (so $30m in total including costs) then I'd like to see a mechanism whereby the people who contributed the $2M get back double what they put it ($4m of the $20m profit). If the movie completely fails then all the backers simply lose their investments (including the kickstarter type investors). Basically like how people can buy shares of companies on the stock market but without the whole buying and trading aspect. You simply buy a share and then when all is said and done if there is a profit it is given equally to the various stakeholders in equal proportions to what they originally put it. Of course, there would have to be a way to avoid Hollywood's rather interesting accounting practices but I don't see why this type of approach couldn't be attempted. It would certainly sit a lot better with me than asking fans to cough up money for a film's production and then a wealthy star or movie studio keeps all the profit. That seems a very unfair way of avoiding taking any risk with a project but still potentially making lots of profit at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Braff interview on Buzzfeed answers some of my questions above. This being an interesting section:

Part of the reaction today to this campaign has been to bring up some of the same concerns raised during the Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign, namely that your fans are giving you money for a project they will also spend money to see, with no return on that investment.

ZB: I totally understand that. Listen, I would love, more than anything, to have it be you get an equity stake. You have 10 bucks, you make your 10 bucks back with the percentage of profit, like a stock. But that's not legal yet.

I think it's an exciting idea, that you can go, "Oh, I like x, y, and z, I want to buy a piece of that potential film project." I think that that's coming. But we're not there yet legally.

So what do you do in the meantime? You offer them any and every incentive you can think of. But at the very least, if you pay 10 bucks, you're joining what I like to think of as this club. You see how active I am on social media. I drive my family, friends, and girlfriend crazy. I get a lot of joy out of it. So turning that into an online behind-the-scenes filmmaking magazine, where there will be videos and content and people who are interested in the behind-the-scenes of the making of a movie will go on this ride alongside me — I think that's cool for 10 bucks.

You're right — last year Congress passed the JOBS Act, which does allow for equity-based crowdfunding, but it can't happen until the SEC issues rules on how to do it. Which they haven't done yet.

ZB: When people way smarter than I figure that out, I think that will be amazing, and a better scenario for everyone. I would love to do that today. But I can't do that today. So I'm standing on the shoulders of people who came up with the next best thing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/zach-braff-on-why-kickstarter-is-the-next-best-thing-to-actu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hey guys, you can watch a behind the scenes video of me making the film you funded! Have fun with that while I drive off in this porsche made of pure cocaine that I bought with the $4million dollars I sold the film for at Sundance!"

*drives off in cocaine car, snorting the rearview mirror and doing the Scrubs face*

Fuck you, Zach with your surname that sounds like someone stifling a burp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I hate Garden State and by extension Zach Braff and all his fans and their relatives and anyone who has ever seen one of his TV shows or heard of him, I don’t really have much of a problem with this. The funds are being put up by people who want to see the film he’s going to make – why shouldn’t they put their money into that? Provided they’re made aware of the risks of what they’re doing – i.e. that the film might not get made, and they might lose their investment – then I don’t see the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me like this is simply the most profitable way for him to make it; funded in any traditional way (whether through a studio, investors or from his own pocket) then presumably all/most of that $2mil is going to others (or refilling the hole in his bank accout) when the box office takings start comig in, this way it's extra profit for him. Why not do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so many films are like this. we're so romantic and forgiving in adolescence. other movies i can't watch any more: Eternal Sunshine (Jim Carrey is a loser and a pussy), Before Sunrise/Sunset (moneyed intellectual dickheads talking shit nonstop), Lost in Translation (smug old creep and stuck up Ivy League princess don't run away together or do anything)

Awesome - more like this plz!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so many films are like this. we're so romantic and forgiving in adolescence. other movies i can't watch any more: Eternal Sunshine (Jim Carrey is a loser and a pussy), Before Sunrise/Sunset (moneyed intellectual dickheads talking shit nonstop), Lost in Translation (smug old creep and stuck up Ivy League princess don't run away together or do anything)

Absolutely spot on. Still love ES tho, but not seen it in a good few years now, was blown away by it on first viewing. Probably doesn't hold up like you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume, based on very little I guess, that he hasn't put more into the project than he is asking others to provide. I say this because if he had put more in, he would have surely mentioned it in his pitch 'i've put $4M into the project, I can't put anymore in guys, can you provide me with the final $2M please?'

I also don't see what control the studio would want, that put him off enough to go this route. It's a comedy drama about a father and his family. Their struggles and the man discovering just who he is. It isn't edgy or controversial, so unless the casting, soundtrack or location is truely bizarre, I can't really see what the studio could do that would make him opt against their fairly safe non-backlash cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might have answered all of these questions in that buzzfeed thing. But he has even directed, at least one profitable feature and some Scrubs eps, so there's little reason from a studio view either, to say 'hmm, Zach, we'll fund it, but you can't direct it'.

I should probably go back and read it all. Maybe the studio hated the script and demanded changes? Rather than change it, he took it back. I don't know, I just can't see a 'fair' reason for going this route. Plus, the studios will need to step in at some point to distribute the flick, unless he goes down the Kevin Smith/Red State route.

He'll get funding, and WB will probably buy the finished picture off him for twice as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, he isn't forcing anyone to back it. He isn't breaking the law or the rules of KS, but it just leaves a bad taste. Like some of the game kickstarters. Millionaire programmer goes to the public to fund idea he really really really believed in, but just not quite enough to fund himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.