3RD UPDATE, SATURDAY: Reaching $2M today Zach Braff just scored the second major Kickstarter success in recent months, with 26 days to go.
2ND UPDATE, FRIDAY AM: The prognosticators who’ve been telling me that Kickstarter is a game-changing enterprise for movies, are proving to be so Kreskin-like, I will next challenge them to bend spoons with their brains (dated reference). Just a couple days into his attempt to raise $2 million to finance his film Wish I Was Here, Braff is already up to $1,766,130 and counting, from 25,245 people who’ve committed cash for a variety of tchotchkes. The game plan was to use Kickstarter funding, and foreign sales, to raise the $5 million needed to make the movie. Braff, producers Stacey Sher and Michael Shamberg planned to work practically free, upfront. At this rate, Braff will reach his funding goal by the weekend. And with 28 days to go, they’ll likely wind up with enough dough to fund the whole movie without making pre-sales, and maybe enough to pay participants a little bit. This is startling, that so many people are betting on a filmmaker, and not donating because they just want to see a movie version of a favorite TV show like Veronica Mars.
I am intrigued enough by this that I am going to figure out a bigger movie that fans certainly want to see, that isn’t getting enough love from the studio that made the TV series. I will come back with that discussion later today. I still wonder how these donors will feel if this movie turns out to be a big hit that pours off profit, because investors who put up almost half the budget of this film will be on the outside looking in when the profits are carved up. They won’t have points, or any ownership in the negative, which is the way industry insiders make their fortunes. Maybe the next step in this movement will be to protect donors on the back end in case of success. I wish I could fall in line and laud the artistic empowerment part of this. But if you look at this the way Deadline does, as a business, to me this still comes down to money that filmmakers don’t have to pay back, for a movie they will own free and clear, forever.
1ST UPDATE, THURSDAY 3:48 PM: Zach Braff is crushing it with his Kickstarter campaign to raise $2 million for Wish I Was Here, the film he co-wrote and wants to direct. According to his Kickstarter page, Braff has raised $1,045,785 in about half a day. He has 29 days to go to reach his $2 million goal, and at this rate, he might have enough to turn it into a studio-sized tent pole film. The inevitable next question will be whether a branded big-ticket film like that will take the Kickstarter plunge. For today, at least, Kickstarter is proving naysayers like myself to be cynical grouches.
EARLIER, BREAKING, 6:15 AM: After getting a rousing reaction from critics and audiences on his 2004 feature directing debut Garden State (it grossed $27 million domestic on a $2.5 million budget), Zach Braff is ready for a follow-up. He wants to direct Wish I Was Here, a film he wants to star in, and which he wrote with his brother Adam. He’s got top-tier indie producers Stacey Sher and Michael Shamberg, the Double Feature Films duo that exec produced Garden State and such films as Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, Get Shorty and Out Of Sight. Despite this, Braff couldn’t get the money he needed for a $5 million film that is personal and doesn’t fit a commercial model. So Braff has launched a Kickstarter campaign he hopes will provide a $2 million budget base that can be bolstered by some foreign pre-sales that will make possible a film they hope to shoot in Los Angeles.
Now, I recently watched Veronica Mars fans not only rise to the $2 million level sought to finance a movie transfer of that popular series, but actually exceed it to provide $5 million-plus in filmmaking resources. I have to be honest, I lamented this growing trend: After years of covering this incredibly fun, decadent business where makers of small-budget movies are left lighting cigars with $50 bills when they make fortunes from audiences who only have to buy tickets, that this game had been reduced to a form of pan-handling. Where donors are promised tchotchkes, but none of the upside in success. Hell, I reached for my wallet when my childhood crush Karen Black and her husband sought funds for a last-chance cancer treatment in France, but for feature film budgets? Really?
Who better to turn my sorry, cynical ass around than Sher? An elegant and respected producer of some of my favorite films, Sher tells me she has donated to Kickstarter campaigns and sees this as a potentially game-changing way to empower artists with followings to realize their creative visions by relying directly on the audiences who respond to their work. “I first saw the potential in this about a year ago with the incredible reaction to Veronica Mars, but also how Amanda Palmer tried to raise $100,000 to support a tour, and ended up raising over $1.1 million,” Sher told me. “Even when you make a movie as popular as Garden State, in this market that doesn’t make it easier the next time out and this is a new way to make a movie, involving directly those fans of Zach who want to see his voice realized in another film.” Sher said they tried to raise money the traditional way, but it just wasn’t going to work unless they made a lot of compromises. The way this works is, if Braff realizes his $2 million funding goal in 30 days, he gets the money. If it overachieves, he has even more money to put on the screen. If he doesn’t reach his goal, he gets zero. From that standpoint, the star of Scrubs and more recently Oz The Great And Powerful risks taking a walk of shame that comes when you reach out to your fans and find they don’t exist, or that they rejected you.
“To me, what Zach is doing is courageous, but who he is at heart is a humble guy who makes small personal independent films,” Sher said. “Nobody has ever taken out this high-profile a film that wasn’t a sequel, so there is a risk here. It’s not my face on that Kickstarter page. You might be cynical, and people might make fun of it, but it celebrates a new way to get a film made, and that what our business has always been about.”
While I still wonder what will happen when one of these Kickstarter films becomes The Blair Witch Project, a $60,000 budget film that grossed nearly $250 million worldwide. I recall a bond trader brother in law of one of the film’s writers who was cajoled into putting up $90,000 in finishing funds, and who walked away with $25 million when that film scared up ridiculous money. That rarely happens, but if it does, will the donors who made it possible be happy with a signed copy of the shooting script? But until that happens, I say godspeed, Zach Braff, and if I can get him to record my voicemail greeting (he can have complete creative freedom and insult me all he likes), I’m in for $100. Here’s his Kickstarter link, and the release with specific information on Braff’s film and his campaign, which just launched this morning:
Actor/writer/director Zach Braff today launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund the production of the feature film “Wish I Was Here”. Braff will direct and star in the film which is based on an original screenplay he wrote with his brother, Adam Braff. Oscar®-nominated producers Stacey Sher and Michael Shamberg (“Django Unchained,” “Contagion,” “Garden State,” “Erin Brockovich,” “Pulp Fiction”) will produce the film through their company Double Feature Films.
Best known for his role on the long-running sitcom “Scrubs,” Braff also wrote, directed and starred in the 2004 instant classic, “Garden State.” Most recently he appeared in director Sam Raimi’s enormously successful “Oz The Great And Powerful.”
“Wish I Was Here” is the story of Aidan Bloom (to be played by Braff), a struggling actor, father and husband who at 35, is still trying to find his identity; a purpose for his life. He and his wife are barely getting by financially and Aidan passes his time by fantasizing about being the great futuristic Space-Knight he’d always dreamed he’d be as a little kid.
When his ailing father can no longer afford to pay for private school for his two kids (5 and 12) and the only available public school is on its last legs, Aidan reluctantly agrees to attempt to home-school them. The result is some funny chaos, until Aidan decides to scrap the traditional academic curriculum and come up with his own. Through teaching them about life his way, Aidan gradually discovers some of the parts of himself he couldn’t find.
With a goal of raising $2 million on Kickstarter in 30 days, the producers hope to shoot the film in Los Angeles beginning this summer. Donor incentives range from personal copies of the script to access to weekly behind-the-scenes video to invitations to the premiere and even a speaking role in the film.
Said Braff: “I am often asked by my fans or by the press when I am promoting films in which I’ve acted, ‘Why haven’t you directed another film since Garden State?’ The truth is, it’s very hard to get small, personal films made without sacrificing some aspect of your artistic integrity (final-cut, casting, minuscule budgets). Crowd-funding sites like Kickstarter could be a game-changer for independent films. Already 10% of the films at the most recent Sundance Film Festival had some Kickstarter money and that’s growing exponentially. Social media has begun to give content creators a chance to appeal directly to their fan base and say, ‘I wanna make something for you, but I’m gonna need your help.’ The supporters of mine across the globe who back this film project will not only get to see something that wouldn’t have been made otherwise, but they’ll get to do so knowing they made it happen.”
“Following the amazing experience we had working with Zach on ‘Garden State,’ we’ve always known we wanted to work with him again and couldn’t wait for the stars to realign,” said Sher. “I first became aware of Kickstarter about a year ago as musician Amanda Palmer’s campaign took off. Then, as we watched as the Veronica Mars campaign explode, it became impossible to deny the fact that crowd-funding is an exceptionally strong force in the future of independent filmmaking.”
Let’s see what the regression analysis says….
Isn’t zach one of the highest paid actors? He should donate any new money!
I know why unknown filmmakers with no connections or ties, or can’t find anyone to take a chance on them would go to kickstarted. But now actors who could dip into their own bag of cash or call his Producer “Friends” wants free money. Kickstarter was not intended for you Mr. Zach.
on one side, anyone should be able to go on kickstarter, but on the other, this really makes him seem like a stingy bastard.
Rich actors panhandling on kickstarter is like millionaires signing up for welfare. FOR SHAME, ZACH BRAFF. Where are all the angry liberals speaking out against this injustice?
This is America. If Multi-Millionaire Braff can convince tens-of-thousands of average Americans to DONATE money to him…well hell, why not? An idiot absolutely SHOULD be parted from his money…survival of the fittest, baby!
P.T. Barnum was a visionary…
Now that Zach has raised his 2 mil in just a few days.
How long before the Studies attempt a Blockbuster?
Iron Man 4, Batman, Sherlock Holmes…
Seriously
Not the same dynamic. At all.
At least, not to the people donating (like me). If a studio tried it, I predict they wouldn’t get very far.
The thing that makes Zach’s project appealing is that, in the jai-normous pond that is Hollywood, he’s a relatively small fish pursuing a passion project. That resonates with people.
I’m sorry but Zach is a hack and you’re an idiot for donating to his “passion” project. It may as well be a studio movie. He’s repped by one of the biggest agencies in the world, he could find funding elsewhere. Instead, he wanted to show the world how fast he could raise 2 mill by reaching out to his pathetic fan base. Ego stroke much, Zach?
You do realize that the Veronica Mars kickstarter was all for a Warner Bros. movie?
That was a STUDIO movie!
It can never happen with a franchise tentpole property. The professional film financiers would rightly complain if a studio cut them out of a hot superhero property.
But how about a deature film of “The Shield,” one of the finest TV shows of the past 14 years. The fans have demanded a sequel since the series ended. Michael Chiklis, please call Kickstarter!
Even less incentive for studios to invest in development. How many pitch meetings are going to end with the words, “Why don’t you run something on Kickstarter and see if you can create a market for this?”
Remember the days when artists had to rely on patronage? The times of yore when storytellers and actors would perform for their supper? Welcome back.
How many pitch meetings are going to end with the words, “Why don’t you run something on Kickstarter and see if you can create a market for this?”
That’s one of the most insightful comments I’ve seen on this thread.
Yes, I think contrary to what many people here are saying, if anyone gets screwed behind this, it won’t be the “little guy” on Kickstarter (they will benefit from the increased traffic), it will be the “little guy” (or gal) in Hollywood. I can definitely see execs making the Kickstarter suggestion, mostly as a way to get writers out of their office without giving them a hard “no.”
No link? Throw them some love…
For those of you keeping score at home, the project just passed the million dollar mark… ON THE FIRST DAY.
Naysayers, ’nuff said.
Also, for all the people asking, “why doesn’t Zach put his own money into the project?” here’s a snippet that he just posted on Kickstarter, in response to that same question:
“I am absolutely contributing my own money to the funding of the film, but I actually can’t afford to cover the entire cost of production. With a combination of my own personal funds, backing from my fans and the sale of some of the film’s foreign rights, I will be able to make the film I intended to make which I am hoping is a film you want to see.”
Well, he should at least TELL his so-called “investors” how much dough of his own he’s contributing. That’s what I want to know. And in the REAL world of movie making that’s what other investors would want to know too.
Sneeze, bullsh!t. Exqueeze me.
Reports say he is worth $22 million from SCRUBS. You can’t fund a $2 million film. Yeah right.
You gotta take free money from the little people.
Apparently 3 million wasn’t enough to make a little personal film about himself. Or use you own money to make.
Admittedly, I don’t know a ton about film funding – but I assume that Braff has a good bit of dough from the very successful run of “Scrubs” and “Garden State”, among other projects. ‘
Instead of asking everybody else to put up the money, if he believes in this film so much, why doesn’t he put up his OWN money or take out a loan or mortgage his house as collateral for it?
It seems to me that there’s a difference between truly independent, poor, unknown struggling filmmakers to ask for help to get a project made and a rich guy (seemingly) not willing to dip into his own pockets for the money.
But, hey, if he can get it funded via Kickstarter, more power to him. The public legitimately wanted to see a new ‘Veronica Mars’ and was willing to pay for it. Maybe they’re clamoring for a new Braff flick and are happy to dole out the dough for it. If so, more power to him.
Agreed. After years of not being able to get funding for The Apostle, Robert Duvall ended up funding the movie himself. Of course then he owned the movie outright and received all the profits. That’s how someone shows that they actually give a damn about their movie. Not tossing out a Kickstarter campaign to get the little people to fund it (while shifting the attention away from struggling filmmakers who actually need the money) then thanking them by not sharing the spoils. Slave labor really. I knew this Veronica Mars bullshit was going to cause every D list actor to take advantage of mass stupidity.
In fairness, Braff’s offering real value for the $ for the lower level pledges. As for some of the higher-level pledges, putting a name on a graffiti wall in the movie is pretty smart thinking.
The first three levels of rewards are the same old stuff that every movie gives away for free to the fans as part of their marketing campaign. Where is the added value in ‘production diaries’, a ‘streaming soundtrack sample’, or ‘advance screenings’?
jcvd
spend your own money braff
I’m actually of two minds about this. I hear what you’re saying, but crowdfunding does kind of tell you if you’re heading in the right direction for your audience.
Mike Fleming said if Braff doesn’t make the $2m he faces the Internet equivalent of a walk of shame. I wouldn’t see it as personal rejection so much as the rejection of the idea.
In Braff’s case, the idea is clearly in the wheelhouse his Garden State audience expects. Also, watching the ticker right now ($250k and counting as I type this, and it’s opening day for this project on Kickstarter) must be encouraging for the Braff brothers.
Zach Braff’s reported net worth is $22M. Not sure how acurate that is but if it’s even half that he has a ton more money than the majority of his fans put together. So yeah, I can’t support this. It just seems completely wrong to make fans pay to get a movie made, get next to nothing in return if it’s successful, and then pay again to see it. Just wrong.
Agreed. He can’t believe in his project that much, not if he’s not willing to shell out his own cash. That’s the message he is delivering, anyways.
jcvd
100% agree. Hey Braff, put up or shut up — your own money. For someone with millions in the bank this is distasteful. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Veronica Mars issue was that they didn’t own the rights because it was a series prior to trying to turn it into a movie and I think they were told if they raised $2 million then the studio would finish funding the film and allow the title to be used.
Zach’s situation is entirely different. There are no rights holders to satisfy, so there is nothing stopping him from putting his own money up to make the movie.
But that is how the rich get richer, they never play with their own money.
I think that is correct about Veronica Mars. They asked for the money and were turned down. It had nothing to do with creative freedom or whatever else Zach is complaining about. I just have a problem with it ethically. I wouldn’t feel comfortable asking someone making less than 1/100 of my salary for even a dollar to pay for a pet project of mine, especially if I have alternatives, and I like Zach Braff. I just think this is kind of sleezy.
My disclaimer: I’m a fan of Mr. Braff and follow his tweets.
We really don’t know the structure of the budget. Are he and his brother taking deferred payment for scripting and directing and the upfront money is being used to pay for above the line talent and production? I’m guessing so. If that’s the case, then his belief in the project is counted in both his time and whatever jobs/offers he has declined and will decline to write and produce the movie. Even if the money goes to defray development costs and pay retainers for directing and starring, well, it’s show business: one does one’s thing and get paid.
Besides, entertainment is extremely risky, and nearly everyone is looking to spread the risk by making deals for future rights. For every filmmaker who made their passion project on credit cards and hit it big there must be at least a dozen who ended up working for their next two decades paying off their debts. Everyone understands the equation, give up some of the risk, give up some of the control and give up some of the gain.
The only wrinkle with Kickstarter is that instead of Braff and his agent(s) making pitches supported with metrics suggesting the depth of his fan base and a projection of their willingness to spend money, only to be told that after Looper, there has to be time travel, he goes to the world and makes a straight-ahead proposition, if you liked my last movie and would like to see my next, send some money.
Let’s set aside Zach Braff and talk about Veronica Mars. It was an okay tv show, but I don’t care if there’s a movie or not. Enough people care positively and it appears that VM’s creators and principal will be making a movie that someone anticipates seeing. Given how much craziness in Hollywood is centered on the bluff that the money folks know what the public wants, why sneer at those who bypass that? Maybe crowdfunding improves entertainment, maybe it doesn’t. But if one is one of those who constantly bemoans the awfulness of movies, the question begged is that doing things the same way will result in a different outcome. If one isn’t, there will still be big studio big boom movies.
How is it just “plain wrong”? What moral world do you live in? I’m happy to give me money to support him. How can you tell me that is wrong? Get real ffs.
I gotta agree. I recall a few months ago that David Fincher (the director of “The Game,” “Fight Club,” etc) was involved with a Kickstarter to finance a demo of a movie version of the comic character called “The Goon.”
The Goon is awesome, though I suspect that Fincher could have financed it himself if he was really interested in shepherding it to the screen.
For him to seek money from people who not only – generally speaking – have to work harder than he does to make significantly less seems wrong.
And very, very lame.
It amazing how many people still equate “crowdfunding” as investors or something new. It’s neither. It’s nothing but PBS pledges and a parody of DPO’s or Direct Public Offerings which have existed for decades.
The desperate nature of film producers using this approach to fund their films explains why 85% of indie-films don’t even break even much less make a profit. And if it ain’t making a profit it’s just a hobby.
Here, here. Agreed. That’s all I could think when reading it. Some of us make money so that we can do what we want to do and live a life that we wanted to live. You’ve made the money. Put it where your mouth is. Stop pan-handling. Let kickstarter be used for REAL struggling artists that can barely mash two coins together
Well, do you want to spend five million dollars on a project that has no guarantee of return? Didin’t thinks so. And it’s no panhandling if there are people who actually want to contribute. If you don’t want to you can always go donate to some kid’s short film, which will inevitably not raise it’s money, and will probably never get shot. It seems as if you think Zach making his move is somehow akin to you taking your family on a vacation to Disneyland. It’s not, I assure you.
I agree with you but the answer is investing 101, always use someone elses money. I think he would have more freedom and be more caustious if he used his own money.
here’s a thought.
Donate 20 bucks, get a free pass
Donate 50 bucks, get a copy of the DVD when released.
Have to give your “investors” something in return!
AND according to “celebrity net worth” if you believe that stuff…Mr. Braff has enough money to produce it himself…he just doesn’t want to take the risk with his OWN cash.
I’m sure he’s making a good deal of money from not working due to Scrub re-runs, which air EVERYWHERE.
He can’t give away the film too early because unlike the VM project he has no distribution deal in place yet. That’s why he can’t send out digital copies too soon.
So, like, if I front Mr Braff a big “donation”, do I get any profit-sharing? Or just a signed DVD and a meet’n'greet?
Amanda Palmer paid dearly for her sins. I find this use of Kickstarter to be unethical: None of the rubes who “contribute” get any back-end points.
You raise some excellent points. I understand that most people that contribute to these things are paying very small amounts, but they still are contributing to getting these projects done.
Some sort of “profit-sharing,” as well as a credit, especially if the Kickstarter leads to some sort of profit would only be fair.
After all, the contributors are in a very real sense acting as producers, and deserve some sort of recognition of that fact.
Ethical is delivering what is promised. Unethical is not. And if one is giving money without promise of consideration for value received, does that really deserve the irony quotes around contribute? From where I sit, that is exactly the meaning of contribute.
Still, if you want profit participation for your money, don’t contribute to a Kickstarter project.
If someone else puts in money for a reason you find insufficient, it’s their money.
Besides, is it any more rube-ier than a pool of dentists who bankroll a slate of movies for profit participation? I believe I take my example from the annals of Hollywood. And, here’s the punchline, their profit points were not one penny more valuable than what the Kickstart contributor receives.
I’m sure if you’ve got six figures to put on the table Stacy Sher would love to hear from you.
The bottom line is really simple:
Kickstarter = audience pre-sales
That’s pretty much all there is to it.
The “upside” is that the audience is empowered to collectively will the film into existence, voting with their pocketbooks on the projects and artists they choose to support – wrestling that control away from media conglomerate gatekeepers.
It’s democratized media.
Yoyodyne Propulsions has been looking for you, John.
Thunderous Clap!
No way Braff raises 5 million dollars, or even close. Neither he nor Garden State has the same kind of dedicated (ie rabid) fans as Veronica Mars. He’s about to embarrass himself and lower his stock in town even further…
He’ll take what he can get, and probably some mysterious donor will make up the different at the last minute to secure the funds. It happens all the time.
He’s only asking for $2m and he’s well on his way.
These people are worth millions, why don’t they just write their projects checks, I doubt he’ll even realise its gone!…
Okay, I appreciate what he’s trying to do here, but this kind of project will really struggle with crowd funding because there is no loyalty to a brand or characters that an audience has formed bonds with, and want more of them.
Veronica Mars’ Kickstarter Funding worked for a few reasons:
1. The rewards were worth the money. Someone contributing $50 got their money’s worth and that was the bulk off their backers.
2. Most of the people wanted an ending to a story that they already were invested in. This is like paying a little extra to get the last chapter of a book that you loved, but was missing a real ending.
3. Shippers and Character Fans…This may be unpopular, but a lot of the people that funded this project were shippers or character fans that wanted a statisfying conclusion to the loose ends for the romantic plot-lines, or to catch up with characters they love (Logan, Veronica, Keith, etc.)
4. This was something that had a strong, organized and vocal fanbase already. This show has an engaged cult fan based that was easy to reach and they were willing to encourage others to contribute. It was a bonding experience for them and they will be able to bond more with each other and the people behind Veronica Mars over the course of the filming.
5. It was a new thing and there wasn’t a backlash associated with it yet. People now feel less inclined to participate because their participation is being judged by people who feel that the money should be going to more important things (charity, etc). Whether that is their business or not how people spend there money, there are people out there, vocal people, making it less a positive thing and more of a frivilous thing.
Overall, I would be hugely surprised if Zack’s project is funded because it has none of the positives outlined above and most of the negatives…including a not really engaging public image from the star.
Looks like your analysis is wrong since it has already raised more than a million dollars.
You are going to eat those words Jordan. I guarantee it…watch. He’ll even over achieve!!
There are some great comments here. I am an indie producer and financier, and I find kickstarter atrocious for these established “artist”. Zach has a TON of money, his residuals from scrubs alone could cashflow the production. Or they could easily put together an int’l sales deal, and shoot in a tax incentive state and finance the picture through bank funding and gap. This is just lazy and exploitive. I agree with the comments before me as well, at least offer something in return instead of begging for money. Braft is here trying to raise money along side ex hollywood stars who are asking for money to fund their cancer treatments. What a sham.
100% agree on your comments. But the big question is: how does one find unicorns like you, Indie financier?
Maybe the reason you’re against it, Mr. Indie Financier, is that you’re afraid it might put people like you out of business…? Because filmmakers would no longer have to lick your boots to get their passion projects funded, hmm?
Something to ponder…
Sher is full of it. There are other ways to raise capital for projects no one wants to make. John Cassavetes took roles in big budget commercial films to fund his small, indie passion projects. Others have gone to their wealthy friends to kick in, but the feeding frenzy to exploit the public that will occur now to circumvent stalled projects with limited appeal is scurrilous. How much did WB’s ads congratulating the “Veronica Mars” team cost? It’s ostensibly a Direct to DVD movie that no one wanted to make, so instead of a petition they solicited from a small, hardcore fan base. Every cult show has those. Will “Twin Peaks” be next? You’d think actors that have made more than any of the Kickstarter contributors would be ashamed to take their money. The only thing that would be fair is some sort of reward system outside of condescending bling bling like points and profiting in the success. That would teach contributors how creative accounting works when they see nothing. Many of these projects never get made and the instigators just pay their bills or buy new cars with the money. At least with Kickstarter, Max Bialystock doesn’t actually need to stage a flop to keep the change.
Don’t forget John Sayles: write scripts for Hollywood films to make money to finance his own films.
This won’t succeed.
The public can tell the difference between funding a risky project that wouldn’t otherwise get made with fair rewards (i.e. Veronica Mars) and giving the rich and famous money for vanity projects.
VM was a perfect storm and is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. Perhaps if Sony convinces Dan Harmon to do a Community movie (and no Dan, no sale).
You couldn’t be more wrong. This Kickstarter is going to be funded in less than day. Raising over $6000 a minute.
Crowdfunding is going to completely alter everything about indie film making in a few short years (if it hasn’t already. This is only the beginning.
Braff is a one-hit wonder. He hasn’t done a thing since Garden State. The other posters here are absolutely correct–if this project is so golden, why won’t he put his money in it? Why should I give him a dime if he’s not willing to invest anything on his own?
How do you know he hasn’t put any of his own money in it?
Wow. Didn’t think of that. Why didn’t they include that information in the article? If he hasn’t then people are right to be miffed that he’s asking his fans for money.
2004 is decades ago, in Hollywood years.
It’s “trending” towards completion…and then some
if anyone wants to monitor it…
http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/1869987317/wish-i-was-here-1/
Yeah, I disagree with those that say he will fail. I think he’s going to reach his goal of $2M. I just think it’s in poor taste. Just a step above panhandling.
Yep. Say what you will about Mel Gibson (and people do) but at least he had the balls to fund The Passion of the Christ once every studio in town had turned it down thus proving, yes, passion for the project. Obviously Zach is both cheap and a lousy business who doesn’t think two steps ahead (that, if he funded the movie himself considering he’s worth $22 million), he’d have made a fortune on it if it had been successful). But the fact he doesn’t do that shows that he doesn’t have much confidence in it and, if he doesn’t, why should some struggling schmuck who can barely afford their own rent?
You’re completely wrong here. While I may think it’s sleazy, he is being very “smart”.
He IS going to own the movie 100%. The difference between him and Mel Gibson is that Gibson used his own money.
But Kickstar isn’t comprised of investors. People are literally GIVING HIM THE MONEY with no strings.
He will still own the movie outright. He just didn’t have to dip into his own (rather considerable) net worth.
Sleazy? You bet. Stupid? Not at all.
No strings, just tchotchkes.
why a step above/ its the same thing.
Is there a link to somewhere I can pay him to NOT make this movie?
Nice.
Now there’s an internet business model waiting to get snapped up! (Hmm…)
“until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one… or that one was this one
or which one was what one… or what one was who.”
-Dr Seuss, The Sneetches
The SEC is about a year late in issuing protocol for how funders can benefit from contributing to a crowdfunded project. That’s the good news. Right now, it’s a lot more grassroots, and after the SEC wades in, will be a lot more paper. With limits. Most language states that the government would provide a $1 million dollar cap on all crowdfunded ventures, with a ton of due diligence vetting of all contributors, like two or three years’ back tax forms. Kind of takes the sheen off of this fund trend now taking place. So, no “Veronica Mars” project hits, just a punch list of commonality. Sometimes, it’s better not to wish for something, but to let what’s before you grow in its own way.
Here’s an interesting question… I do not know the ins and outs of kickstarter funding. But I understand you need to raise at least 100% of your goal or the money all goes back, right?
Okay — so say this project raises One Million dollars by day 28 or so… What’s to stop Braff, Sher, et al… who may be involved in the project from stepping in at that point and then pledging the remainder of cash necessary?
The money then becomes theirs to do with as they please, right? So… They’ve now got a million bucks of free money — which hey — a million bucks! Are they allowed to then essentially “Pay” themselves a fee commiserate to what they “donated” in order to make the mark. Essentially refund themselves while using what they got from the public as the base to move forward in seeking other finances?
And that’s not just a question specific to this instance or these persons — as a general — does anyone know how that works with Kickstarter? Say I want to raise 500 K — it only gets to 400. So I throw 100K of my own money in. The whole 500 is now in an account I control, right? Who says I have to actually spend the whole 500 on my project?
And also — what if after reaching the goal, the project falls apart — as often happens in HWood — even when money is there. Basically, what kind of mechanism is in place from Kickstarter to ensure the project is actually made?
Producers do this all the time. They know kickstarter money is free money, so they will do one even when they don’t need it.
So if they come up short, they just finish up to the goal level with whatever funding they already have in place. It’s a smart business move.
- Jake
this is most definitely what will happen. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if just to make the project look successful they donate past the required funds. They’re getting free money… while also having the money itself to have funded it to begin with. This is the lowest risk possible financially, and they’re bound to make some sort of profit even after kickstarter takes its piece. That’s why these things are so harmful.
It’s against Federal securities laws to give Kickstarter donors a piece of the pie. If they did that, kickstarter would be selling unregistered securities.
Obama signed a law to fix this, but the SEC is dragging their feet about defining the rules. That keeps the new law from being implemented.
Movie financiers often unknowingly violate federal law by inadvertently issuing unregistered securities, and paying commissions to unregistered brokers. This can result in heavy fines and jail time.
Talk to a securities lawyer or a registered broker before raising money from more than 35 people.
Yeah. It’s beginning to look like more than foot dragging. The SEC blames the delay on Mary Shapiro’s departure along with three of her deputies. It’s starting to look like a delaying tactic. Perhaps the banks are assessing the bite that peer to peer equity lending can take from their profits. Mary Jo White is former counsel to JPM and a guaranteed Wall Street tool. Through regulation the SEC can nullify the general solicitation and equity crowdfunding portions of The JOBS Act.
The issue you raise, Mr. Fleming Jr., of profit sharing through micro-donations, is a difficult one. And it’s not that filmmakers aren’t willing to share the profits. Most of them just want to get their movie made and that’s it. But profit sharing means publicly “selling shares” of the film. Sound familiar? As in, “selling shares” of a company, like on Wall Street. That is why it doesn’t exist yet (although a few companies are trying to get permission to do so, as reported on this very website). Selling shares to the public of your film is akin to creating an IPO and has a ton of regulations. I know the idea that companies on Wall Street being heavily regulated goes contrary to the message of most Hollywood films, but it is, in fact, the case. Turning a film into an IPO means tons of scrutiny, filing of paperwork, required red herring ads, time stipulations of investment payouts on any early private placements, etc.
I think when equity sharing becomes possible on a kickstarter level THAT will be the true revolution in indie film funding. When, beyond donating, you can actually invite people to become equity partners even with 10 bucks. How many of those Veronica Mars fans would have given a little more if the could profit off of their faith in the project.
- Jakey
There was at least one film that was set up as a corporation and registered with the SEC to sell shares of the film. There were limits on the number/value of shares that could be purchased by a single individual and there was a prospectus and everything. I learned about it at the Film Finance Forum West in 2011. I don’t actually know what became of it, but it has been tried.
As for the idea that donors don’t get anything, or that it’s free money, is false. Each donor level provides for various swag, the value of which, to the donor, may actually exceed the amount donated, because there they are exclusive items to donors and also an intangible value only a fan can appreciate to the items and the knowledge that you participated. Most donors actually get a digital download of the film, so you could put a value on that of $10-$20 or so. And at each level up the donor scale, more swag or experiential value (like being an extra, a premiere party or attending a NY or LA premiere).
Whether the film earns a profit or not for the creators and distributors is irrelevant. The donors engaged in a transaction for a known quantity/value AND they get to see a film they very much want to see. I see no need to receive a penny more. I am not the writer or creator of “Veronica Mars.” I’m not an actor or crew member. I am a DONOR who wanted a DVD, poster and t-shirt, etc. for my $75. I feel completely satisfied with that arrangement. In fact, I hope it makes Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell and the whole cast and crew a BUTTLOAD of money, because you know what? They deserve it and, if they do, who knows, maybe they’ll make another one.
One of these Kikstarter-funded projects will eventually make a bundle, and a group of donators will hire a semi-reputable lawyer to represent them as “investors” and they’ll sue for a share of the profits. They’ll lose but the headlines and legal drama will be enough to scare everyone on both sides of the fence away, and that’ll be the end of this trend.
OK. So dad is a struggling actor and suddenly his kids are FORCED to go to PUBLIC school! OMG!! So, yes, the obvious solution is homeschooling. Yep, sacrifice the children’s education to fulfill his “dream”. No thanks. (PS. He shouldn’t homeschool until he learns basic grammar — ie: Wish I Were Here)
You always know someone has a solid point to make when they start attacking the grammar.
It seems Braff (and soon, others) have found a clever way to retain final cut and most of the profits without shelling out their own dough. It’s all profit, since there are no investors to pay back. That’s the reason Braff wont put up his own money (and he has alot of it).
I question whether the Veronica Mars producers really needed to go the Kickstarter route. I find it suspicious that Warner Brothers wouldn’t fund a small budget movie but would pay for distribution. I also question whether the producers and star Kristen Bell should have kicked in their own money to finance the movie. Perhaps they could have then gone the KS route for a smaller amount to engage the fans and add some extras to the movie
Distribution being a low cost VOD release.