The Upcoming Film Discussion Thread?

[Winston*]

Tim Heidecker writes scene from Zach Braff's Kickstarter funded film.

[Boner M]

Heidecker's been on fire lately.

[Winston*]

Veronica Mars is one thing, but a multi-millionaire begging for money so he can make a film about privileged white ennui is a bit much.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...h-i-was-here-1

It costs you $30 to even see the film? "For $10 I'll email you a PDF of the script". Fuck you, Zach Braff.

[Ivan Drago]

Over/under how much money did the legendary zachbraff fan donate?

[Sycophant]

The rewards could maybe be more generous, I guess? But what the fuck. I know all of us here on Match Cut are above liking Garden State at this point, but there are clearly many thousands of people who want another movie to follow up on it from Braff and ten years on still don't have it. Braff's apparently been having a hard time getting his projects off the ground.

I don't really see the big gap between Veronica Mars and this. Veronica Mars got its funding by way a devoted fanbase. That's where this funding's gonna come from, too. I guess it's just that we hate Zach Braff and maybe certain rich white people who are more rich than other rich white people?

[Winston*]

The rewards aspect is important I think. If he was saying for $10 you get a digital download then his baseline would be essentially pre-ordering the film, which in my eyes would make it more justifiable for him to be asking people to give their money to the Garden State 2 fund rather than special needs children or something.

Also, the way he talks about the 'money people' in the video strikes me as particularly disingenuous.

[Winston*]

In the Veronica Mars kickstarter, the notion was that without it the film was not going to be made otherwise. In this kickstarter, the notion is that without it people are willing to fund the film but not give Braff final cut.

[Derek]

In the Veronica Mars kickstarter, the notion was that without it the film was not going to be made otherwise. In this kickstarter, the notion is that without it people are willing to fund the film but not give Braff final cut.

To be fair Winston*, a Zach Braff film without a Zach Braff final cut might as well not be made.

[Sycophant]

In the case of the Veronica Mars film, the fans supported with their money a project that will be the intellectual property of Warner Bros. Studios and a money-earner for the same, a studio didn't want to take all the financial risk on it, though it'll be happy to collect the profits off it. Not that the fans don't get what they wanted, of course.

Here, fans of Zach Braff get to give him complete authorial and distributive control over his original product. People are directly supporting an artist who they like and want to put his ideas on film unadulterated. Final cut is kind of a big deal. I think the talk in the video about "money people" and stuff is a little hokey and silly. And it may even be overstated. But it's not like it's something we haven't heard countless numbers of creative types complaining about since the beginning of the film industry.

He gets to make the profits, too, of course, but I think his funders will be ok with that.

If a favorite director of mine was doing this to avoid strings and withholding of final cut on one of his or her films, I'd pitch in. Zach Braff isn't one of these guys for me, so I'll rent his movie in 2015 if I have enough interest.

When I've supported films in the past, yeah, $15 has usually been enough to guarantee me a digital download at least. These rewards are a bit stingy, and I think he'd be well advised to change them (though in Veronica Mars, In that one, you had to pitch in $35 minimum to get a digital copy of the movie). I just don't think this Braff thing is a particularly scummy campaign.

[transmogrifier]

I agree with Sycophant - there is no difference between the two cases in principle, it's only the matter of whether you think the rewards are worth it.

Traditionally, studios will look at a project, figure out it's cost and likely appeal and then make a decision about whether to make it. Using Kickstarter, the likely appeal part of the decision-making process takes care of itself, and so we are more likely to see films get made that would otherwise have been consigned to turnaround due to a skittish executive.

I think it helps if you forget about the misleading idea of it being an investment - it's not. Rather, I see it as you kind of paying the filmmaker and/or studio for a very specific type of service - making a film that you want to see. If you think about it that way, the nagging feeling that it is not fair that the filmmaker doesn't have to put up their own money recedes somewhat. After all, if you pay a landscaper to redo your yard, you are the one who pays for the materials and labour.

Of course, that analogy is of limited utility, because the landscaper can't then go off and make more money from others for the work done on your yard, but that is just the nature of the beast.

Now, I wouldn't give money to either of these projects because I don't give a shit about either of them.

[Winston*]

He gets to make the profits, too, of course, but I think his funders will be ok with that.

I don't think it's ethical for him to make a personal profit on this film after crowd sourcing his funding. Same thing with the Veronica Mars people.

Seems to me like big projects like these, which are almost guaranteed to make a profit, could have some kind of arrangement where if they ask for $2,000,000 dollars then they should funnel off a share of the profits to charity until they reach or surpass that number.

[transmogrifier]

I don't think it's ethical for him to make a personal profit on this film after crowd sourcing his funding. Same thing with the Veronica Mars people. .

But why? Everyone who provides money knows what will happen, and are apparently happy to do so anyway. I don't see the ethical problem at all.

[Winston*]

I think it helps if you forget about the misleading idea of it being an investment - it's not. Rather, I see it as you kind of paying the filmmaker and/or studio for a very specific type of service - making a film that you want to see. If you think about it that way, the nagging feeling that it is not fair that the filmmaker doesn't have to put up their own money recedes somewhat. After all, if you pay a landscaper to redo your yard, you are the one who pays for the materials and labour.

This isn't a very good analogy, dude. It's like a rich person asking for money to redo their yard, and then once the yard is made they'll let you pay a fee to come and look at it.

[Henry Gale]

I do think it's a bit weird to think that under no other circumstances than what he describes would anyone in the industry be interested in financing it, but if that really is the case, then doesn't it make sense that he'd genuinely rather not want to waive his creative control while not contributing any money of his own to a still relatively inexpensive project than have it exist at all? The money thing seems to be the go-to criticism everywhere I see this discussed, but he claims he isn't just sitting back and watching the pledges roll in and doing nothing himself:

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.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to buy that an actor who's only had one major acting job (as a mo-cap monkey in Raimi's Oz) since a big TV break that ended years ago (that was only moderately successful for the majority of its run) can't use his own funds to fund a directorial project of his all on his own. Unlike Veronica Mars' situation, he doesn't have a major studio distribution model like Warner Brothers to ensure that he can even give the movie away for, say, a thank you with a 30 buck pledge if and when it's completed. He'd rather just have people pay less for more likelihood of it getting off the ground the way it should, and then be released like any other independent film. WB was just being stingy and said to Thomas, Bell & co. that they wouldn't greenlight the film unless they could garner enough interest to hit a $2 million mark on Kickstarter, but that they'd take care of the rest of it if it happened. Braff doesn't have that luxury here, he just wants the film to exist to the same point these "No final cut"-backers would likely get it to. In both scenarios, he'd still have to sell if after it was completed. This only brings more attention to it too.

Now, I haven't seen Garden State in ages, but back when I saw it in theatres, before the creeping hatred for it was an ounce of what it's snowballed into, and I really, truly did love it. And maybe it was just the right movie at the right time for teenage-me and a haze of nostalgia might still prevent me from seeing it really doesn't hold up, but I have wanted to see him direct something else since. So, if this is the way it's going to happen (and it really looks like it will be), then I have much less of a problem with that than most people seem to.

[Winston*]

But why? Everyone who provides money knows what will happen, and are apparently happy to do so anyway. I don't see the ethical problem at all.

People willingly buy cigarettes, is there no ethical concerns surrounding cigarette companies? Zach Braff and Cigarette Companies are the same thing. They are also both the same thing as Hitler.

[transmogrifier]

People willingly buy cigarettes, is there no ethical concerns surrounding cigarette companies? Zach Braff and Cigarette Companies are the same thing. They are also both the same thing as Hitler.

If people are buying cigarettes with full information about the consequences, then no, there is no ethical dilemma.

[transmogrifier]

This isn't a very good analogy, dude. It's like a rich person asking for money to redo their yard, and then once the yard is made they'll let you pay a fee to come and look at it.

I already stated that it was a limited analogy - I was merely using it to demonstrate the service aspect of it - paying Zach Braff or whatever to create something you want to enjoy.

Though it is comment internet courtesy that if you are going to deride an analogy, the one you offer as a replacement should be a significant improvement. This is not the case here.

[transmogrifier]

I hated Garden State back before it was cool to hate Garden State. I also hated on The Shins as well, but regrettably that hasn't taken off to the same extent.

[Winston*]

If people are buying cigarettes with full information about the consequences, then no, there is no ethical dilemma.

I think we may be working under different definitions of ethical.

[transmogrifier]

I assume so.

[number8]

The difference in rewards is absolutely important.

VM's kickstarter was in the same model as every other kickstarter projects. You fund it, you get to own a copy. It's straightforward, fair, and amounts to a pre-order.

If you don't offer that option, and you admit that you still want to pursue the traditional release model using your money, it's pretty much a glorified charity. I think you can pick an issue with either one, but they are absolutely not equal.

More to the point, maybe he shouldn't have used Kickstarter. I bet if he set up a Paypal account and just begged for money on twitter without any reward, he'd still get the funds from his followers.

[number8]

By the way, did you guys know about this sad thing?

[Dukefrukem]

How much to be in it?

[Irish]

He gets to make the profits, too, of course, but I think his funders will be ok with that.

But for how long? I'm waiting to see what happens to these guys when they try and fund another project. Once the novelty of "donating" wears off, will the super-fans be up for another round? And another after that?

The part that bristles is that Braff et al are exploiting their fanbase to get no-interest money, with no accountability. If the movie fails, as long as they deliver those prizes, they walk away scot free. If they succeed, they get to keep all the profits. That's a helluva good racket.

On the artistic side, I think that we run the risk of funding stuff that does nothing but absolutely pander to a small fanbase, in the worst kind of ways, because nobody is looking over Braff's shoulder and telling him "No, Zack, that's a stupid idea."

[Rowland]

By the way, did you guys know about this sad thing?

I think I just died a little.