Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-26-2013, 12:44 AM
If you're worth $22million, why crowdsource for $1.5million to make a movie?

Zach Braff does this whole "hey everybody give me money so I can make a movie!" thing.
His net worth is listed at $22million, so let's say he wants to make his own movie without studio intervention.

If $1.5million is what he needs, why didn't he just do it himself? Is he afraid he'll lose his own money if the movie is a flop?

If I had $22million, I'd make my own cheap-ass flicks all the time. I'd start up a production company, push for smaller movies that I believe in to be put out to the public.

But anyway... is there more reason behind this plan of his?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-26-2013, 03:50 AM
Why spend your own money when you can sucker tens of thousands of random people into funding it for you (at the rate it's going the kickstarter will have reached its goal within a few days)?

Maybe if nobody donated anything he would have.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-27-2013, 12:46 AM
Yeah, that's about how I see it as well.

"Hey, everybody, I'm a multi-millionare, but I want your low-mid and upper-level class donations to help me make a movie for free! So what if you work harder to make a living and I can live the rest of my life without a job!"

Yeah, that about seems to sum it up.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-27-2013, 01:50 AM
I dont fault Braff for doing what he's doing because I'd do the same thing. Like Cronos said, if you could sucker a bunch of people to raise some money then thats all fine and dandy.

However, I wont be seeing Braff's film. I absolutely hated Garden State and pretty much anything Braff is in.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-27-2013, 04:23 PM
Pretty sure it's just for the marketing. They don't actually need the money... but how many news stories were written about the fact that they did what they did?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-27-2013, 04:54 PM
Would you risk 9% of your net worth on a project if you thought you'd be able to get other people to give the money to you?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-27-2013, 04:59 PM
I think it's basically capability. He could make the movie off of his own finances, but if he is in a position to make 1.5 million dollars from other people he's going to do it. Still, making a movie on your own dime is smart if you think it will do well: if you are the one hundred percent owner you make a killing if your movie is successful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Would you risk 9% of your net worth on a project if you thought you'd be able to get other people to give the money to you?
Just wanna throw something out there: I went to university with basically the richest motherfuckers on the planet, and I used to ask them what "rich" was. I always got back the same answer from people: 20 million dollars. That's because if you manage your money with even a modicum of decency you're getting 5% return a year which means you have an income of a million dollars a year without touching the capital. The point being: he wouldn't even have to touch his wealth to be funding his own movies.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-27-2013, 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
I think it's basically capability. He could make the movie off of his own finances, but if he is in a position to make 1.5 million dollars from other people he's going to do it. Still, making a movie on your own dime is smart if you think it will do well: if you are the one hundred percent owner you make a killing if your movie is successful.



Just wanna throw something out there: I went to university with basically the richest motherfuckers on the planet, and I used to ask them what "rich" was. I always got back the same answer from people: 20 million dollars. That's because if you manage your money with even a modicum of decency you're getting 5% return a year which means you have an income of a million dollars a year without touching the capital. The point being: he wouldn't even have to touch his wealth to be funding his own movies.
I'm not sure I agree with that in today's market. Unless you're invested very smartly, growing 5% a year is not as easy as it once was without touching it. The banks certainly aren't paying back interest, and the market is all over the place. Perhaps if he's invested in gold (which is down) or in foreign markets he could make that work, but even then you'd need a superb financial advisor.

I understand what you are saying but ultimately the point is that, as many others have said, if you can get other people to give you the money why use your own? And it's not as if these people are investors; they get no return. So it's even smarter, because if he takes the movie to Sundance and sells it to Fox Searchlight or someone else for anything at all it's all profit to him and his team. The donators from kickstarter see none of that.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-27-2013, 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
I'm not sure I agree with that in today's market. Unless you're invested very smartly, growing 5% a year is not as easy as it once was without touching it. The banks certainly aren't paying back interest, and the market is all over the place. Perhaps if he's invested in gold (which is down) or in foreign markets he could make that work, but even then you'd need a superb financial advisor.

I understand what you are saying but ultimately the point is that, as many others have said, if you can get other people to give you the money why use your own? And it's not as if these people are investors; they get no return. So it's even smarter, because if he takes the movie to Sundance and sells it to Fox Searchlight or someone else for anything at all it's all profit to him and his team. The donators from kickstarter see none of that.
Right we are in agreement about his motivation and why it is clever. I was just sort of throwing out there that he's reached a level of wealth where he doesn't even need to effect his capital to make a movie. If he was to make a movie every couple years (2-3) since no one does one a year he could easily have enough for low budget movies without effecting his wealth (certainly he could make a movie like Brick for 500k). And about the 5% I think it's extremely plausible to get 5 percent return when you are that wealthy and connected (much easier than you or I could do it) but we can just agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-27-2013, 05:24 PM
There is a different between worth and how much you actually have. His assets could be worth $22 million, but he may not have actual money to fund this.

Many people are worth a lot of money, and yet, they lack money to buy things, but their worth is high.

If people are willing to donate, who cares? It is their money. Sure, this may be the way entertainment is going, and it might suck, but that is life.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-27-2013, 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Right we are in agreement about his motivation and why it is clever. I was just sort of throwing out there that he's reached a level of wealth where he doesn't even need to effect his capital to make a movie. If he was to make a movie every couple years (2-3) since no one does one a year he could easily have enough for low budget movies without effecting his wealth (certainly he could make a movie like Brick for 500k). And about the 5% I think it's extremely plausible to get 5 percent return when you are that wealthy and connected (much easier than you or I could do it) but we can just agree to disagree.
You assume I don't have $22 million dollars. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-27-2013, 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
You assume I don't have $22 million dollars. :-)
Well you're living in New York so I figure you spent it all on a cramped one room apartment.

Last edited by Gordon; 04-27-2013 at 06:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-27-2013, 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
If I had $22million, I'd make my own cheap-ass flicks all the time. I'd start up a production company, push for smaller movies that I believe in to be put out to the public.
This is essentially what Megan Ellison is doing, but on a slightly larger scale. Her father is one of the richest people on the planet, so she's literally just throwing millions at directors that she is interested in (The Coen Brothers, PTA, Bigelow, Dominik, Jonze, to name a few). Since she has so much money, it honestly doesn't matter how much the movies make, but these directors only need so much money to make a great film, so she's had a number of financially successful films.

Last edited by Bourne101; 04-27-2013 at 08:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-27-2013, 09:10 PM
Never get high on your own supply. Rule 1
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-27-2013, 09:12 PM
Braff is a friggin' moron and everyone who donated to him is just as idiotic. After Garden State, this guy should not be allowed anywhere near a camera ever again.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-27-2013, 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oh-dae-su View Post
Braff is a friggin' moron and everyone who donated to him is just as idiotic. After Garden State, this guy should not be allowed anywhere near a camera ever again.
Garden State was not all bad. There was about 5 good minutes in there. And I like his Brita commercials
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-27-2013, 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Garden State was not all bad. There was about 5 good minutes in there. And I like his Brita commercials
Awesome.

I hate his character JD on Scrubs. That fucker blew so many opportunities with good women, treated them like shit and then it's as if the audience is supposed to fucking feel sorry for him and his plight as a single man.
Fuck that.

Also, he annoys me.

Regardless, if I had a passion to do a film, I would save up each year until I could get what I'm aiming at.
I know "net worth" and actual spending money is not the same. However, at his income he could save a couple/few hundred thousand a year. That shouldn't be difficult. Or, sell off some of his cars/houses/property/shares/'purdy mouth to acquire the needed funds on his own.

I also get that "hey, free money!" is awesome. I just think those people who gave him money really ARE idiots. Good on Braff for capitalizing, but shame on those fools who actually let it "work".
Even funnier is that these people provided enough money for him to make his own movie for FREE with no contractual obligation whatsoever to these suckers. All profit will go to him.
Good on Braff, man!

I just would never be douche enough to be happy with myself if I did that.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-29-2013, 07:29 AM
Isn't this the equivalent of the wealthy having fundraisers? I see no issue with this. It's people's choice to donate. Also I'd rather donate to a name I knew and trusted as opposed to some no-name who might squander my donation on a shitty film. And in the end, he's giving pretty good packages to his contributors. So think of your donation as a purchase of things like the soundtrack, screenplay, etc.


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-29-2013, 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oh-dae-su View Post
Braff is a friggin' moron and everyone who donated to him is just as idiotic. After Garden State, this guy should not be allowed anywhere near a camera ever again.
Guess I'm an idiot, as I plan to donate to the film, if the perks of worth it. Haven't been to his page yet, so I don't know what the perks are. But if I like them, then I will donate.

Braff is awesome. Loved Garden State. Scrubs is one of my all time favorite sitcoms. The Last Kiss wasn't great, but it was alright. Braff was also arguably one of the best things about Oz the Great and Powerful.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-29-2013, 10:35 AM
This guy annoys the piss outta me....now more than ever.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-29-2013, 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoe1985 View Post
There is a different between worth and how much you actually have. His assets could be worth $22 million, but he may not have actual money to fund this.

Many people are worth a lot of money, and yet, they lack money to buy things, but their worth is high.

If people are willing to donate, who cares? It is their money. Sure, this may be the way entertainment is going, and it might suck, but that is life.
Exactly, what this guy is worth including assets and what he has in actual available cash are two very different things.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-29-2013, 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed View Post
Exactly, what this guy is worth including assets and what he has in actual available cash are two very different things.
Something many people fail to realize.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-30-2013, 04:20 PM
Golden rule in Hollywood: Never use your own money.

Still, someone as established as Braff should not be using kickstarter. Celebrities using sites like that ruin it for other truly independent filmmakers.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-30-2013, 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Garden State was not all bad. There was about 5 good minutes in there. And I like his Brita commercials
The hate on here for Garden State surprises me. Personally, I thought it was a pretty solid film. I can understand someone not being that impressed by it or just plain disliking it, but hating it? To each his/her own.

Anywho, back to the subject at hand. Braff's kickstarter thing seems a little ridiculous to me. If he can afford to finance the film himself with little potential detriment to his financial situation, then he should show a little decency and do it. However, at the same token, people should get some commonsense and stop throwing money at him.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-30-2013, 07:27 PM
I don't think this kickstarter thing is terrible, but there are certainly more promising movies I would donate to than Braff's.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-30-2013, 07:28 PM
It's also should be stated that he doesn't actually have 22 million dollars, that was pretty much an entirely made up number.

I think the issue here is creative control. He could go to a studio for money but they would start interfering with his vision for the movie.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-01-2013, 12:56 AM
I checked "celebrity net worth" for Braff, which said $22 million.

I understand that's if he liquidated all that he owns and he doesn't just have $22 million lying around.

Thing is, if he thinks $1.5million was enough - and he wants pure creative control - then after 5 years I would wager it wouldn't be difficult to accumulate that amount on your own if you can afford say, a $100,000 car here, a $300,000 real estate investment there.... get rid of some of your shares with Apple or something....

... if you want pure, complete creative control, then don't rely on the goodwill of others and spend several years resting on your laurels, only to suddenly go "oh, shit! I can get free money from these suckers with the promise of a new movie!"

My opinion is that it's immoral of him. I wouldn't do that. But that's me, and here I am at the bottom of the totem pole. So who am I to talk shit, right?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-01-2013, 07:05 PM
I don't see how it's immoral of him at all, unless he is lying about something. As far as I can see he isn't. But if he was it would be about whether or not he actually would have lost creative control of the movie.

Do you think the people who are giving money don't realize that Braff could end up profiting immensely if the movie is successful? Do you think they don't realize that they aren't going to get their money back ever?

I don't see the harm in a fan of Zach Braffs work donating money so he can make a new movie.

Edit:

Also as I said above, it's my honest opinion that it's all a marketing scheme anyways. I have this weird feeling that most of the money in the kickstarter actually came from the studio or investors that Braff already knew would give money to the movie with or without a kickstarter.

Last edited by jolanar; 05-01-2013 at 07:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-02-2013, 07:47 PM
Just because you have money and want to save more, doesn't make you bad.

But a lot of directors have put up their own money in the past. Just watch "Hitchcock".
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-03-2013, 07:49 PM
I can't really fault Braff for this, I mean if an artist I actually admired that was of an equivalent worth did this, I would probably donate. However I agree that Garden State sucks and Braff has an annoying face.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoe1985 View Post
There is a different between worth and how much you actually have. His assets could be worth $22 million, but he may not have actual money to fund this.
This.

This and he's probably trying to take advantage of the Veronica Mars movie that used the same ploy to fund their movie. If I'm not mistaken, that venture got $5 million+ from their donations, so if he's able to get $1.5 million, then he's doing well.

I have no problem with him doing this; he's not the first to do it, I doubt he'll be last. I remember seeing that the Veronica Mars donations ranged from $5, $10, $25, and $50 with the option to donate more. The more you donated, the better the perks. If people want to donate, more power to them.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post
I don't see how it's immoral of him at all, unless he is lying about something. As far as I can see he isn't. But if he was it would be about whether or not he actually would have lost creative control of the movie.

Do you think the people who are giving money don't realize that Braff could end up profiting immensely if the movie is successful? Do you think they don't realize that they aren't going to get their money back ever?

I don't see the harm in a fan of Zach Braffs work donating money so he can make a new movie.

Edit:

Also as I said above, it's my honest opinion that it's all a marketing scheme anyways. I have this weird feeling that most of the money in the kickstarter actually came from the studio or investors that Braff already knew would give money to the movie with or without a kickstarter.
You don't have to lie about something for your actions to be considered immoral. That said, I would call what Braff is doing closer to classless or tasteless than immoral. I don't want to tell people what they should be doing with their money because I have no right. However, I don't think it's wise to donate to a celebrity who most likely has 2 or 3 million dollars of his own available to fund this project, even if your a Braff fan.

So, he might not equal his net worth. I still don't believe he needs a kickstarter campaign to get this film off the ground. I think this is an abuse of a fundraiser program and a total crock of shit.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-05-2013, 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
You don't have to lie about something for your actions to be considered immoral. That said, I would call what Braff is doing closer to classless or tasteless than immoral. I don't want to tell people what they should be doing with their money because I have no right. However, I don't think it's wise to donate to a celebrity who most likely has 2 or 3 million dollars of his own available to fund this project, even if your a Braff fan.

So, he might not equal his net worth. I still don't believe he needs a kickstarter campaign to get this film off the ground. I think this is an abuse of a fundraiser program and a total crock of shit.
So how would you characterize the Veronica Mars movie project? They're doing the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:36 PM
I remember when Kevin Costner went overbudget for DANCES WITH WOLVES and had to shell out $18 million of his own money to finish it.
Then, it was a big success and he made $40 million off of it.

Basically, if you believe in something, take the fucking initiative a DO IT. Don't be asking for free handouts when you can actually do it yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred760 View Post
So how would you characterize the Veronica Mars movie project? They're doing the same thing.
To be honest, I don't know what the Veronica Mars project is, but if the people responsible have the funds and are doing the same thing Braff is doing then they're just as classless.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:26 AM
and then there's this....

http://torontostandard.com/culture/s...on-kickstarter


and here I'd give my left nut to raise 50K and could make a diamond with it.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-09-2013, 12:34 AM
Just by the title , i knew this was about Zach Braff's kickstarter controversy.

I understand the dilemma.

On one side , Kickstarter was designed to promote innovations from people with no means. So seeing , a person like Zach Braff who is credited as a good actor / writer / director relying on this system seems like a cheap way to achieve a goal. The writer is right : Zach Braff got connections and he could have done his movie the "right" way for someone his stature. It just seemed lazy.

On the other side , if i was Zach Braff , i would have done the same thing. With Kickstarter , he keeps the creative control over his pet project. And let's be real , i like ZB alot but he is not a megastar of Hollywood so yeah it might not be as easy ,to get financing, as Brad Pitt trying to push a Mr. Hanky action movie scenario for 100M$. Garden State proved he was a good moviemaker in general.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-09-2013, 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
You don't have to lie about something for your actions to be considered immoral. That said, I would call what Braff is doing closer to classless or tasteless than immoral. I don't want to tell people what they should be doing with their money because I have no right. However, I don't think it's wise to donate to a celebrity who most likely has 2 or 3 million dollars of his own available to fund this project, even if your a Braff fan.
Obviously a lot of people disagree with you. I have no idea why you think it's tasteless. If people are willing buy what he is selling, and they are happy with it... why do you care?

How fucking dare someone else be happy! They must have no class!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-11-2013, 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post
Obviously a lot of people disagree with you. I have no idea why you think it's tasteless. If people are willing buy what he is selling, and they are happy with it... why do you care?

How fucking dare someone else be happy! They must have no class!
The principal behind all this is what bothers me; that someone who most likely has the funds for this project would resort to kickstarter anyways. The question you should be asking is why does he need it? And yeah, a lot of people disagree with me, but why the fuck should that alter my opinion of Braff's actions? So what? They like him, they're numerous in number, and they want to hand him their money. That doesn't mean they're in the right either. Fun fact for ya: cults have lots of members too.

I don't like when people, especially celebs, manipulate other people for their own gain. Sure, it's legal and all, but it's a kind of manipulation nonetheless.

Last edited by psycheoutsteve; 05-11-2013 at 09:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-12-2013, 07:27 PM
ug

I completely agree with psycheoutsteve. Why do a kickstarter if you already have more than enough money to get it started. I think it looks cheap on the person.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump