So there's this new project for these little known people thats making the rounds right now. I say kudos to them for being brave and putting themselves out there because as filmmakers, artists, writers, DP's, directors, cast etc we all know the risks one takes to get OUR projects off the ground. This Kristin Bell character, obviously a struggling actress trying to get her name out there with her creative partner Rob Thomas, I guess his band is no more. These guys are going all out, balls to the wall to realize their dream. We could all learn something from them. They've almost raised $2,000,000 in 12 hours, see how easy it is.
.
.
.
.
What say you...YES YOU?!?!
.
.
.
.
.
end /sarcasm... seriously, this just pisses me off to no end...why exactly do THEY need the money...Warner Bros just lucked out and had the marketing campaign funded and developed by the fans...those same fans who are funding a project that they will also have to pay to see... this is a bad precedent to be set... for the independent filmmaker this will be problematic at best... I have plenty more to say about this but I prefer to wait and see how it plays out in the near future...

The Veronica Mars Movie Project by Rob Thomas — Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-mars-movie-project) ( the campaign )

'Veronica Mars' Movie Makes $2M Kickstarter Goal, Eyes Summer Shoot (http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/veronica-mars-movie-kickstarter-campaign-rob-thomas-kristen-bell/)
( Deadlines Take )

I'm seriously curious as to what YOU people think about this.

as a non-rich person, maybe theres something i dont understand, but why cant filthy ruch folks just put their own money into projects? win or lose, i figure this is the equivalent of a "regular income" person spending $20 of their own money. in other words, not a big deal if it all goes south.

from that point of view yes, but these $20 could have been put into something else.
I think a project is a project, so far, this one is not different than the other kicstarters. Most of them end up in a commercial product you have to pay for to get it.
The difference here is you could pay much more in the kisckstarter than the final product and that sounds silly. I will not fund $20 for a product that will cost $12 at the end.
The other difference, is the money spend in the project will probably go mostly in salaries, and the ROI as well, that is a bit different from a project where the benefit on the sales are only a small margin.
So Yes it feels more like you are funding people instead funding product or project.

Crowdfunding - it's a great idea - but it's wasted on the poor.

there is something really offensive to me about this use of a great tool - I'm hoping indigogo doesn't end up being misused in the same way.

Might I suggest using an example such as the one above to learn something about how to create a successful crowd sourcing campaign?

Take away for a moment whether they "deserve" being on a crowd sourcing site.

What are they doing that is different/unique and look to see why they were able to reach their goal.

Crowd-funding is about people willingly investing in a project that they personally want to see get made.

The wealth of the people making the project is irrelevant, and if it is an issue then just don't support it.

I have supported filmmakers that are far wealthier than me (and they have equipment I can only dream about) on Kickstarter because I wanted to see the project completed, simply because I personally wanted to watch it.

That I get a DVD and a T-shirt is just a bonus.

Exactly Simon, I didn't think Kickstarter was a vehicle for charity.

Do we really know the incomes of all people launching crowdsourcing projects? Probably not... and just because they might not be famous doesn't mean they might not be rich (and vice versa).

How is this "misuse"? Completely stunned by the use of that word. I certainly hope that I am not barred from kickstarter and indiegogo because I am not "poor" enough (but I'm a minority - does that count? :))

Good ideas are good ideas, and should rise or fall based on their own merit - no matter where they come from.

Bill

from what i understand the crowdfunding was a necessity cause the studio needed them to prove there was an audience for the movie, and so required them to raise the $2 million in this manner to that end. i didnt know this upon my initial reaction in this thread.

Soooo a month and bit later, does everybody still feel the same way? In case you've living under a rock and weren't aware, Zach Braff has now joined the ranks of whining and/or begging for money from the unsuspecting fan. I vehemently disagree with the so-called celebs using these crowd funding platforms. A backlash has already begun, KickStarter recently released a statement defending said high profile campaigns which is not surprising seeing as they get a 5% kickback from total $ raised. I'm all for making money, far be it for me to begrudge somebody their capitalist ways. My problem or rather gripe is with those who HAVE the means but are far too lazy to pursue them. Over the past 20 yrs. or so I've been involved in financing a few projects, some my own as well as others I've helped with. Trying to finance a movie is kind of like a first date for me, the thrill of the chase. The frustrations, the ups and downs and uncertainties, will she or won't she. As somebody who has worked on big budget studio fare and no budget indies, I prefer the chase, (indies) its far more satisfying but I won't judge those who like the one night stands (studio). There's something to be said about a wham-bam-thank you ma'am kinda evening, I've just outgrown it. While I won't personally use a platform like IndieGoGo or KickStarter, I assure you I can see the value and benefits of doing so. With all the available viewing platforms today, it seriously hasn't been easier in quite some time to get your project some eyeballs, provided you make something worth viewing. Regardless of advancing technologies one constant has remained the same, the story is KING and always will be. Thanks for indulging in my somewhat nonsensical babble.

J.S.K.


http://mashable.com/2013/04/29/has-kickstarter-lost-its-way/

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1869987317/wish-i-was-here-1?ref=search

I've been following all this hoopla about Rob Thomas and Zach Braff with particular interest since I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I just launched a Kickstarter campaign to help disadvantaged but aspiring filmmakers in Kenya make micro-budget films: 100 Films and Counting by Donald Giesen — Kickstarter (http://kck.st/12Naofz).

And while it remains to be seen if we'll reach our funding goal (help us out!), i don't begrudge Zach or Rob for their success. As someone earlier mentioned, Kickstarter in its present form is not particularly for charity cases. It is a conduit for people to contribute to creative projects. It's just like a storefront window and people will put their money in what interests them.

I can scream from the rooftops about the injustice of people giving $100 to a millionaire actor while they won't give $5 to help a poor Kenyan wanting to make her first film, but there is no obligation for anybody to give anything to anybody. It's a choice.

Donald

Sensing a pattern here...

Up And Coming Indie Filmmaker SPIKE LEE Asking For $1.25 Millon On Kickstarter: Gothamist (http://gothamist.com/2013/07/22/up_and_coming_indie_filmmaker_spike.php)

'Surefire' Blockbusters flopping, no name lower budget movies prevailing and Hollywood back to begging for the new millennium. Its a shame, as I've stated before these so called passion projects of the already financially secure filmmakers is going to overshadow the first timers looking to gain some credibility. I don't begrudge anybody success, I just find this whole new financing scenario odd.

Sounds like Spike Lee was making fun of it?

Filmmaking rule #1: Never use your own money to make a film.

one one hand, if you can do something, and it's legitimate, do it. but that doesn't account for douchebaggery, which is what kevin smith aptly articulated. spike is worth tens of millions of dollars, it's fairly clear that spending 1.25million of his own cash wouldn't hurt his lifestyle.

i think celebrities should have a rule on kickstarter, call it a golf handicap: they aren't allowed to use their name, better yet, not even allowed to use their faces. they have to raise the funds based on the raw interest level of the project that they are pitching.

if spike had to ahere to that, he wouldn't have a dime. the average kickstarter video is short, 2-3 minutes, punchy, and typically fun and interesting. spike's video is nearly 7 minutes of him blabbing, repeating himself, and defensively justifying why he's using kickstarter with correlations that just don't justify.

I think I probably said it when this thread started but I'll say it again:

Never understood the "don't spend your own money" thing. Don't we all do that? If you're rich to the point where x amount of dollars doesn't phase your own financial status if you lose it all. . .then why not? What's the point of going through the stress and exhausting work of fundraising when you could simply cut a check? What am I missing? Seems like the equivalent of one of us trying to raise $1 to fund a movie. Why not just spend our own dollar?

this ^^^ is why I'm not rich.. Rich people never spend there own money. Spending your own money on risky or guaranteed loosing investments is a quick way to become un-rich.

***if spike had to ahere to that, he wouldn't have a dime. the average kickstarter video is short, 2-3 minutes, punchy, and typically fun and interesting. spike's video is nearly 7 minutes of him blabbing, repeating himself, and defensively justifying why he's using kickstarter with correlations that just don't justify. ****

While that might be easy to say, Spike is the only one that built a successful film career out of his own pocket when Hollywood wouldn't touch. The with all of his success he still couldn't get them to finance Malcom X. Something is wrong with Hollywood.

No words can justify this one, anybody with even a remote knowledge of the industry knows this is beyond ridiculous. I'm not bitter, just confused. In fact it's kind of ironic that people will use kickstarter to get 'discovered' and hopefully pave their way to Hollywood and yet Hollywood is telling them they in fact need kickstarter (crowd funding) to keep their own machine chugging along.

REACH ME THE MOVIE @KICKSTARTER by John Herzfeld — Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reachme/reach-me-the-movie-kickstarter)

How odd, they reach their goal for funding 'Reach Me' on kickstarter but decide to cancel it and move everything over to indiegogo because they can do things more "freely" there. Also, instead of the $250k they raised, now they only want $50k because somebody anonymously came to their rescue with more cash.

I call BS and shenanigans on this mess, they're just trolling us all and winning a ton of free promo in the process.

REACH ME THE MOVIE @KICKSTARTER (Canceled) by John Herzfeld — Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reachme/reach-me-the-movie-kickstarter)

Interesting take by Odni Timoner at Westdoc this week.she is all in favorof anyone using it as she says it will help validate it to more funders,and it simply is the only wayanyone can gain control of their distribution chain.if fans want to fund a project then why should the artist say no?

Check out Odni's latest successfull crowd sourced project. I didn't know about her until her talk,changed my mind about crowdsourcing. She is really a whirlwind of energy.
A Total Disruption: Ondi Timoner's Portal For Innovators by Ondi Timoner — Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1733486695/a-total-disruption-ondi-timoners-portal-for-innova)