Okay, so this blog is probably a few months late compared to when the controversy first blew up. But I've heard it come up in conversation a few times even still and decided to write this blog. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, here's a little run down:
Kickstarter is a website where creatives and start-ups can solicit donations in order to fund their projects. If they get enough pledges by the deadline, their project is funded. Up until recently, it was very much a grass-roots website with indie appeal. Up and coming filmmakers especially could make projects from $10,000-100,000 if they were able to garner enough support. In this way, films that never would've been made in the past were able to be created.
Along comes Veronica Mars (a tv show long since canceled) and Zach Braff (a tv celebrity with a couple good films under his belt). Each of them launched projects that raised several million dollars within a matter of days drawing from vast and loyal fan bases. The indie world blew up claiming that these already-rich people were putting the risk of their creative projects on the shoulders of loyal fans instead of their own pockets. The question also came up of "If so-and-so donates $50 to Zach Braff, are they less likely to donate to my $8,000 indie short film?" Many people angrily answered yes.
So here's my take: I think these points are valid to some degree. Taking the risk out of the hands of the studios for a hot second is definitely tough, especially if they end up making a total load of garbage. I mean, Zach Braff didn't even really tell us what his movie was going to be about. But I'm not sure I agree with the whole "they are taking our money" problem. In the better words than I could, Kickstarter explains the result of the two films on their site traffic,
"The Veronica Mars and Zach Braff projects have brought tens of thousands of new people to Kickstarter. 63% of those people had never backed a project before. Thousands of them have since gone on to back other projects, with more than $400,000 pledged to 2,200 projects so far. Nearly 40% of that has gone to other film projects."
I think in most situations, people with money and clout would do exactly what Braff did. In fact, I think the people complaining are those who don't have the resources to do it his way but STILL would if they did have money and clout. Is it right to be angry that someone you don't know, used the money that they earned, to support someone they have a entertainment relationship with? I'm not buying it. When you throw in the kickstarter data, it seems to me to be a totally selfish claim. His work brought backers who didn't even know about Kickstarter before to other films! This is a good example of a great trickle-down effect that helped those who were able to capitalize on it at the right moment. Basically, I don't think we gain much by griping.
The other thing I stand behind in Braff's case is the chance to make exactly what he wanted unimpeded by those with only dollar signs attached to their vision. I've said this before and I'll said it again: Film is an artistic forum to discuss many important things, comedic and dramatic. When creating films specifically for the $1,000,000,000 masses it is tough to add true substance and discussion.
My favorite thing Braff said about this whole process was when he was asked why he didn't go to the studios with this script. He responded, "This is a smaller movie, not something that’ll be released to appeal to the whole country – it’s for the audience that likes what I do. (Empire Online)" He chose what he wanted to make and $3mil worth of people supported that idea, which in film terms is a very low budget project.
Moral of the story: Make good shit. If it's interesting people will get behind it, even if other people are making good shit as well.
--
P.S. Shout out and congrats to Dan Rickmers for embodying this moral with his crowd-funded video game called Insignificant. In his case, this little game with a curious audience raised $12,447 from 422 donors.
