Zach Braff's Wish I Was Here and Kickstarter funding for film

johnny_ultimate

After the success of Rob Thomas' Veronica Mars movie a few weeks back, it wasn't going to be long before other filmmakers hopped aboard the Kickstarter bandwagon. Zach Braff has become the second high-profile director to turn to his fanbase, having launched a funding campaign for his long in gestation follow-up to Garden State today: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1869987317/wish-i-was-here-1

As good a time as any to have a discussion about Kickstarter and film, I guess! On one hand, it's IMO refreshing to see directors appealing directly to their fanbases to get films made in a somewhat independent environment (although important to note that VM was a quasi-studio production, having already agreed some sort of funding and distribution deal with Warner Brothers). I was a big fan of Garden State when I was a teenager, but it's been years since I watched it. I'm not intrigued enough to fund the follow-up, but I am rather curious to see what Braff's second feature will look like, and hoping it doesn't get drowned in a sea of empty quirk and flavourless "wuss rock" (always risks when Braff is involved). Still, I think it's a wise move for Braff who can rely on a devoted online following to propel him well past the proposed finish line (the donations are already flowing healthily).

But as has been proven with games and music, Kickstarter is actually not a revolution in the type of art being produced - in fact, it trades heavily on nostalgia and familiar ideas, primarily benefiting authors with existing 'cults'. It's all about recognisable faces and comparisons or relationships to previous works. With some exceptions - primarily hardware based - Kickstarter is best for artists and properties that are already known, not new faces & ideas. How is a newcomer expected to achieve the widespread attention of existing talents, no matter how strong the idea?

The other major disadvantage with film is the sheer cost of film production - even a game can be produced at a more modest budget than a film can. Veronica Mars' $5 million may sound impressive, and in many ways it is, but that's a rather low budget for an American feature film based on a pre-established property. It's even less impressive when tax considerations and the cost of fulfilling Kickstarter rewards are taken into account.

In Ireland, several shorts & features have had modest funding success through crowdsourcing sites like Fundit. But again the amounts are miniscule and heavily reliant on friends & family contributing (well, from my experience and everyone I've spoken to about it).

Any thoughts on crowdfunding when it comes to film? Personally, I think we'll see some high-profile successes like Veronica Mars and Zach Braff, but the range of work that could achieve similar success is very narrow indeed. And while some micro-budget films may succeed (Andrew Bujalski, for example, part-funded his forthcoming Computer Chess online) for a significant amount of even small, independent films it will remain a non-viable alternative to traditional funding - although of course there's always the potential for someone to make an astonishingly creative and rich work with extremely limited resources (it has happened before). Or, on a tangentially related note, is 'crowdsourcing' of cast & crew - as used by Terry McMahon with Charlie Casanova - another potential route? Again, this has severe limitations on the scope of the work that can be produced, and ethical concerns related to the cast & crew who might end up working for low to no pay.

As games exploiting the nostalgia dollar prove the most noteworthy Kickstarter success stories, I must admit I remain pessimistic about its long-term potential with film.

adamski8

So fans pay for the film to be made and also to go see it, what happens to potential profits?

I guess people aren't necessarily funding it in order to get potential profits. With regards to the likes of Veronica Mars, it's because they love it.

johnny_ultimate

adamski8 wrote: »

So fans pay for the film to be made and also to go see it, what happens to potential profits?

Kept by the artist.

The misconception is that funders become investors, which isn't really what's happening. Instead, funding acts as a purchase of sorts - whether that's paying to get access to updates, a pre-order of the film or a ticket to the premiere. People are paying simply because they want the film made, not to become a financial partner. They'll usually receive some pre-defined 'reward' for their contribution. But it's important to remember they're not investors, more well-wishers and patrons.

adamski8

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I guess people aren't necessarily funding it in order to get potential profits. With regards to the likes of Veronica Mars, it's because they love it.

Oh i understand but the OP said ethical conerns about actors being paid less, id be more conerned about the 'fans' paying over the odds for little benefit, seems like they are being held to ransom with the artist or whatever having to answer to nobody and get to reep all potential profits

johnny_ultimate

adamski8 wrote: »

Oh i understand but the OP said ethical conerns about actors being paid less, id be more conerned about the 'fans' paying over the odds for little benefit, seems like they are being held to ransom with the artist or whatever having to answer to nobody and get to reep all potential profits

I was referring to crowd sourcing there with ethical concerns, which is where people are recruited to actually work on the film as crew, cast and so on. That's troublesome because it might go against employment legislation or union rules. Even when agreeing to work with wages deferred, there's little guarantee crew members will ever be paid for their work in that method.

Crowd funding is more transparent. You contribute financially, help fund the project and get a chosen reward in return. You can give whatever you want, from nothing to tens of thousands. It's (usually) very clear what the money is funding and what you're getting in return. There's no one demanding you to contribute, most people do it simply to see the project realised and maybe get a t-shirt and frequent updates in return. There's always the risk the project will fail - and each project has to include a disclaimer stating as much - but it's a case of pay what you want if you want. It's not for everyone, but there's been enough success stories to show there's certainly potential for certain types of work to be created in that way.

In theoretical terms, the filmmakers would maybe be granted more control over their film too without traditional funding - perhaps ultimately leading to a stronger end product.

pixelburp

(In the time since this thread started, that Braff Kickstarter has already raised ~100,000+. And its growing as I type - madness!)

I'm broadly in favour of Kickstarter as a concept, though I disagree about a prejudice towards nostalgia with its game-based projects - most campaigns I've been tracking wouldn't fall under that umbrella, and those that do are arguably just keeping their costs down by maintaining a simpler aesthetic, but I digress...

I think what will ultimately tell how successful or otherwise Kickstarter is will be the relative quality of the final products - which at the moment don't really exist. Even with the games, there aren't that many that have been released after their funding drives; I could easily see public opinion shy away from Kickstarter when the penny finally drops that funding is not a guarantee of quality.

indough

it has already proven itself with 3 academy award nominations and a win out of them. there is obviously going to be quite a poor signal to noise ratio with something like this but thats not really indicative of a problem with the method itself, most films in general aren't very good

Oafley Jones

I've deep concern that kickstarter will be undone by those using it as proof of audience/market rather than a last resort of funding. I wonder how much of his Scrubs residuals Braff is pumping into this project?

SVG

adamski8 wrote: »

Oh i understand but the OP said ethical conerns about actors being paid less, id be more conerned about the 'fans' paying over the odds for little benefit, seems like they are being held to ransom with the artist or whatever having to answer to nobody and get to reep all potential profits

This is my problem with the Zach Braff thing.

I have no problem with Kickstarter in general but I don't think it's fair when the risk/reward balance is so skewed. A famous, wealthy actor is funding his dream project by getting his less-wealthy fans to shell out $40 for t-shirts "soft as a kitten's taint". Um, no thanks. I don't think soliciting charitable donations is the only way he could get this made. He surely has some of that sitcom money left! And he says he's doing it to maintain the integrity of his final cut while at the same time promising that for $8000 you can go to a special screening and "help shape the final cut." Which is it Braff?!

But, whatever, people are obviously willing to shell out and he's generated a ton of free publicity and money which probably just about outweighs the cost of annoying me. Good for him:p

johnny_ultimate

Yep, Braff's wealth is a major factor in this case. Now I'm sure he's donated plenty of time and money getting the project to where it is currently, but small change compared to his multi-millions. There are plenty of benefits to him - not least the fact that its Kickstarter success will surely attract interested distributors from all over the place. But yeah I'd agree there's something off about someone as wealthy as Braff using crowdfunding for a small project. Film financing in the US is likely a little more complicated then him simply withdrawing a couple of million and grabbing a camera and some friends - but then again look at Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing (albeit on a much smaller budget).

(Also, it seems more than a little scabby that the none of the reward tiers seem to come with a permanent copy of the film, just one off viewings).

Amanda Palmer is a good case in point about how 'wealthy' artists can experience a crowd funding backlash. After shattering music funding records with her $1 million drive, she rightly attracted criticism for then inviting musicians to 'volunteer' at her gigs - even though she could most certainly pay them for the 'privilege'.

Kickstarter can be a great method for getting passion projects off the ground and the raw cost of production covered - but the better established the artist, the more open to exploitation the whole system is. If funders are happy to pay a little extra for some vaguely exclusive content and items (and there's always the more money than sense crowd - four people have already chosen Braff's $8,000 plus tiers), fair enough, but curious to see what people's limits would be.

SVG

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

(Also, it seems more than a little scabby that the none of the reward tiers seem to come with a permanent copy of the film, just one off viewings).

Well, according to the site, he's not giving away any copies of the film because it could "scare off the good distributors" (affect his bottom line). It's all about the integrity (free money).

S.M.B.

Poor Melissa Joan Hart is struggling away at $35,900 after nearly 2 weeks.

Hopefully a few high profile failures will keep this in check.

I contributed to the Veronica Mars project but I have serious reservations about it being used as a long term financial model within the industry.

ziedth

Up to 1.4m he should be well over his target by tomorrow. I really like Braff so I'm delighted for him, hard not to imagine him having at least a good portion of that money handy. He's surely worth 30 odd million

the_syco

The kickstarter gains money, and free publicity. The Boondocks kickstarter about "Uncle Ruckus" will hopefully get made, and it's disclaimer is just as good

Of course, with any Kickstarter campaign, there are always the perks – and, as expected, McGruder has delivered. With tiers ranging from the Honey Boo-Boo level to the Ronald Reagan (666) level, fans can choose to donate between $1 to $10,000 and end up with rewards ranging from an original Uncle Ruckus track, a DVD pre-order (Clint Eastwood level – $25) or even a producer credit, which comes with tickets to the premiere as well as a role in the film.

If, by chance, The Uncle Ruckus film doesn’t receive all of its $200,000 funding, all perks will still be delivered to the recipients, and an Uncle Ruckus Saves America mockumentary will be produced in its place.

=-=

I view kickstarters as getting the money before making the product, as opposed to getting the product made, and selling it in the hopes of repaying the loan. Free advertisement also helps.

S.M.B.

the_syco wrote: »

I view kickstarters as getting the money before making the product, as opposed to getting the product made, and selling it in the hopes of repaying the loan. Free advertisement also helps.

Well in Braff's case he isn't offering the actual product as part of any reward package so this just isn't the case.

He's basically looking to profit out of peoples good will towards him as a brand. There's no other explanation imo.

This is a very bad precedent to set imo.

jonnyfingers

S.M.B. wrote: »

Well in Braff's case he isn't offering the actual product as part of any reward package so this just isn't the case.

He's basically looking to profit out of peoples good will towards him as a brand. There's no other explanation imo.

This is a very bad precedent to set imo.

Exactly. I supported a friend's band on Kickestarter, they needed £1000 to make an album. In return for certain, small levels of funding you get the finished album. So I view it as a way of almost guaranteeing your audience before you make the product, effectively £1000 of pre-sales if you will.

In Braff's case you're paying to help fund the movie initially but for most funding levels you don't even get a ticket to see it. So you'll still have to pay to see it afterwards, and he'll still make a nice little profit if it's successful.

I think it would work if it was a labour of love project that could be released on DVD with those who fund it getting a copy. For theatrical releases I'm not sure it's appropriate.

expectationlost

shouldn't he say how much he putting in himself?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

My friend showed me an article yesterday listing the highest paid actors on US TV in 2008, or maybe it was 2007, but anyway Braff was 3rd on it with $350,000 per episode of Scrubs. Now he probably wasn't getting this for the early seasons, but even just for one season, and just 20 episodes (although most seasons are more) he'd have made $7,000,000 for one season. Obviously there'd be tax on that, but that's still one hell of a pay cheque. He did 9 seasons of that show, so you have to wonder why he can't bankroll this himself?

I think someone all ready asked the question how much is he financing himself? Is he putting up half and then looking for the kickstarter campaign to match it? Or is he looking entirely to kickstarter to fund it?

Surely if you believe in something enough to ask other people to back it you should be willing to back it yourself?

Rascasse

He's not looking for Kickstarter to fund it all, he says in the video he's putting in money himself. I'd imagine he won't know how much until the Kickstarter's finished (or maybe the film is in the can).

Personally, I don't think it's a terrible idea. If you back it up by at least $30 you get an online screening so you get to see it for little more than the cost of a couple of cinema tickets (plus you get the screenplay, production diary etc if you care about that stuff), and for another $10 you get a T-shirt on top.

He has also commented about the idea of people investing in the films. That is currently illegal in the US but it will be legal soon. So in the future it may be possible to invest in these sorts of projects but I don't know if if it would be worthwhile, I think the 'kick us a few bucks and you get the product' system is easier to manage for everyone involved.

That said, no chance I'm backing a film where I might not get to see it for 16 months.

AnonoBoy

My biggest problem with this is that I thought Garden State was a limp handshake of a film.

expectationlost

you've probably already read Tim Heidecker wrote a page of Zach Braff's directorial follow-up to Garden State, and it's not very nice http://www.avclub.com/articles/tim-heidecker-wrote-a-page-of-zach-braffs-director,96996/

well now somebody filmed the scene lol http://www.avclub.com/articles/and-now-somebody-has-filmed-tim-heideckers-zach-br,97033/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

AnonoBoy wrote: »

My biggest problem with this is that I thought Garden State was a limp handshake of a film.

I agree. I read that Braff had some studio interest but they wanted him to work with certain people, he was adamant that he wanted to work with a lot of the same people he worked with before. Which screams Garden State 2 - Electric Boogaloo to me.

AnonoBoy

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I agree. I read that Braff had some studio interest but they wanted him to work with certain people, he was adamant that he wanted to work with a lot of the same people he worked with before. Which screams Garden State 2 - Electric Boogaloo to me.

I didn't think the cast were the problem though. He just needs a good script editor to knock all the soppy melodramatic nonsense out of it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I didn't think the cast were the problem though. He just needs a good script editor to knock all the soppy melodramatic nonsense out of it.

I don't think he was talking just about the cast though, I think he meant in general use the same people for everything. He also mentioned how the studio wanted final cut which he was 100% against. Which might not necessarily be a bad thing if there's a bunch of stuff you really should have cut.

Kinski

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

He also mentioned how the studio wanted final cut which he was 100% against. Which might not necessarily be a bad thing if there's a bunch of stuff you really should have cut.

Depends on the instincts of the people involved, who in Hollywood we can assume are suits who'll probably make bad choices based on a bunch of assumptions about what the audience wants.

Equally though, some film fans can be a little too precious about "auteur" directors, as if artworks have to be solely the vision of one individual "genius" - as if it's always better that the main creative force makes all the calls.

The film industry has, I'm sure, had many unsung heroes down the years (perhaps sometimes even uncredited.) The publishing industry too: back in the days when they actually gave a s***, publishers employed very talented editors to work closely with writers, in ways which would often have improved their work.

Jamie Starr

If people don't want to pay for it, then they can torrent it when it comes out. I think the perks he's offering are fair (if you really love Zach Braff), the film seems ambitious and I think it's important to fund a creative person if you want to see the creative thing they do, regardless of how wealthy they are.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

If people don't want to pay for it, then they can torrent it when it comes out. I think the perks he's offering are fair (if you really love Zach Braff), the film seems ambitious and I think it's important to fund a creative person if you want to see the creative thing they do, regardless of how wealthy they are.

True, but you could also argue that there are talented people using kickstarter to fund a project as it's their only option and they don't have the luxury of turning down interested studios. Are their opportunities being lessened by people like Braff using kickstarter?

Are there restrictions on who can or can't use it? Should there be?

It would be interesting to know how much people donating to Braff, or indeed to the Veronica Mars one, have donated to kickstarter projects before? Are they actually interested in supporting the arts, or encouraging creative people, or do they just want to have their name on a Zach Braff project?

Jamie Starr

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It would be interesting to know how much people donating to Braff, or indeed to the Veronica Mars one, have donated to kickstarter projects before? Are they actually interested in supporting the arts, or encouraging creative people, or do they just want to have their name on a Zach Braff project?

Well, you could ask that same question about any studio he would've gone to in order to get financing. People pay for what they want to want to see - I donated $10 to a film I wanted to see on Indiegogo but that doesn't give me a badge of honour because it was a student film - I just wanted to see it, so I stumped up to help it get made.

Very few people finance a film, or make a film, or see a film, out of the goodness of their hearts. Even people who see films for nothing feel cheated if it isn't any good. Everyone wants to be rewarded, and I think as long as Zach Braff delivers the film, he should be entitled to use Kickstarter.

Also he would've reached his goal in 50 seconds if he had put "Spend the Night with Natalie Portman" as a $2 million dollar donation perk.

JohnFalstaff

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I didn't think the cast were the problem though. He just needs a good script editor to knock all the soppy melodramatic nonsense out of it.

Going on his previous efforts he might not be left with much material...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

How much of this money will go to paying The Shins to soundtrack the movie?

Thwip!

So what I'm hearing is.....he's not making Dr. Acula

Dozen Wicked Words

Didn't take him long to hit his target. Hopefully he will spend the funders money wisely.

http://www.rte.ie/ten/2013/0428/braffz.html

I kept meaning to reply to this but always got distracted. Talking to a friend of mine today and he told me that he had donated $200 as he felt that Braff should be given the opportunity to make his film. I was a bit taken aback as it seemed the my friend genuinely believed that without the donations Braff would be unable to make the film.

I'm a big fan of kickstarter and think that it has given some truly exceptional people the opportunity to produce some wonderful projects but in the case of Braff and a few others, (I'm looking at you Amanda Palmer) it's being abused by wealthy people who simply should not be allowed to use it to fund projects. Braff is one of the most successful sitcom stars of the past decade and was earning $350.000 per episode of Scrubs and is certain to be receiving residuals cheques for a couple of million each year. If he wanted to he could easily finance Wish I Was Hear out of his own pocket but thanks to kickstarter he can make the film he wants at no personal risk to himself.

Most of the rewards are laughable, give Braff 10 grand and you can have a line in his film that may be cut. There was a time when a part was cast based on talent but now people like Braff can effectively have fans pay for the privilege to be in his film. It's somewhat insulting that Braff thinks a fan should pay 10 thousand to be in his film. Give him 7 grand and you can name a character or help him decide on the final cut, though let's be honest, there's not a chance that Braff is going to allow anyone but himself to be involved in the final edit. Somewhat ironic that one of the incentives to contribute is to be allowed advise on the final cut when the sole reason for starting the kickstarter was so that he could have complete creative control.

What Braff has done with his kickstarter is guarantee that no matter what happens he won't be out of pocket a penny. If the film makes 10 million he'll be laughing all the way to the bank and receive a massive financial windfall. And if the film fails miserably, well it won't cost him a dime.

About 30 seconds after I posted the above someone linked me to Ken Levine's thoughts regarding Braff's project.

Zach Braff is trying to raise money on Kickstarter to fund a movie he wants to make. Zach Braff is a good actor and a fine filmmaker. GARDEN STATE was a terrific movie. But I wouldn’t give him a dime.

Why?

Because it defeats the whole purpose of Kickstarter.

The idea – and it’s a great one – is that Kickstarter allows filmmakers who otherwise would have NO access to Hollywood and NO access to serious investors to scrounge up enough money to make their movies. Zach Braff has contacts. Zach Braff has a name. Zach Braff has a track record. Zach Braff has residuals. He can get in a room with money people. He is represented by a major taent agency. But the poor schmoe in Mobile, Alabama or Walla Walla, Washington has none of those advantages.

So someone who otherwise might have funded the Mobile kid instead will toss his coins to Zach Braff because he figures it’s a better bet and he gets to rub shoulders with show business.

Yes, it might take Zach Braff a year of knocking on doors to get his money, so now he figures, hey, just show up, sit back, and let the cash come to me. This is not an option Walla Walla kid has. I’m throwing my support to those who really NEED it.

Recently, Kickstarter was used to fund a new VERONICA MARS movie. This is obscene to me. It’s a known television series distributed by a major studio. Are you a big fan of VERONICA MARS? Want to support it? Great. Buy ten tickets and see the movie ten times.

This is what Hollywood does, dear reader. It sees an opportunity for exploitation and takes it. The Sundance Film Festival is another prime example. At one time it showcased modest little movies by unknown filmmakers. Kevin Smith made CLERKS – a grimy black and white film starring all unknowns. The result was discovered talent. Now look at the festival. Every entry features major Hollywood stars. During the festival they all descend upon Park City, along with Harvey Weinstein, reps from every major studio, and a thousand CAA and William Morris agents. Any hint of the original purpose of the film festival has long since vanished.

If Will Ferrell or Brad Pitt – just to name two random examples – are in an independent film, do they really need a film festival to get Harvey Weinstein to screen their film? The chubby nerd from New Jersey who maxed out his credit cards to make a film about a local convenience store couldn’t. He needed a film festival. He needed an audience to appreciate his effort before he could be recognized. And now today’s equivalent of a young Kevin Smith can’t even get his movie into a festival much less Harvey Weinstein’s screening room.

Sundance is a lost cause. But Kickstarter isn’t. Not if we put a stop to this now. If you only have so much money to give to charity, give it to cancer research and not to help redecorate Beyonce’s plane. Support young hungry filmmakers. The next Kevin Smith is out there… somewhere. He (or she) just needs a break, which is what Kickstarter is supposed to provide. Zach Braff can find his money elsewhere. He did once before. He’ll make his movie. And if it’s half as good as GARDEN STATE I will praise it to the heavens in this blog and urge you to go spend your money to check it out.

When I used to broadcast for the Orioles one of my partners was the legendary Chuck Thompson. Most of our games were at night. Chuck was an avid golfer. He played the public courses and only on weekdays. He used to say the weekends were for the “working man.” Chuck could play any day he wanted, they could only play on Saturday and Sunday so he didn’t want to take one of their starting times. It’s a great way to live by.

Kickstarter is for the “working man,” Zach. And VERONICA. And (soon) Harvey.

Hello to all the new readers as this post has apparently gone viral. Please feel free to look around and come back. I'm usually funnier than this.

Oafley Jones

Deleted User wrote: »

About 30 seconds after I posted the above someone linked me to Ken Levine's thoughts regarding Braff's project.

Agree with most of what he says, but... The next Kevin Smith! There's a label that should have every aspiring film maker shudder.

expectationlost

melissa joan hart didn't get her two million *sad trombone*

but surely she has ten times the money that zach has, two syndicated shows? acting in things since she was a kid?

only raised 50K ouch http://mashable.com/2013/05/14/melissa-joan-hart-kickstarter-fail/

JP Liz V1

Always thought Garden State was overrated myself

Sad Professor

Yeah, I never liked Garden State. Too self-consciously quirky and twee. Like a poor man's Cameron Crowe. (Ironically Crowe appeared to rip the film off the following year.) It also put an end to my teenage infatuation with Natalie Portman which I'd had since Beautiful Girls.

johnny_ultimate

I can easily see how Garden State has won its loyal fanbase, because when I was around fifteen-sixteen, I was part of it too. It hit me at just the right time - when I was (over)welcoming of anything distinctive. It gelled nicely with my developing music taste at the time, and I loved the visual design (and, as relentlessly artificial as it all is, there's plenty of cool production design touches in the film). Unlike Prof. it only enhanced my Portman infatuation - despite the absolute crap she has to spout in the film (there are times she's written like a twelve-year old), she's charming in spite of it.

But while many films I discovered around that time - Eternal Sunshine, Spirited Away, Lost in Translation - remain favourites, Garden State has been left way behind. It's so completely manufactured and hyper-quirky, and basically just masking the most derivative of rom-coms. I have some residual nostalgic fondness for it - although, TBH, it's been a good six or seven years since I've watched it at this point - but there's an awful lot of stuff in it that makes me cringe when I think about. It's like that Secret nonsense - the kind of vague fluff that believes it's life-changing, and many buy into the myth.

I do think Braff could be capable of something better when he's a bit more mature - at least he does think visually and musically, even if his soundtracks are just glorified mix-tapes - but selling this as a spiritual sequel to Garden State doesn't fill me with great confidence I must admit.

On the plus side, it does feature two fantastic songs from The Shins, and it plays a **** lot better than Elizabethtown which is an absolute abomination of a film. It actually takes almost everything wrong with Garden State and somehow makes it about twenty times more grating.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

On the plus side, it does feature two fantastic songs from The Shins, and it plays a **** lot better than Elizabethtown which is an absolute abomination of a film. It actually takes almost everything wrong with Garden State and somehow makes it about twenty times more grating.

I really like Elizabethtown

I just like to look at it. I find it relaxing.

JP Liz V1

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I really like Elizabethtown

I just like to look at it. I find it relaxing.

Bloom was miscast there

Nervous Wreck

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Bloom was miscast there

Bloom was misborn.

I remember watching Garden State at a film festival before it became a critical darling and quite enjoyed it though it's limitations were obvious. Some of the people I saw it with were falling over themselves to proclaim it the greatest thing ever produced and a strikingly original work of art. Recently one of those people held a screening of it as they firmly believe that it is one of the most important pieces of film ever made. I managed about 20 minutes before getting up and heading to the nearest bar. It's very much a film of it's time and much as I enjoyed it at the time watching it now and it's limitations and shortcomings are only more obvious. Really hope that if Braff makes this spiritual sequel, as he's selling it that he does something a little more substantial though I imagine that those backing want little more than Garden State 2.0.

Nervous Wreck

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Bloom was misborn.

To be fair to Bloom, he's shown himself to be a great voice actor in the likes of Tron: Uprising, which was up there with the greatest animated series of the last decade, with Legend of Aang and Legend of Korra.

But I think that might have been Elijah Wood? Off to IMDB! Yup. That was Elijah Wood. I now can't think of any redeeming factors for Bloom. Never mind.

Sad Professor

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I really like Elizabethtown

I just like to look at it. I find it relaxing.

I haven't watched it in a long time, but I don't think it's that bad either. However, it does have one of the clunkiest openings to a film I've ever seen. I remember seeing it in the cinema and thinking "uh oh". I'd say about 90 percent of viewers decide it's sh*t in the first 10 minutes.

JP Liz V1

Braff's film sold at Sundance Source

Posted this on facebook earlier today and the more I read about Braff and this film the more I dislike him.


"As I said last year, once Zach Braff (a multimillionaire many times over) got his kickstarter money he would forget about all those that supported his film and it appears that I was correct. Braff didn't even thank those who funded his film when premiering it at Sundance and backers who made the trip were unable to get tickets for it. A large number of those who gave hundreds/thousands of dollars to Braff haven't even got their rewards yet."

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ More fool them for backing it. There are plenty of people who genuinely need backing on websites like kickstarter that they could give their money to but instead they give it to this guy who could probably have gotten it from any number of other sources.

Anyway... I only read one review and it wasn't glowing but it wasn't scathing wither. Implies it starts out okay but loses it's way in the middle.

S.M.B.

From what I can tell it's getting great reviews and the consensus seems to be that the Kickstarter fund gave him some creative freedom which is clearly visible from watching the movie.

johnny_ultimate

In fairness, if you casually head to the Sundance film festival expecting a ticket to the world premiere a film of significant media and public interest you're asking for a fall. The one thing about Kickstarter is that it's at least transparent - you know what you're paying for, and unless you specifically paid for 'ticket to premiere' (which I believe people did) then you're not entitled to it regardless of your contribution. After all, there's at least 46,000 other fans looking to see it as well. I'm still a bit torn on how I feel about the whole project - although it's encouraging to see many critics say they think the crowdfunding was justified given the final product - but I also think people need to be realistic regardless of how much money they chose to contribute.