Q:Why did you give money to Zach Braff on kickstarter when kickstarter is primarily for unknowns to raise money? This is a person who is represented by a big agency, has the power to knock on doors to find funding, he really doesn't need to be on kickstarter.

icouldnthavetheurliwanted

well yes, he does need to be on kickstarter to make the film that he wants to make. He may have celebrity power to knock on doors but those doors are of people/producers/execs who would maybe/possibly want some kind of say in how the film is made or how the film finally appears in theatres and that’s not what Zach wants (and not what his fans would want either). I don’t even need to be telling you this, and neither does Zach in his intro video (you could watch that instead of asking me), it should be pretty clear.

He is using his own money, too (a lot of people seem to think he isn’t, which is stupid) - since, obviously, you can’t make a movie like this with only donations. He’ll take the donations and his own contributions to a studio and say “I have X amount of money, here’s the script, this is what I want to do - can you help me make this movie?” that’s better than going to a studio with no money and an script saying “can you help me make this movie and let me make it how I want to make it? you would have no say in choices during the process and no say in the final outcome” - the answer would be a flat no even if Zach stumped up a big wad of cash.

The fact is I want to see another Zach Braff movie, and if my tiny $10 donation will help make that happen then I am more than happy to pay it - especially if it means that the end product is a Zach Braff movie made by Zach Braff with no cuts or character choices made by execs and producers who might have invested most of the budget.

No director uses all of his own money to make a movie - it’s as simple as that - his net worth may be an estimated $22m but it makes no economic or monetary sense to make a movie with all of your own money or even some of your own and company money if you want to make a film where you have full, creative control over the process and final product.

so there.=)

  • 23 minutes ago

    • oh, JGL, you’re so much better than this. But, still, this looks kinda fun.

    Source: adamhowardcross

  • 3 hours ago
    • This image basically sums up my experience of Iron Man 3. Such a mess of a film - I thought Iron Man 2 was bad enough but 3 just brings it down a whole bunch of notches and makes 2 look fantastic. too much messing around with different suits and extra characters instead of focusing on a coherent, exciting story. oh well.
    Pop-upView Separately

    This image basically sums up my experience of Iron Man 3. Such a mess of a film - I thought Iron Man 2 was bad enough but 3 just brings it down a whole bunch of notches and makes 2 look fantastic.

    too much messing around with different suits and extra characters instead of focusing on a coherent, exciting story. oh well.

    Source: adamhowardcross

  • 1 day ago
  • 6

    • faineemae:

    “The men were said to have shouted “Allahu Akbar” as they attacked the man.”

    yeah, according to “media reports” which means absolutely nothing. This has nothing to do with religion, one of the men has been recorded in a video saying “I apologize that women had to witness that, but in our lands our women have to see the same thing….You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.”

    He doesn’t mention anything pertaining to religion. As usual it’s most likely speculation like what happened with Fox and CNN during the Boston bombings.

    also, can’t help but laugh at the reporter signing off with “the day Baghdad-style violence came to South London” …what.

  • 1 day ago > faineemae
  • 16

    • Top