Are freaking idiots that have no idea how the film industry (or any other industry) works. If filmmakers used their own money to make movies there would be so few movies made that there'd be no such thing as a multiplex and everyone in Hollywood would be broke.
Joseph Chastainme
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marks-the-series/806493646056177
If filmmakers used their own money to make movies there would be so few movies made that there'd be no such thing as a multiplex and everyone in Hollywood would be broke.Mel Gibson disagrees. See The Passion of the Christ (2004) share
Wow one exception. You really got me there [/sarcasm]
Gibson has ten times the money that Braff has at least.
Joseph Chastainme
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marks-the-series/806493646056177
The fact remains that Zach Braff had the money to fund the film and he chose to claim that he didn't and used kickstarter for funding. Whether or not Mel Gibson had more money or not is irrelevant.
George Lucas cut his director's salary down to a mere pittance to get Star Wars made. He got his movie made with studio funds by taking a pay cut. Did Zach consider taking a pay cut?
You have no idea how Hollywood works. Even if he had money to fund the film it is a horrible idea to do it. AND EVEN IF HE HAD MONEY HE DIDN'T HAVE MONEY FOR THE FILM.
It's not like he forced anyone to fund it in Kickstarter, people made the decision to themselves. If they regret it it is their problem. Braff has nothing to be ashamed of.
Meanwhile you KEEP posting on this board complaining about him. Put your energies into righting REAL wrongs. Braff did nothing wrong at all.
Joseph Chastainme
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marks-the-series/806493646056177
You have no idea how Hollywood works.Quite the contrary. It takes money to make a film. If you have the money, you can get it made. Zach had the money, but he wanted others to pay for it.
AND EVEN IF HE HAD MONEY HE DIDN'T HAVE MONEY FOR THE FILM.No need to shout... but yes, he did.
Braff has nothing to be ashamed of.Except perhaps how much this movie failed, while his original movie succeeded. share
No he didn't have the money. Even if he had twice the money the film costs to make that's a real serious blow to have happen to you if you lose it all. Imagine you lost half your income or even a tenth of it. Braff couldn't afford to take the risk. Less than 1% of people in Hollywood could.
Joseph Chastainme
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marks-the-series/806493646056177
No he didn't have the money.Yes, he did. Zach was making $350,000 per episode during "Scrubs" from Season 7 onward and reports online give him a net worth of $22 million.
Clerks only cost $25,000. This movie cost millions. More than ten percent of Braff's net worth. That's a HUGE investment. You obviously don't understand how it works. He's be in a tough place if he lost that much money.
Also you don't know that he's really worth $22 Million. That's just what's being reported. I know a former TV star who was reported to be worth $1 Million, but isn't worth near that. And don't forget, just because someone is worth that much money, doesn't mean that they have all that money to sell. Most millionaires have money tied up in things like houses and cars. Here in California, there are millionaires that are poor. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true.
Joseph Chastainme
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marks-the-series/806493646056177
Clerks only cost $25,000. This movie cost millions.Because Kevin Smith set himself up for a budget, Zach wanted MORE.
That's a HUGE investment. You obviously don't understand how it works.No, it's perfectly clear how it works. Zach knew this movie would flop (hence the reason why he was ALREADY turned down by the studios). It really is that simple.
Here in California, there are millionaires that are poor. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true.That's called "living above your means". Happens all over the world, not just California. share
[deleted]
Imagine you lost half your income or even a tenth of it.
Braff couldn't afford to take the risk. Less than 1% of people in Hollywood could.
You have no idea how Hollywood works.
Even if he had money to fund the film it is a horrible idea to do it.
AND EVEN IF HE HAD MONEY HE DIDN'T HAVE MONEY FOR THE FILM.
I heard of this one flick, Psycho...... some no talent hack named Hitchcock made that with his own money...
shareMel Ginson disagrees? Who gives a sh#t? He's a bigoted anti Semite. I believe his last movie was about a beaver hand puppet that had negative numbers at the box office. He only got that movie because people speculate he's the father of Jody Fosters children. Maybe if Mel watched this, he wouldn't curse police officers pulling him over for drunk driving. Passion was a horrible interpretation of Jesus.
shareThe question wasn't about whether or not Mel Gibson was a decent human being; it was regarding why one would not put up their own money to make a movie.
And Mel Gibson is a proven success at doing exactly that.
You may not care for the movie and you may not care for the man, but he used his own money for his own movie and he made a lot as a result. Zach begged for money, despite having the funding himself, and failed miserably.
Plus, I don't know how he funded the Passion, but the blessed film might have made a billion dollars.
sharePlus, I don't know how he funded the Passion, but the blessed film might have made a billion dollars.
shareWhen someone has a net worth of well over $20,000,000 they shouldn't be using crowdfunding to fund their films.
No one is an idiot for thinking that.
I strongly disagree...
Fund your movie however you can I say.
Some people fund them themselves, some people take a pay cut to convince a studio to back it. Most use a form of venture capitalism.
At the end of the day, what does it matter really...
In the end, the film seems to have made more of a splash over how it was funded, and that is dumb...
Fund your movie however you can I say.
At the end of the day, what does it matter really...
In the end, the film seems to have made more of a splash over how it was funded, and that is dumb...
It is common for many actors and directors to self finance their own projects. Any time you see an actor get an executive producer credit it is because they invested their own money. Most people do it at some point in their career. Unfortunately, YOU have no idea how Hollywood works. Here is a list of many examples:
Kiefer Sutherland was an executive producer on 24, Touch, and the Confession.
Jenna Fischer was an executive producer for later episodes of the Office as well as an indie movie called the Giant Mechanical Man
Jonathan Rhys Meyers was an executive producer on a short film called Pass the Salt, Please
That's three examples from hundreds that are out there.
Your homework for being an idiot is to reasearch ten random successful actors and see how many of them have executive producing credits. There is a lot of money to be made by investing in film and television, that's why actors do it all the time.
I'm amazed that you didn't toss Zach Braff himself into that category with "Scrubs".
shareI predict that the OP will not touch this post with a 10 foot pole.
sharedo you think Zach cares about you? or read your posts defending him? you are insignificant to him. invisible.
Not sure why you are sticking up for him this hard,
the worst thing is that I do agree that if people wanted to give him money for the movie who are we to stop them, they chose to waste money on the project so who gives a crap.
But your posts... like you are some kind of defender or something. why?