Filmmaking / Directing : Celebrity crowd funding by Alfredo Masin

I thought it was six different types of bullshit, and the campaign said nothing about his film.

There is a time when one needs to put aside their pained past and look at the new dawn with hopeful eyes. CrowdFunding is the first legitimate opportunity for EVERYONE to bring the process of movie finance closer to reality. We have built a country - one of the greatest - not by putting down others but by building up everyone. CrowdFunding will work for all that choose a positive pathway to creativity and, while there will always be advantages for those who are already front-runners in social media penetration, it will be a democratic opportunity for those who choose to work at it. FINALLY the added value provided by the project is your CrowdVestor decision. Is putting down $50.00 worth it to you. If so DO IT and be happy. If not move on and look for the next great thing. Never saw a spike lee movie but if good old John Wayne was around I would invest without a moments hesitation... hehehehehe

He should sell his Knicks tickets.

I totally agree with Lee's POV. It's nobody's business what he earns, and why should he put his own money into his project? The concept that Spike Lee having a project somehow detracting from other projects is unfounded. Where's the proof? People will put their five bucks into whatever project they believe in. If the struggling filmmaker can't raise $1000, it's because he/she didn't prepare adequately for the crowdfunding and/or doesn't have a project that energizes followers. That's not Spike's fault. He's put in his time and work building a fan base. Let him reap the rewards of it. It's not like the big studio system is about to back anything artistic he might want to make.

If the film hits big, does he give the money back?

True independent artists finally had an avenue to raise funds for small projects and get their careers going. Most cant walk into a studio and negotiate deals, or go to angel investors and get funding without a proven track record. There is no way we can compete with the Zach Braff's and Spike Lee's who are getting famous actors to help advertise and sell for them. Anyone who believes this is going to be a small part of the crowd funding future is delusional. Just like independent films were overshadowed by studio flicks in your local video store, the influx of big name projects will definitely push the rest to the side.

Great comments and point of views guys! I still think however that (Like EB says) with time, upcoming indie artists will be pushed aside by the big names. For me its just basic logic ... if i am able to pay for a 30 million $ home .... how can i find it ok to ask around for 5$ here and there to make a new movie? What is the reasoning/logic behind that? What is the purpose? For me it just doesn't make any sense.

To give or not to give.....It's an open use to ALL artist. Fans have their own right to donate or not. Reasoning, logic, purpose who cares. He has friends and fans who are willing to donate ON THEIR OWN with no pointing of a gun to their head. To do or not to do . . . let it be, dwelling on the whys is a waste of time and energy. Not being rude just being honest. Break a leg.

When I ran an indiegogo campaign, while most of my funders were people we know, the majority of the money came from total strangers. Those strangers started using indiegogo because other projects led them to the platform. A few celebrities drawing thousands of new users to the crowdfunding platform gives us all a larger audience to pitch our projects to.

Very true Jim it brings more traffic to the site.

I did a blog post on this before Spike did his thing. http://1st10pages.com/2013/07/12/great-stories-that-breed-greater-karma/ I think it is a new proof of performance model -- and there is the argument that no one 'in H'wood puts up money for their own projects. I do wish those that fit into this category would pay it forward however.

Spike isn't the first 'established' name to use crowd funding and he won't be the last. What gets me is that crowd funding was developed as a way for the indie producer (not just film either) to have a platform to raise funds. Now I see the established names coming out of the woodwork to use this platform to get 'pet' projects off the ground. I have feeling they have already tried the official roads to funding and have probably been turned down for whatever reason (maybe due to the noncommercial value of the project??) So they ask the general public to finance their film... My question is this... If the funds raised get everybody paid including the person asking for the funds then the film has officially cost them nothing. Does that mean they will give the finished product away to the public for free via online means? I doubt it. I bet we see these movies then hitting the theater and then DVD at full price for the public to buy. This worries me as I can fully see the studios actually being behind these crowd sourcing ventures... Using established director names to get the very audience they are selling to to finance the product they will eventually ask us to pay to see. But, as mentioned above, its down to the crowd.

y'all be funny

Gotta love it!!

@gary charles: i have nooo doubt studios r behind this. if i'm not mistaken, the studio behind the veronica mars movie said: raise this amount and we back you up.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be used... I'm just stating an opinion... If people wish to put money into a film then that is their choice... Personally I would rather support a strong indie concept rather than something coming from someone who is established. This is only an opinion and everyone will be different... It'd be boring it we weren't.

Debate is healthy, Garry. And, as these things go, this one is healthy and productive.

The more we know, the more we grow.

I don't think the established filmmakers are wrong for using crowdfunding, or that they are trying to "get over" on anybody. They have projects they want funded like everyone else and there isn't a success level ceiling for crowdfunding. I agree like some above they will initially bring a wider audience to the platform that could help lesser known filmmakers with there projects. I just believe over the course of time, crowdfunding for filmmakers will become more of a vehicle for major productions. It's not a Zach Braff or Spike Lee issue it will just organically evolve because of the nature of the industry.

This is the same path the music industry is also going. Why sign to a studio when I can write, produce and advertise my own stuff? I know Adam Carolla is doing the same thing but on a less popular crowdfunding site: "FUND ANYTHING". I'm a bit on the fence regarding the issue in that, here you have filmmakers with the connections, the people and the finances to make a movie turning to crowdfunding. On the other hand though. Most studio budgets are in the multi-millions and I don't foresee that ever succeeding on something such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo.

If your a fan of the persons work then you don't mine giving, if your not a fan don't give. We don't have the same fan base, and don't play on the same level as Spike, so I doubt he's taking any money any from new film makers. I'd love to have the people who I'm marketing to support my vision and it promotes ownership for artist vs the studio owning it.

Another angle people aren't seeing from our level (because how could we) is that in Spike's league it's a whole different game and mindset and it's like a triangle. The higher up you get the tighter the room and the more studios dictate to you what types of film to make if you want them to distribute. And don't be a minority or female, that presents an entirely separate set of hurdles. To mirror the example Hardy makes about the music industry look at how Prince and George Michael had the courage to denounce what the public was blind to see while too busy ooohing and ahhing these PEOPLE. And that is that they were just glorified employees of the industry. Well..Spike and many others whose numbers are growing as I type are tired of being dictated to as to how to produce their art. Any smart businessman knows that you use other peoples money to do business. The result can be beneficial for all if the project succeeds and sometimes even if it doesn't and having the backing of your peers and market is only the inevitable step to the future of funding of all types. Before you know it major companies will be on Kickstarter saying "help us make this for you". Sound crazy? No crazier than 8 years ago someone saying Walmart would have a Facebook. I'm just sayin...

Spot on. Many musicians are liking the idea of going independent because they can do what they want when they want, taking a page out of Macklemore's book. How many times have you heard of your favorite artist and then thinking "what a sell out"? Because the studio dictates what they must release. But I believe there are also actors doing the same with film such as Shia Labeouf (and a few others I can't think of at the moment) turning to Independent films. If Denzel Washington wanted to direct/produce/create his own film and couldn't find a studio willing to finance it, why not turn to the people?

The measure could give filmmakers access to $300 billion from regular Joes with net worth over $1 million who can own part of the movies they fund -- unlike Kickstarter. This story first appeared in the Aug. 16 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Like many filmmakers, Spike Lee is using Kickstarter, in his case, to raise $1.25 million for his next project. A $10 donation gets you an autographed postcard, for $1,000 you can be an extra, and for $10,000 he'll take you to dinner and a Knicks game. But one thing Lee and others who raise money through crowdfunding cannot offer -- because it is illegal -- is a share of profits should the movie be a hit. That, though, is about to change, paving the way for a revolution in "equity crowdfunding" that could give filmmakers access to big money from small investors hoping to make a buck in a glamorous industry. The change is coming courtesy of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which President Obama signed into law in April 2012 with the hope that removing some Depression-era restrictions on how fledgling businesses raise money could boost the economy. The first of the new rules is set to go into effect Sept. 23, and several players are gearing up for them. While Kickstarter has no plans for equity crowdfunding, rival Indiegogo does. It will have competition from upstarts EarlyShares, Crowdfunder, Slated and several others. PHOTOS: 20 Biggest Political Players in Hollywood Here's how it works: Now, startups are required to pitch investment opportunities to individuals rather than broadcast them to the masses. But Title II of the JOBS Act allows those seeking money to advertise investment opportunities on TV or via Facebook or Twitter -- wherever, including at crowdfunding sites. Potential investors must be "accredited," defined as an individual (or married couple) with a net worth of $1 million excluding their primary residence or an income exceeding $200,000 in the two most recent years ($300,000 for a couple). Under those rules, about 9 million Americans qualify. "It opens up access to a lot of capital for filmmakers," says Jason Best, co-founder of Crowdfund Capital Advisors. "There's a lot of people who are passionate about film but can't make one themselves, but they want to be a part of one. Soon, they can." Even "unaccredited" investors ultimately can participate via Title III, which should go into effect in 2014. Individuals with a net worth or annual income of $100,000 can invest 10 percent of their income, and those with a net worth or income less than that may invest up to 5 percent or $2,000, whichever is greater. (A filmmaker will be able to raise only up to $1 million a year per film from these investors.) Even with the restrictions, Best estimates that the equity crowdfunding market could reach $4 billion in four years, with a nice chunk of that going to filmmakers. STORY: Steven Soderbergh Explains Spike Lee Kickstarter Donation Critics might balk at novices investing in film, especially considering Hollywood's notoriously opaque accounting practices. But Jennifer Anderson, COO of crowdfunding player Slated, says sufficient safeguards still are in place. "Some people view the restrictions as onerous, so anyone going through the trouble of meeting them will probably be viewed as legitimate," says Anderson. "Most people don't want to voluntarily engage with the SEC." Still, filmmakers basically can set their own rules, including minimum investments and the structure of profit participation. Some could choose simplified metrics such as paying investors based on box office, while others might draft more complex profit definitions typically used by Hollywood studios. EarlyShares, based in Miami, already has partnered with 5X5 Media, a film and TV studio that will use EarlyShares to equity-crowdfund two microbudget movies this year. 5X5 CEO Guy Zajonc envisions at least two per year for the foreseeable future, with investors offered 50 percent of profits in perpetuity. In the future, predicts EarlyShares chairman Stephen Temes, "The audience will see a trailer and not only say, 'Wow, that looks great. I'd like to see it,' but also, 'That looks like such a great movie, I want to invest my hard-earned money into it.' " Temes says most filmmakers will require that accredited investors put up a minimum of $1,000 or much more but will set minimums far lower for unaccredited investors (perhaps $100) in hopes of attracting 2,000 investors who will become marketing evangelists. His firm will take up to an 8 percent fee for the movies it crowdfunds. VIDEO: Spike Lee to Kickstarter Critics: You're 'Plain-Out Wrong' Chicago attorney Corky Kessler of Deutsch, Levy & Engel already has lined up entertainment clients to pursue equity crowdfunding. Jeff Kehe is hoping to raise as much as $5 million to make a movie called A Gringo Walks Into a Cantina. "Independent filmmakers have had to rely on rich uncles and outright donations," says Kehe. "Now we're on an even playing field with actual entrepreneurs." When Title II kicks in, another company called Crowdfunder will have 500 accredited investors lined up with $200 million to spend, and CEO Chance Barnett is predicting his investors will plunk down $20 million to $30 million in 18 months to fund film projects. "There is $30 trillion in total personal savings and investment accounts in the U.S. If equity crowdfunding captures 1 percent, that represents $300 billion," says Barnett. He even sees opportunity for larger studios: "They can offload some risk while also marketing their film, with thousands of people talking about it while it's still in the funding stage."

I have a big issue with the celebrities using the crowdfunding sites. I thought it was supposed to be for the people that can't get funding etc surely Spike Lee can fund his own stuff? When the celebrities jump into the crowdfunding, all the press are interested in is their projects and the others don't stand a chance. I think the owners of the crowdfunding sites should put a stop to the celebrities using them.

YEAH!!! Let's introduce some discrimination into the game!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS Nicci!? One of the most liberating elements of our time unfolding right before our very eyes and you want to discriminate on who can use it!? No disrespect but first, you need to take a class on Business 101, second, you need to be suppressed so you know what it feels like. Third, you need to get in touch with reality and know the climate of such industries before you make those types of statements. The fact that celebs feel they HAVE TO go this route speaks volumes on an issue you're apparently blind to. You're not too far from me. I'd love to take you to lunch and bring you up to speed on things.

I'm still smh!

I was actually agreeing with what the original post says and it seems that most people commenting have the same opinion.

Understood...and warranted. "Most people" are speaking from the same angle and are unaware of the the same thing that you are and that's an "exposure" issue, which mind you is by design. I feel your point but I see way beyond it to the truth. So let's not go backwards. You want the press? Do profound work. Get on the net and display that work. Don't just get a camera and shoot a film in a day and upload it then look up into the sky for the money to fall or the gates of hollywood to open. If you think because Spike Lee has made millions he has hollywood POWER, you're wrong. In order to excercise the act which you can do in TOTAL freedom, he and most others at his level have pressures, stipulations, major debts, execs dictating what you put in your film, who, how, when, why and more...or you don't get their support which you soley rely on at that level...until now. That was the "Ahhhh" moment. What's that say about his money? How much POWER do you think he has? He's not the only or first celeb to go that route. You will see more. "The grass is not always greener". The revolution WILL NOT be televised...but it's unfolding right here in front of us on the net. Have a great day!

That's the problem with the exposure issue, the main stream media is going to talk about the celebrity projects more than focusing on the people that are struggling to get the money together to get the project done. Working hard on it myself, I know working in the industry money just isn't going to fall out of the sky and there is a lot of hard work involved. Spike Lee probably has more power than all of us combined and could raise the money himself. I know there will never be the rule that prohibits the celebrities to go on the likes of indigogo or kickstarter but it just stops the people that really need it from getting the funding.

hmmm

Double hmmmm...I'm sure there are a bunch of "Welcome to the club" thoughts at that one lol. Just keep pushing. It's ultimately the people who decide so rely on them not the media. Get it in front of as many people as you can and then do it again and again. Picture the media like a horse witt blinders on. It can only see what jumps right in front of it.

it only means that Spike Lee was flash in the pan. Self, I want to do a documentary about classic R&B

Hmmm, so then must be all (however few) before and all who may follow...would you say Randall?

About the music thaing - I have some of the most famous musicians in the world on my team for film ... but it does'nt seem to help

OUt of curiosity Is your project music based Randall?

well, a couple are, Derrick

all films should have a strong music base

True

<<< just enjoying the debate. It's rare to have a debate that doesn't lead to well we know the story. . . We all have our own views, it's just nice to be apart of a conversation that doesn't lead to name calling. I'm happy to be among everyone on this site. PFL (peace faith love) to us all. If we all agreed with each other we would just have stuck on stupid dancing on dumb kinda chats. and that's no fun. Happy TGIF eve to yall.

It is a nice feeling to be amongst friends....Who are upfront and honest with you... PFL

I love engaging in these conversations. We all have our angles of view and can have constructive dialog without it blowing into stupid stuff...and maybe we learn from each other in the process.

Exactly!! @Berry. We all view life differently. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. Thank you everyone for this chance to interact with ADULTS. I've only been here a week or so but enjoy this site to the fullest. I hope we all can continue to just take the time to see it from the other persons POV. (08 Have a great FRIDAY and a blessed weekend.

Thanks My_LA! Cause...I'm just sayin' lol!

righ righ IJS lol <3 it !!

Love this convo very much. Imagine if Spike Lee himself would join up in here? :p Peace to all of U. Let's all keep doing our thing! :) #artists

Now that would be interesting to really see his point of view.

I agree. This has been a great discussion. I'm sure many of you have seen by now, Spike hit his goal yesterday.

If anything .... celebrities should offer a percentage/return in $$ if the movie in question makes money. Now THAT is good business in my opinion. Why should only the studios and celebrity themselves make money and not ALL the investors? (don't know if this is already happening)

THAT is against the law Alfredo. Kickstarter has been so profound in changing the dynamics of inter and intra-state investment law that there is talk and I believe a modification of those very laws on the drawing board for revision due to such sites and their implementation into the mainstream way of doing things. If you note on Kickstarter you won't see "investors" anywhere. Because it's against the aforementioned laws to have investors across certain boundaries without the "company" being a certain designation governmentally. So that would mean YOU would have to form some sort of designated corporation and pay heavier taxes and other "fees" just to call them "investors". Also the backend of that is if it's stipulated that you owe them a return and your project fails...hello bankruptcy. This is my point in that people are talking all this talk without a basic knowledge of the inner workings of business and business law and truly appreciating the freedom such sites now give us ALL. You will see the people who have "pledged" are called "Backers" not investors because legally they cannot be and the company cannot legally "pay" them a return for their pledge. Thus "returns" are called "Rewards". Why isn't anyone complaining about the millionaires who start Kickstarters, only the "celebs"? The "average" millionaire (which I admit I'm throwing caution to the wind in assuming there are, but I'd say it's a solid bet) starting a Kickstarter no one complains about. Albeit we don't know who they all are but it seems so easy to just point fingers at the "celebs"...I feel this is indirectly a part of peoples social programming in thinking "celebs" are better than them. They (celebs) have more stresses and problems than we as independent filmmakers do and the higher up you go the tougher it gets. In the immortal words of Prince..."Be glad that you are free, free to change your mind, free to go most anywhere anytime. Be glad that you are free, there's many a man who's not, be glad for what you have baby what you've got...lol" I'm just sayin'..lmbo

Congrats to Spike and all who follow...rich or poor, but yes, I truly LOVE an underdog story most! Now I'm just waiting for my one page reward from the script of Malcom X which is priceless from my view.

From Kickstarter Co-founder, Yancey Strickler. Interesting read... http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spikelee/the-newest-hottest-spike-le...

Ok so after reading the article I will retract what I said before.

...hug. Vive le revolution! lol

aww and we all lived happily ever after

don't we wish! lol