Maybe I do not understand this particular Kickstarter (and the economics/dynamics of movie-making, among other things), but I did not find 'revenue', 'profit sharing' or other related words/phrases anywhere on the page, or in this HN discussion. I've seen the rewards column, and though I'd like to add 'indie movie producer' to my resume, I don't see any prospective returns for what is essentially a risky investment (term used loosely).
Zach Braff is a very successful TV/movie star, does he seriously not have $2m of his own to make this movie just the way he likes it? Like others, is this crowd-funding exercise also mostly for 'social proof'?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of Kickstarter. You are not an investor when you back a Kickstarter project. You're only paying in the hopes that this will help the project succeed, and for getting various prizes. For most Kickstarter project, you also get a first edition of the product or something similar if you pledge enough.
Quite simply, there is no profit-sharing or anything like that for Kickstarters. You pay money, get your reward (maybe - like you said, it's a risky investment). And that's the end of the transaction.
I understand that this is how kickstarter works, but don't really understand why everyone is OK with it.
Kickstarter is like a bake sale, where you pay more than the fair market value for things as a form of charity to support some activity. But projects like this remind me more of a bake sale to support your local major league baseball team (e.g. profits are used for the enrichment of a corporation/person(s)).
I would be much more likely to contribute to this project if, in the situation where the movie makes money, $2M (less the true cost of the rewards) were donated to something other than the bottom line of the real investors.
Just because he has 2 mil in the bank doesn't mean he should risk it on a movie...many actors/filmmakers have gone bankrupt doing that. It's because has millions of dollars he can afford to work on projects (like Wish I Was Here) with little financial reward.
Besides the things he's offering in each tier you get a movie that is the vision of the creator and not altered by other backers. I thought the idea behind most Kickstarter projects is that you see something you like which can't get made without help. You want it enough that you are willing to give the creator money to make it happen and they might give you something in return - although that doesn't matter. Your real 'prize' is that the thing you wanted created is now a reality.
Zach Braff is a very successful TV/movie star, does he seriously not have $2m of his own to make this movie just the way he likes it? Like others, is this crowd-funding exercise also mostly for 'social proof'?
Thanks to all who reply.