Me: (tries to visit a local restaurant’s website via iPhone)
Restaurant website: I require Flash. Fuck off.
Me: I just want to know how late you’re open.
Website: Nope.
Me: But I’m on my phone. Don’t you have a little “HTML Version” link up in the corner or something?
Website: I’m ignoring you.
Me: What if I’m on my phone because I’m out, looking for a place to eat? Didn’t that ever occur to you?
Website: Fuck entirely off.
Me: (gives up, switches to computer)
Website: Oh! Hi! What can I help you with today?
Me: What are your —
Website: Hang on, I’m loading the music.

Read the entire original post.

The first assumption is that one cannot build a site that is not “plain, square or flat” with open technologies. Most of the visual tricks you see on those bloated Flash sites can be accomplished with HTML and Javascript, and the open technologies that are built into the browsers discourage the bloat and delays. (Google has proven that slow sites drive users away.) With the HTML5 upgrades that are available in most browsers today, including iPhone, iPad and Android devices, you can really do some crazy stuff, not to mention the further advances that will become available in the next year or two. Keep an eye on Mozilla Drumbeat to see what filmmakers and other artists are developing with HTML5.

Even with the browsers available two and a half years ago when I wrote this post, open tools made it easier to build social features into a site, which I would argue are far more interesting and engaging than visual bells and whistles.

The second assumption with which I take issue is that big movies can take their audiences for granted. Even with a big, fat marketing budget, there’s always room to get more bang for your buck. And the idea that big films are immune to the same attention competition that’s affecting independent film just isn’t true. Remember, this year’s memorial day weekend box office was the worst in 17 years. The studios and major distributors are still trying alchemy – throw huge piles of money out and hope for the best. Websites that fail to honor audiences’ limited time and attention make up one of many examples of how Hollywood is clinging to obsolete techniques for marketing and storytelling.

Did I miss anything?

But in my personal opinion, I think movie sites should be built in Flash if and only if it’s a really big movie. Because people will visit it anyway no matter what technology it is built with. Take Harry Potter or Transformers for example. In one way or another, the fans have to somehow feel like and experience that it is somewhat like an extension of the film. Can you actually imagine a Harry Potter or Transformers site that is plain, square or flat? Although I’m hoping that in the future, with the advancement of technology, we are able to view these sites without having to look at a preloader.

I do think that we can build movie sites in plain HTML or WP if these movie sites are indies since these movies need to get their names out there. But for a movie that stars, say, Julia Roberts, I don’t think building a site that is non-SEO friendly will hurt their sales. Take Twilight for example. They have a Full Flash site but they’re earning millions even during the first few days of their release. If they built a plain HTML or WP website, what good is it going to do? Is it going to bring in more millions? What will it contribute? My 12-year old niece will go see Twilight because Robert Pattinson is in it. Not because it passed W3C standards. And when she sees their website, she is more drawn into the film.

However, if Twilight didn’t make it big the first time, I do think they should build it in plain HTML. But since that didn’t happen, I do like to keep it animated like it is now.

That’s just my two cents. I’d like to hear your thoughts :)

rock on!!! I hope it goes well!!!! super exciting!!!

One of my points was that it doesn’t matter so much in many other communities. So, to take the argument to the extreme (and being only half serious here) – you should be willing to wait a full year if needed to show that film that turns you down for our fest or Cinevegas or whoever. If the film opens in your town anyway, then perhaps your audience is getting served without your help. If it doesn’t open for that year – it’s still new to everyone in Atlanta. I also think you could bring it the next year with the filmmakers in attendance and still get an audience even if it played on tv or is online, etc.

I think regional fests can play with these models more than the big fests, and that’s what will keep them most vibrant to their community and the field. A filmmaker has to consider where is the best place for a premiere, and has to make some hard decisions – that’s not going to change anytime soon. What I was also encouraging was for filmmakers to be more inventive – maybe you do premiere in a big fest and tell regionals that you’d love to play there next, but you’ll also be available for sale on DVD/online before their fests take place, so people are paying for having the filmmaker there.

We made the decision to program the film to screen at the festival despite its availability on local cable VOD systems precisely because the festival experience is unique–and this will likely mark the only chance of screening this significant work by a filmmaker with a history at our festival in this market, with an audience, and in a theatre.

The only place where premiere status really seems to matter anymore is press coverage–and to some extent– industry cache. (But this is an illusion.)

From the point of view of the industry, “important” premieres are a sign of credibility. You hold for a “big” premiere because the big fest can set the stage for a major release. However, as more and more films choose this route, and end up…where exactly?…such debuts are become less and less significant. As for press–or whoever is left–internet coverage and bloggers have rendered so much of this useless. Because everything is technically archived online, the timing of a review is of less and less significance. Conversely, being first to press is also less important since written pieces are now accessible long after tomorrow’s fish is unwrapped, eaten, digested, and feeding future schools of fish.

Since moving to April, the Atlanta Film Festival has repeatedly been “Premiere” blocked by TFF (and this past year by CineVegas) an unnecessary practice that places filmmakers in the uncomfortable spot of going with a bird in the hand or waiting to the promise of two in the bush. We’ve had accepted films pulled by anxious producers, even after they’ve committed, once they got news of the premiere requirement elsewhere. Contractually, the Without a Box contract would allow us to screen the film anyway, but we were gracious, and honored their request. Some directors have screened here anyway (against the wishes of producers, or perhaps without their approval) as a “work in progress” or a “sneak preview” in advance of their (presumably) divinely sanctioned “Tribeca World Premiere.” I hope the TFF audiences who saw these films didn’t think of the experience as any less special as a result…

As a general rule, Atlanta makes programming decisions independent of premiere status–keeping an eye first on quality, and on what is right for our audiences. We take the application process seriously, and we give all consideration to every submission. This allowsx us to discover great new works, and to find emerging voices. (To DQ a submitted film b/c it screened elsewhere is disingenuous.) That some of these films are accepted to SXSW, or Sarasota, or Nashville is inevitable. But their programming choices don’t impact ours. We came to the discovery independent of their choices. Our audiences care little that a film has played elsewhere. Are they going to fly to Austin, or Florida or Tennesse to see the film? I’d much rather screen a great slate of fresh films (some of which have screened in other markets within weeks of ours) than World Premiere a slate of films knowing that we passed on great works only because they had the fortune of being accepted to SXSW, or Sarasota, or Nashville. Why should we penalize our audiences, penalize the filmmakers, and challenge these other fests to a pissing match? This practice cripples a filmmakers’ ability to formulate a proper release strategy, and limits their options for which markets they’ll be able to reach.

For marketing reasons, festivals themselves ARE forced to enter the fray, if only to gain the attention of the press. IndieWIRE’s piece about the Atlanta Film Festival mentioned some, but not all, of our World and American premieres. We mentioned a few of them in our press release only because we knew they’d make the cut. Ironically, we don’t track the status as closely as we should because we are dubious of filmmakers who make such a big deal about it. (In fact, there were more than a few films that we learned were world premieres only when the filmmakers said so a the screenings themselves!)

Our opening night film “THE PEOPLE SPEAK” officially world premiered with us, despite the fact that it had played as a “work in progress” in about ten other markets (including a screening late last year in Atlanta!) That it screened elsewhere little effected the impact of sitting in the screening room with Senator John Lewis as his words were passionately reenacted by Danny Glover…nor did it quell the excitement of having Eddie Vedder, supported by his PJ band mates there just to watch the film, answer post-screening Q&A from adoring fans. Hearing Zinn, Moore, Robinson, Ealy, and Josh Brolin discuss the film in detail, and in person, is truly a life changing experience. That this particular screening *technically* marked the film’s premiere is a nice feather in our cap–but it in no way affected our decision to screen the film. Nor did it make one iota of difference to those in the auditorium watching the film, interacting with the cast, and experiencing the transformative magic cinematic transcendence!

As the importance of festival screenings (especially in urban markets like Atlanta) becomes more and more evident to producers and filmmakers in a film’s overall marketing plan, their impression of “premiere status” will change.