We’ve been working with the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes producers to make Comic Con really cool for you guys.

First and foremost there’s going to be an awesome double bill screening of the original Attack of the Killer Tomatoes and Return of the Killer Tomatoes at PetCo park on Thursday night.

Click here for the full scoop on the screening.

Also, there’s going to be a contest for the best kill reaction to a tomato.  There’s going to be cool prizes for the the best deaths at the convention and there will also be an online contest (which the winner will have a chance to get cast in the AKT remake as a real tomato fatality).

More details on that as I get them.

Also Douglas and I will be around at the Tomatoes booth for plenty of autograph signing, etc.  The schedule for that is after the jump.

Also below the fold I’ll post an exclusive look at a giant Tomato that will be at the screening that will be killing people at the convention.

Friday, July 25

11:00 a.m.– noon          Autograph signing at booth.

3:00 – 4:00 pm             Autograph signing at booth.

Saturday, July 26

11:00 a.m.– noon         Autograph signing at booth.

3:00 – 4:00 pm            Autograph signing at booth.

Sunday, July 27

11:00 a.m.– noon        Autograph signing at booth.

4:00 – 5:00 pm           Autograph signing at booth.

]]> http://kentnichols.com/2008/07/19/my-comic-con-schedule/feed/ http://kentnichols.com/2008/07/19/my-comic-con-schedule/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/KentsOfficialBlog/~3/328243666/ http://kentnichols.com/2008/07/06/festivals-awards-and-other-frippery/#comments Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:12:23 +0000 kentnichols http://kentnichols.wordpress.com/?p=88

There’s been a sub-kerfuffle off the whole is Indie film dead discussion, on whether festivals like Sundance even matter anymore?

First let give disclosure — I am largely a festival outsider.  I’ve been to SXSW, but mostly as a part of their Interactive section.  I’ve never been to Sundance, Cannes, or Berlin.  I did submit to the Thunderbird Film Festival years ago and my short film Internet Addiction screened there.

I like Robert Rodriguez’s thinking on this subject (paraphrasing from Rebel Without a Crew).  Basically festivals are a good barometer of how you’re doing as a filmmaker.   If your films are getting accepted to multiple festivals and you’re winning those festivals.  That’s probably a pretty good sign that you are ready to start your career.

The problem is that the festival circuit is often mistaken for a career.  Once you are on it, it can be hard to get off it.  It’s like those folks that never really graduate from school.  Sure, school is a good time, you meet a lot of cool peeps, learn some stuff.  But eventually you become Matthew McConaughey in Dazed and Confused.

So to extend this school metaphor even further, there are good schools (Sundance) and other schools (every other film festival), both give you an education, but good schools gets you something extra — pedigree.

Pedigree is nice to have.  It makes you feel warm and cozy at night, and gives people with money a reason to take a meeting with you (she was a winner at Sundance!), but it doesn’t necessarily get you a job.

Festivals are just like school in another key way — some people deserve to be there and some people don’t but got there through connections and money.

Why do I keep saying the festival circuit is not a career?  I’ve just spoken to many festival darlings that have gone everywhere with their film, but at the end they were no better off than when they started.  They’ve seen the world (usually on their own dime), which is awesome, but their goal of becoming an enduring filmmaker has not been furthered because they didn’t have enough time to write or put together their next project.

Awards are the bastard cousin of festivals.  Most organizations give out awards live off of the entrance fees that prospective winners send along with their applications (which is the same in the festival world).  They take your money and only give the awards to the pool of entrants.  Which means you can only win if you throw your own hat (and check) into the ring [the notable exception was the YouTube award, they nominated us and there was no entrance fee].

I’ve won my fair share of awards, some very high profile, but none of them have ever gotten me a gig.  They are just like festivals, they can open the door a crack, but you have to deliver in the room.  I can only imagine it’s the same at every level — even the Academy Awards (Michael Cimino anyone?) [and sure I know it gets you a ton of buzz, etc. but listen to this podcast by a shrink who's worked with Oscar winners].

I view awards as a karmic thumbs up that I’m going in the right direction.  Nothing more, nothing less.

They can be a good PR boost for you and your project, but that is fleeting.

But please remember, the pursuit of these awards and festivals should not be your primary goal.  The best thing about festivals and awards is that they have concrete deadlines, which can really spur you on as an artist.  I know I am much better with a deadline looming than I am with day to day responsibilities, and I know a lot of you are like me too.

Festivals and awards are neither good or bad.  They are what you make of them.  Just keep perspective, don’t pin all of your hopes and dreams on any particular pludit or statue and keep making your films.

Man that Mark Gill certainly got everyone in a tizzy.  My earlier take has been confirmed by none other than John August, successful screenwriter and indie director of The Nines, a film that went to Sundance and starred Ryan Reynolds.

From his blog:

My advice? You should make an indie film to make a film. Period. Artistic and commercial success don’t correlate well, and at the moment, only the former is remotely within your control.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have made the same movie but completely rethought how it went out into the world. I would have challenged a lot of the standard operating procedures, which seem to be part of an indie world that no longer exists. The Nines would have likely made just as little at the box office, but could have made a bigger impact on a bigger audience. Ultimately, I think that’s how you need to measure the success of an indie film’s release: how many people saw it.

He’s got a lot to say, including that Theatrical releasing is overrated and Sundance buzz is meaningless.

But to get back to his point — you as a filmmaker will always have a different agenda than whomever is producing or distributing (even if that person is you).

The filmmaker just wants to share their work with the largest possible audience.  To communicate and to move people.  The producer and distributor wants to make money from showing it to those people.

Sometimes those goals are in conflict, or at least they appear to be.

Especially nowadays when it takes a massive amount of cash to build awareness and get anyone remotely excited enough to shell out $10 or more to see your film in a theater and $20 to buy it on DVD.  If it’s an unknown quantity, they are not going to want to buy it.

That’s why you as a filmmaker want to give it away.  You want to build that audience because that’s the only thing you can directly influence.  That influence has value to you moving forward in your career because there will always be someone who is better at producing than you that will want to try and use your influence with the audience to make them lots of money.

When I say that independent film is dead, I’m mostly talking about the pipe dream of theatrical distribution.  That’s a money losing affair, even big studios look at major releases like Pirates of the Caribbean as a loss leader for merch, DVD, TV licensing, etc.

And look who the messenger is on this, not some sort of Hollywood outsider or new media miscreant, this is the dude that wrote the Charlie’s Angels movies.  He has more access to the system than you or me (even taking into account how much writer’s are shat upon in Hollywood).

If he’s having these problems and learning these lessons, you will too.

(found via NewTeeVee)

From Film School Rejects:

The real problem with new media that no one seems to be detecting yet is the democratic process itself. For all the complaining some do about Hollywood spoon-feeding us crap, democracy as a business model is far worse. Leaving aside the nightmare of actually finding a decent independent movie in the sea of amateur waste floating on social networking sites, consider for a moment that you’re an independent filmmaker with some real chops. Let’s also imagine that you’re stuck, like so many others, and have no possible route to selling your film after studios and distributors stop buying unknowns at festivals.

According to the Youtube model, you throw your masterpiece up there to the gaping maw of the public. If buzz never catches on, if there’s no tipping point, you’re in trouble. But it’s far worse if you actually do get a million viewers in one week. Because, congratulations, your film isn’t marketable anymore. While creating a massive audience for a film, new media simultaneously reduces the sales potential of a movie.

How many of those million will head to the theaters to see a movie on the big screen that they’ve already seen? How many who felt compelled to write “Gr8 job, dood!!” on your profile page will still feel compelled to spend money for the mega-plex release a year later?

Arrgh.

New media is just like old media, only better for artists.  Both are about building your quote, how much you get paid to ply your craft.  Typically you get low money the first time out and you build from there.  But if no one knows who you are, no one will even know to pay you.

That’s where YouTube comes in, if you make a hit that gets millions of views then maybe you can do it again.  That’s where you get paid.  Just like in old Hollywood you must have a track record of success to get people to pay you moving forward. But there’s a difference, you still own your original work that has been seen by millions.  That still has value.  People will still buy the DVD, broadcast networks still need to pay you for the rights to air it.  Other video sharing sites could license it, etc.

Democratization of the media and the removal of gatekeepers is a good thing.  Bloggers are the new gatekeepers.  And they are much better gatekeepers than the old school, because they are always going to need pageviews, and their space is unlimited.  So if they like something they are going to share it, and if they share it, so might their readers.

The only people that will be hurt by this new open access are the frauds that could previously fool the handful of elites and present themselves as misunderstood artists (*cough*Vincent Gallo*cough*).  The emperor’s new clothes are easy to spot in this new world order.

And I have news for everyone.  Adults don’t go to movie theaters anymore.  And when they do, they generally want to watch the same sort of big experience films that can only be experienced on a 70 foot screen.

So if you want to create small and meaningful films, most likely they won’t be appearing in the local multiplex.  They will be watched on DVD, TV, VOD, and the Computer.

But the bigger question is, what is a small and meaningful film?  The 90-120 minute single expression has been born out from the theatrical experience.  TV series (like what’s being done on AMC, TNT, HBO, and ShowTime) give filmmakers a much broader canvas of 6-10 hours.  The web can support expressions from 60 seconds to multiple hours.  It all depends on what you have to say.

The only sorts of indies we’re going to see with big theatrical runs will continue to be genre flicks, Jason Reitman-style comedies (well crafted, funny, a little off center, and palatable to the mainstream), and Oscar fodder (big stars going for the statue).

So why the frickin’ hand wringing?  I mean Sundance and the other festivals are great, but they can’t get you an audience of close to 90 million that Ask A Ninja has acquired over the last 3 years.  That audience has value not only in terms of what we can do to make money from Ask A Ninja, but also in getting us real Hollywood deals.  Giving it away got us seen and paid.  And now we’re working on raising our quote. 

So stop worrying about the death of indie film.  It’s already dead.  There’s something better to replace it, but it’s scary because it seems to violate every rule from that old world.  We’ll all figure out the new rules sooner or later (and then it’ll stop being interesting).

But now’s the time, if you’ve been waiting on the sidelines wondering if you should jump in or not, this is your official invitation.  I’m an adult and I say it’s okay.  Come on in, the water’s fine.

Sorry for the Blogghorrea, but fuck, George Carlin is dead.

Never met the man, but anyone who aspires to make people laugh is standing on the shoulders of this guy.

Such a pioneer, not only in terms of his material, but of where he did it.

I mean he was the host of the the first broadcast of Saturday Night Live.  But also exploring cable tv before it was the cool thing to do.

Thanks George for pushing the limits, giving us inspiration, and mostly, for making us laugh.

Man I am jealous of CGI filmmakers.

They can put the cameras anywhere, under crank and over crank at will.

This movie is so beautifully shot and excuted.  Every joke is nailed and every single fight sequence is so effortlessly captured and lit.

It’s not fair.  Those of bound by physics and the realities of shooting can only hope to mimick what these guys are truly capable of.

I remember when Toy Story came out lo these many years ago.  I saw it twice that day.  Good story and pioneering.

But I’ve listened to many of those guys talk about it, and basicly they were just praying to keep their render farms together long enough to crank out the full film.

Moore’s law has given them the tools to have greater and greater control of their imagery until now we’ve reached this point at where they’ve greatly exceeded what we can do with a camera, a talented crew and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Even a movie like the Incredible Hulk, which was decent, is merely a hybrid between pure CGI and a live action film.

Sorry to be so random and ranty, but I just got back from a summer blockbuster bender at the Arclight and had to share.

But seriously, go see Kung Fu Panda.

Mark Gill at the LA Film Fest was pretty mopey about the future of Theatrical Indie Film:

“Do you think maybe Chicken Little was right—I mean, about independent film.” Leave it to a director to hope Chicken Little might be a cinephile. And again, my answer was simple: “Yes, the sky really is falling.” The last thing I heard him say was “I have to go throw up now.”

The speech runs down the standard litany of complaints (in very poorly formatted HTML) that indie filmmakers have about the current state of affairs in the feature film world.

Basically, he’s right.  But the answer is to embrace the chaos and write the new rules of show business online.

What are the new rules:

• Hold on to your rights for as long as possible.
  This is key, you are the entrepreneur of your ideas, you were there creating this.  Don’t sell them cheap.  It’s much better to release for free on YouTube, than to sign a crappy deal that takes away your rights.
• Bundle in marketing/PR into your film’s financing package.
  You can’t expect someone else to sell your work anymore.  Now you’re going to need to figure out how to get attention to your work, get a fanbase and sell DVDs and merch to them.
• Use online as your theatrical window.
  The typical indie theatrical deal is crap money, and even wildly successful indie theatrical runs like Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ had to sue it’s distributors for under payment.  Wherever your initial run is (theatrical, tv, web) use it as your loss leader for DVD/merch sales.  This is where you drive awareness with your PR and marketing budget so people know and like your project and will want to buy it and support you as a creator and artist.

This isn’t the early 90’s anymore.  The rules for Indie Film have been written and rewritten several times.  It’s time to move on.

By retaining as many rights as you can, and by bundling PR and Marketing into film’s budget, you’ll still retain the ability to license and remake and sublicense your original material onto any and all platforms.

And you immediately have a large pool of audience available to you.  People want to watch cool things and they can easily share your work with MP4s and Flash video.  You just need to make something worth watching.

Your ability to hold their attention is what’s valuable.  Pioneers like Four Eyed Monsters were able to find a much larger audience online than they were on the festival circuit.

And that’s what Ask A Ninja is doing as well.

One the personal benefits of the writer’s strike was that it brought to my attention Craig Mazin’s blog.

Craig is a working writer/director that gave a lot of great insights on the labor strife.

But today he addressed a great topic for screenwriters in general, logic and how to apply it to your story.

Every movie probably suffers from logic flaws. The goal, of course, is to avoid crossing the threshold of tolerance. There are some flaws in The Godfather, for instance. If Tessio can figure out where Michael is meeting The Turk and have enough time to plant a gun, why can’t he plant a few guys in the back kitchen? Or in a back alley? Have them do the murders…and not put Michael on the hook?

But…the logic flaws in The Godfather simply don’t cross the threshold of tolerance. Because they don’t, no one really gives a damn. In fact, many people will instinctively argue that the logic flaws aren’t flaws at all.

It’s worth the read.

So I’ve done several day trips with my eeepc and have commuted back and fourth around LA with nary a thought of having this tiny little lappy in my bag.

It has been pretty fun and easy.

Until I went to London.  I had only used it for browsing and light blogging, but while I was in the UK, Firefox started refusing to launch.

I’m fairly comfy using the terminal and CLI, but doing the grunt research and asking twitter for help didn’t change anything.

Looks like a MacBook Air will be in my future.

Back home in my office (read my bed).

Here’s some quick impressions I had of the UK and London:

London is very tourist friendly.  The people are open and helpful and want to have a good trip.  Very accommodating of clueless newbs on the Underground and map looking etc.

London is extremely walkable.  Everything is close.

Walking around the UK, I got the sense of where the US will be in a 100 years.  Rich, modern, but slightly irrelevant and basking in days gone by.  Our grandchildren will be living in China’s world.

Thoughtful design and environmentalism is embraced.  They are way ahead of the game in terms of reducing their carbon footprint.  Down to a little device you put you hotel room key in to keep the lights on, key taken out, lights go off.

The conservatives are nice people.  We were hosted by the Spectator Magazine for a small dinner party that was discussing new media issues.  Everyone was thoughtful, smart, and open.  It was delightful.  Literally one of my favorite nights of conversation.

So many men wear suits.  It was fun being an odd duck in my thongs and shorts.

I learned that Dick van Dyck’s performance in Mary Poppins is deeply offensive to Brits.

The Tower of London is very proud of it’s torture and beheadings.  It was like having Gitmo become an amusement park.

No one says Pip-Pip.