Newport Beach Film Fest

Officially made it into festival number four, The Newport Beach Film Festival. They haven't listed the films yet, but you can check them out at http://www.newportbeachfilmfest.com.

Wow.

And only 4 and 1/2 months to my birthday.

He Says It Better

So I'll let you read it from him.

Short on Artistry, Long on Emotion

It might have been a boring Super Bowl for every city in America, but I know Pittsburgh and Seattle were collectively sitting at the edge of their seats. From Pittsburgh's awful start to the final tackle. Now Pittsburgh gets some sort of respect. Or maybe not. Because according to Seattle and most of the sporting news world, the refs won the game. I guess I was watching a different game. I didn't see the refs miss two field goals like I saw Seattle miss. I didn't see the refs break a Super Bowl record by running a 75 yard touchdown. I didn't see the refs catch two passes out of bounds in the red zone. I must have missed that trick play the refs played out. And all this time I thought it was Hasselbeck that threw that Taylor interception.

Was Big Ben's diving touch down ruled correctly? Yes. Was it clear by the video whether it was a touchdown or not? No, and that's why the ruling was correct. The evidence has to be clear that the ruling is wrong to overturn it.

Was Hasselbeck's tackle a low block? I'm not qualified to comment on that one. Regardless, the ball was ours and the turnover is what wins the game, not the 15 yards we gained from the penalty.

Was the 3:1 ratio of Steeler fans unfair? No. Next time buy more tickets.

All in all it's nice to see Cowher win the big game. It's even nicer to see Pittsburgh alive like this. And as for the game itself, I like Gene Wojciechowski's take on it: "Short on artistry but long on emotion."

Rejection

I don't have the new Microsoft Office, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say there's a new "rejection letter" template on there. Let's take a look at the opening sentence of a few festival rejection letters we've recieved:

"This year, The Deep Ellum Film Festival had hundreds of submissions and the overall quality was higher than ever. This means that we must turn down many worthy films. Unfortunately, we did not select your film for screening at this year's Deep Ellum Film Festival."

"This year's Carolina Film & Video Festival received an onslaught of exceptional entries making it one of our most competitive fields ever. Despite the merits of your film, Captain Blasto , we are unable to screen it this year."

"We have had a record number of entries this year and the quality of films has been unprecedented. We have had some very difficult decisions to make and we’re sorry to say that your film has not been selected as one of our finalists.

Man, it seems that all these fests are just having record breaking years, with such phrases as "unprecedented" and "onslaught of exceptional entries."

Kind of stinks when you get home from a long day at work to find one of these, but this is how the festival world works. You submit a hundred, you get into a few, and we've been accepted into several wonderful ones. Really hoping to make it out to the Lake County fest because the more and more I hear about it and more and more I think it's the perfect place for a film like ours. Check them out at http://www.lakecountyfilmfest.com.

Filmmaker Divided

I owe a lot of people an apology. I've become increasingly harder to get a hold of by both festivals and friends. I'm finding it's ridiculously hard to keep up with the Blasto work having a full time job (currently transitioning into a new position) and starting out with a wife of only 5 months. To solve this problem Ashley will really be stepping it up as a producer. She'll be handling more of the communication with film festivals (since I'm doing an awful job at it.)

Oh the brighter side, we made IMDB. Alot of missing information, but we'll get there. Check us out here.

2006 George Lindsey UNA Film Festival

Captain Blasto has made it through the preliminary judging process and is scheduled to screen between March 2nd - 4th at the 2006 George Lindsey UNA Film Festival in Florence, Alabama.

Check out the fest website at http://www.lindseyfilmfest.com.

Super Bowl XL

We're going to the Super Bowl! What a game. How nice it was to not come within inches of five heart attacks. And did you notice that everyone in this picture vaguely looks like Geis?

An Invention of Limitation

Picked up The Adventures of Superman on DVD. That's the old 50's Superman show starring George Reeves (no relation to Christopher Reeve). George Reeves eventually commited suicide and his life is being made into a movie right now starring Ben Affleck which of course makes me want to fill my mouth with molasses and killer bees. But that's not the point of the post.

The point is that while I was watching I kept trying to put myself into the shoes of a little kid back then. They LOVED this show. This is what really rocketed Superman into uber-popularity. And the whole time I'm seeing this middle aged guy leap out of windows in this awful costume and I'm wondering, "They loved THIS?" The effects are horrendously funny. The acting is just what you'd expect from a 50's show. Superman looks like about as heroic as your Uncle Ray.

But the more I thought about it, every medium that super-heroes have ever thrived on has been a very limited one. Superman, the very first super-hero, was created in the funny books. Cheap little black and white mini-mag's with awful little illustrations. He later entered homes through this little TV show. Spider-Man was made famous, not by the comic book, but by his cartoon in the 60's. I've seen flip books and buddy icons with better animation.

So why did people fall in love with these characters if they're only represented by such limited mediums and low budgets? Because the super-hero is essentially a character of imagination. The very core of a super-hero is just that, the ability to defy human limitations. Superman himself is an invention of limitation. A super-hero NEEDS limitation or else there is nothing to defy. Any guy can walk through a door. But not everyone can punch a hole through it.

This theory lends itself to the consistent failure of box office super-heroes. (Failure in my regard is not measured by box office money, but rather quality of story.) With hundreds of millions of dollars poured into movies like Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, and the upcoming Superman Returns, there is NO limitation. Limitation breeds creativity. Unlimited resources breeds laziness. George Lucas should have learned this by now. If you use computers to create great fictional characters and landscapes you've removed the option of the audience using their imagination to fill in the edges. They don't need to, it's right there. And if you remove the audiences ability to use their imagination, they're not going to be engaged. Understand why kids are then so easily sucked into cheesy cartoons?

Should we withold budgets then? Should we ask Bryan Singer to make a film on 10 million as opposed to 200? Should we make special effects so bad that you have to use your imagination? No. But with every resource at their disposal, he'll never be half as super as he is trapped inside that comic book or those old Fleischer cartoons.

Superman needs to be wrapped in chains, just to show everyone he can break out of them. Maintain limitations, because then you'll be forced to be more creative than you ever could have been.

Harrison Ford's Monkey Pounce

Just saw a preview for Harrison Ford's new movie. No clue what it's called. Something about a bank robbery and his family being taken hostage. When will terrorists get it? Don't take Harrison Ford's family hostage.


There's a shot in the trailer of Harrison Ford jumping onto one of the terrorists. I realized I've seen that exact same jump before. You may have seen this jump in Air Force One (jumping to get the gun while fighting a guy down in the hold right after the missle nearly hits), or you might have seen it in Clear and Present Danger (leaping away from the exploding SUV's.) He has one of the most unique and distinctive jumps. He leaps with EVERYTHING he's got. His face is stricken with adreneline. But the part of the pounce that is distinctly Mr. Ford is the body language. I can't find a picture on the internet, but you'd know it if you saw it. He looks uncoordinated. His elbows are oddly close. His hands are wide open, fingers separated. His legs are just flailing back there. I really hope he's got a mattress off screen, because there is no way he's landing gracefully. And that's what distinguishes Ford from other action star actors. He leaps like a normal human would when trying to escape an explosion.

Now if only he was in a new film jumping for a whip as a large stone slab slowly closes to nearly crush his fedora hat. But that will only happen in a world where Lucas isn't crazy, and unfortunately, that's not this one.

A Pictures Worth a Thousand Words

So here's 4000.

Two years in a row. Here we come Denver.

Character vs. Celebrity

Just saw Fun with Dick and Jane last weekend. It was okay. A couple funny parts. I find myself giving that review a lot more often these days. Kind of tired of seeing just "okay" movies. The big anchor that was holding the movie down is something that claims a lot of movies. The star was too big for the character. I wasn't watching "Dick" struggle to climb the corporate ladder, I was watching Jim Carrey throw his rubber band body around. How can Jim Carrey EVER play anything than...Jim Carrey? You'd never be fooled.

Sometimes actors become too unique, weird, or popular in and(or) outside of their films that they become their own "character" and are incredibly less effective as an actor. They can't step into a character because they eclipse it with their own. Here's some examples:

1. War of the Worlds - 2005
We were supposed to see a dead beat dad struggle amongst an alien invasion to protect his children. What we got was Tom Cruise. We've spent so many movies watching Tom Cruise shoot, jump, punch his way around corrupt law firms, super tech CIA computers, and F-14 Tomcats. Not for one second did you think he could fail. This is no dead beat dad, this is freakin' Maverick. How much more power would that film have carried, had the dad been played by an aging, overwheight, sloppy looking man? The type you imagine the very second you hear the words "child support."

2. Daredevil - (2003)
rated CP's number 1 worst movie of all time
I don't care how much red leather you throw on him, that is still Ben Affleck. It is quite a difficult feat to attempt to take a long standing, much loved character that in itself, without a human face attached, is popular. To then try and put an actor caught up in tabloid spectacles into that mask is a crime. We won't see Daredevil. We'll just see J-Lo.

Richard Donner did it best when he chose Christopher Reeve, a complete unknown, to be Superman. Warner Bros. wanted Robert Redford or Paul Newman. But all you'd be seeing is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

The problem when you put an unknown into an already established and cherished character is that if they do a bad job, they never act again, and if they do a great job, they're typecasted as THAT character the rest of their career.

3. The Family Stone (2005)
This is a different case. This isn't a single overwhelming person. This is a film where it is just too big of a stretch to put too many well known actors into a family, to the point where you can't possibly buy that they ARE a family. We've got Diane Keaton, Craig T. Nelson, Rachel McAdams, Luke Wilson, etc. It just takes a lot of "willing suspension" to buy that Annie Hall, Coach, The Notebook Girl, and Richie Tenenbaum all grew up together. To put together a cast like this could be killer. It just takes ridiculously good actors. The example of this pulled off flawlessly? The Godfather (1972), but even Pacino was an unknown back then.

So what's the answer to this? Always cast unknowns? The very second you become popular, you shouldn't get hired again? No. Not at all. See Naploeon Dynamite's Jon Heder about this. He'll forever be Napoleon Dynamite and any movie he does from this point on people will say, "It's that movie with Napoleon Dynamite in it."

While I do agree that unknowns are required for certain roles, I don't think that should ALWAYS be the case. I just think that directors should be careful what type of actors they cast. Do you want people to come to see the celebrity, or do you want them to come and be engaged by the story and the characters? Sure Jim Carrey will draw in some crowds, but unless he's funnier than anything we've ever seen him in thus far, then they'll be leaving the theater to never see your movie again.

A Message to Michael Bay

You all know Michael Bay. He's the genius that brought you Ben Affleck playing with animal crackers on Liv Tyler's stomach. We'll he's busy working on new ways to ruin your life.

Michael Bay is set to direct the Transformers movie. While reading Aint It Cool News today I came across this from Harry Knowles: "When he was very first being tied to this, he felt he kinda didn't want to do it, but after all this work he feels that he's found a really cool film that kids and Transformers fans are going to really get behind."

If you "didn't want to do it" then DON'T DO IT. There are MILLIONS of Transformers fans. There are probably THOUSANDS of talented directors willing to do any number of Fear Factor tests to get that type of opportunity. But in the usual backwards Hollywood way they give the movie to someone who doesn't care about the source. This is my plea to Hollywood. STOP giving the directing rights of famous characters/stories to people who did not LOVE them when they were young. You know what happens when you get a director like Michael Bay to make a movie about something that MILLIONS love and he is fairly indifferent to. You get an AWFUL movie. Because he changes the original material into something that HE likes, not what it was, not what everyone fell in love with. Something that Michael "Armeggedon" "The Rock" "The Island" "Pearl Harbor" Bay likes.

What did we learn from Lord of the Rings? Peter Jackson LOVED the books. Therefore he'll do a darn good job bringing them to the screen. Sorry to say he couldn't do the same with King Kong.

Lake County Film Fest

Captain Blasto has been selected for the Lake County Film Festival in Illinois. The festival will be screening a new shorter cut of Blasto on Saturday, March 4th at 4:30 pm. You can check out the festival at: http://www.lakecountyfilmfest.com.

Captain Blasto Fan Club

Yes, it does exist. A couple of young guys who came to the Blasto premiere have been putting together a Blasto fan club site for a school project. Check it out at:

http://www.captainblastofanclub.com

Entertainment vs. Change

Is the final goal of a film to simply entertain you or to change you in some manner? Sure, some movies are for pure entertainment and don't hide it. Dumb and dumber isn't going to change you're outlook on the world. But with all the money, time, and effort that goes into making a feature film, don't filmmakers want to accomplish just a little more than entertain someone for an hour or so?

Look at King Kong. That film cost some 200 million, hundreds of people, and 3 years out of their lives to make. THREE YEARS!?! Is the end result just so you can say, "That was cool when Kong punched that dinosaur." If entertainment is the end result, don't waste the time. Sure the studio isn't in it for entertainment, they're in it for the billions they make in return. The key grip is in it for the pay check, he's just trying to make a living. But the director, he should have a higher goal.

The other night Kleiber said he likes to just be entertained by movies before he gets critical with them, and that's fine. But I asked him, with all the work and time he's had with Blasto, would he be happy if all it did was entertain everyone for those two hours? Would he be happy if they just walked away saying, "That was fun. Wanna go to Dave and Busters?" I know I wouldn't.

What's the alternative? Life change? Sure that'd be great, but I don't think a film is THAT powerful. To me a film accomplishes it's goal when it both entertains AND presents an emotional and unique perspective on life. A good film makes people laugh and engage the characters in some way. A great film causes a person to try and connect the pieces of the film with their own life. What if this happened in my life? Am I like that? Is my life like that? Think of your all time favorite movie. Does it in some small way connect to something deeper in you? Something you want? Something you feel?

Rocky I is a great film. It forces people to confront the concept of feeling unworthy, unloved, and unwanted. Rocky IV is entertainment. Neat characters, some okay action. But what are you confronted with? Well besides Rocky bringing an end to the cold war that is.

King Kong

I may be the only human being to say this but: I was dissappointed with Peter Jackson's King Kong. Right now Kleiber is reading this somewhere going, "He is way too picky." Here's my explanations and if you haven't seen the movie, don't read this.

1) Expectations were built up.
It's Peter Jackson. He's delivered three PHENOMENAL movies. He's got millions of dollars and a collection of the most talented people in the world at his fingertips. To him that is given much, much will be expected.

On top of that several of my friends, Kleiber included, have seen it and remarked that it was incredible. That puts me in a different frame of mind going into the film. I didn't walk in going, can't wait to see a good movie. I walked in saying, what makes this movie so incredibly good that people are going bonkers over it? That's a more critical approach.

2) Characters did not change.
C'mon Pete that's Screenwriting 101. If a character is the same in the beginning of a film as they are at the end, what's the point of the story? Sure they suffered through a lot, but it didn't truly effect them. Anne and Kong are the exception to this and are BRILLIANT. But two characters out of the 15 or so is a pretty low ratio. Denham starts out as a backstabbing director willing to do anything or use anyone to get his film made. That's exactly who he remains when the credits roll. Driscoll starts out as a noble writer and ends up a noble writer (with a girl). I love that he is a mirror of Kong to Anne in the fact that no matter how awful it gets he is always chasing her, trying to protect her even if he can't or may die in the process. But that part was an undercurrent never really brought to the forefront.

If a situation doesn't have the power to change the people involved, the situation wasn't worthy enough to tell, or in this case, the characters haven't been developed enough. The biggest crime of these was Denham. He's used every single person he knows and they've been placed in great jeopardy as a result. He is neither ruined by this, nor does he learn from it.

And then there's Baxter, the hero of the film within the film. He's a great contrast to Driscoll initially. He looks heroic, plays the hero, but he's actually a coward. And Driscoll, who looks anything but heroic, turns out to be just that. But then Jackson does an odd thing. Just when you think Baxter is gone for good, he returns...as a hero? What's that we see....could it be change? But then he goes and ruins it by returning Baxter to a lying coward once again. It would have been much more powerful to fool the audience in the beginning into thinking that Baxter actually is courageous and heroic only to have him turn out to be a coward. That's great conflict bringing about change or revealing a character for who they truly are.

3) Less is more.
In the original film, Kong fights one T-Rex. It's a GREAT battle. A 15 minute wrestling match as the two wear each other down, ending in a gut wrenching shot of Kong slowly ripping the T-Rex's jaw apart. What does the the new film give us? Kung-fu Kong taking on 3 T-Rexes simulteaneously. That is not better or more powerful. It's a video game. After seeing Kong take on the 3 T-Rexes, why would we have any fear when it finally comes down to him vs. one. He just handled three, surely he can handle one.

4) One full hour too long.
I'm a big fan of LONG movies. Love to hear a movie is gonna hit the three hour mark. BUT, usually when a movie is going to attempt the epic time it typically holds my attention the entire time. Not so with Kong. It wasn't a few minutes too long. I don't suggest cutting out a half an hour or so. It was ONE FULL HOUR TOO LONG. There were roughly 3-4 too many scenes of Kong and Anne just staring lovingly at each other. Too much time spent in New York in the beginning. That is a ameteur screenwriting mistake. No need to fill up the first part of the movie with buckets and buckets of exposition. Give us enough that we know the character and then get us to that inciting incident. Get us on that boat and to Skull Island.

What did I like?
Kong's FX were pretty amazing. He looked like a real giant gorilla. That's quite an achievement. Naomi Watts did an incredible job as Ann. New York looked amazing. The dance the "natives" do at Kong's feet is a great tribute to the original '33 Kong.

Make sure you Netflix the original Kong. That there is cinema history.

Idiots

We've gone and entered every single film festival in the freakin' world EXCEPT Pittsburgh!!! I've had a good number of people ask me if we entered into the Three Rivers Film Festival. No we did not. Why? Stupidity.

When Blasto was finished I looked up info for the festival and they were not accepting entries yet. I figured I'd look it back up a little bit later. Between the premiere, the LA premiere, getting married, and having a full time job, I completely overlooked it.

On the good side of it, another SV alum, Joey Varhola (I think he was in my art class), has his film Dogplayers screening at the Melwood tonight (Nov. 11) at 9:00 pm. If you happen to read this entry today (which is highly unlikely) go check it out.

And hopefully we'll remember to enter next year.

Research

Another month, another wave of film fest submissions. We've been getting a lot of e-mails from fests saying either they've recieved Blasto and we're "in consideration," or that they're awaiting to recieve Blasto and are looking forward to it.

I've been getting a lot of "what do you want to see happen" questions. It's usually, "If all goes how you want it to, what will happen with this?" Other than George Lucas seeing it and saying, "That's the man I want to make Star Wars episodes 7, 8 , and 9 with the original cast."

I would love to remake Blasto with a "real" budget. Not tens of millions of dollars, but a couple hundred thousand, possibly even a couple million. My hope is that somebody will see the potential of Blasto to be something better than it currently is. Funnier, more dramatic, a tighter script, a real crew. And to shoot it on HD rather than MiniDV so it'll actually look like a film.

With that goal in mind I've begun to rewrite Blasto. Right now I'm in the research stage, which is learning as much as possible about the characters and their environment. This is the part where you literally figure out each characters history; who are their parents, what was their childhood like, what did they want to be, who are they married to, what is their job, etc. You figure out their lives in such incredible detail that you have very good idea what decisions they will make and why they make them when you put them into the story. Ninety-nine percent of what you create of their history will never make it into the script, but it make the one percent of them that you do see that much more full. This is how characters in films seem flat or cliche, because the writer only went as far as a few sentences into who this character is. I feel this about some of the crew members, Tom, Sam, Eddie. You never really get into them. The trick is trying to get a good deal of the persons history prior to the film story, into the screenplay without them talking about it. I hate when characters just sit down and talk about their past so openly with people they just met (This happens several times in Blasto of course.) These things have to be delivered more naturally.

The reasearch stage will last several months. Have to REALLY know the characters and make sure each of them is so interesting that you could have made a film about any of them as the main character. From the research stage we'll go into the plot/structure stage. That's where others like Kleiber, Ben, etc. get involved. Start discussions about things that could have been better, things we would have liked to have seen, how things can be cleaned up, made more dramatic, funnier, etc.

Maybe I'll post some of the character backstories here next time.

And The Award Goes To...

...a bunch of filmmakers that didn't even attend the festival.

Back from L.A. after an incredibly LONG and TURBULENT red eye flight. (Not to mention a woman passed out in the middle of the aisle and a bunch of doctors had to help her. Zero sleep was had by all.)

The Theater
Mann's theaters are absolutely beautiful. The lobby is great. The auditoriums look like they just jumped out of the 30's with this great fabric curtain that rises up just before the movie plays. We'll be posting some more pictures on the site as soon as Alan and Kleiber forward them to me.

The Festival Volunteers
Great people. They knew spotted Kleiber and I and instantly knew who we were. Asked for autographs, gave great feedback, and were incredibly nice and supportive.

The Screening
The screening went well despite incredibly low attendance. There was roughly 35-40 people in a 170 seat auditorium. Disappointing? Yes and no. This was the festivals first year so it was fairly unorganized despite a great staff. There was little to no advertising around the area for the festival, BUT individual films were not permitted to hang any advertising for their screenings. So little to no advertising means little to no attendance. On top of that the price of admission was incredibly steep. $250 for a full festival pass and $12.50 for a single screening pass. Would you pay $12.50 to see a movie you've never heard about AND there's no posters anywhere for it? I have a tough time paying that for movies I'm pretty sure are gonna be good, let alone risking it on some independant stuff. So the 35-40 crowd was the average for EVERY film there. The audience was usually made up of filmmakers from the other films in the festival. After the screening there was a Q&A session that was fun. I love talking about the movie. Most questions revolved around the graphics, comic panels, and music.

The Other Films
Unfortunately, I didn't get in until the last day of the festival so I only caught one film. It was a horror/thriller/comedy called Shadows. Made by a middle aged guy for $15,000 who was upset by the lack of creativity/talent on Cinemax late night movies, so he decided to make his own. Lots of those moments that are built up to be scary but end up being just the character's buddy tapping them on the shoulder. Enjoyed watching it and I'm always proud to see someone just get in there and make a movie, but this story wasn't my cup o' tea. And as a side note, there was one particular female character that took off her clothes in roughly 90% of the scenes she was in. It got to the point where Kleiber and I were just laughing out loud.

The Awards
And thus comes the lowest point of the festival. First they present Christopher Reeve with the Lifetime Achievement Award. Sounds great, but...they person presenting the award has never met Christopher Reeve and the person accepting it has never met Christopher Reeve, so it felt incredibly pointless. As for the awards themselves, they were just plain silly. The festival had a bunch of actors from one of the entry films as the presenters, but they were presenting the awards to, yep you guessed it, their own films. That would be like Jack Nicholson presenting the actor for Best Actor to...Jack Nichsolson. Kinda shady. On top of that they presented the Best Film of the Festival as the very FIRST award. Kinda takes the wind outta the sails when you know what the best picture is already, so who really cares about the other awards? Some awards only had ONE nominee, so why even announce it?

On top of the goofy presentations, 90% of the award winners WEREN'T EVEN THERE. So we basically sat for a few hours and watched people present awards to nobody.

There were two types of awards, Judges (decided by the festival staff) and Jury (decided by festival attendees.) But when we talked to some of the festival staff they said that the Jury records were all messed up and most of the films directors were taking a bunch of the feedback scores, giving themselves perfects, and stuffing the ballot boxes. We weren't about to stoop as low.

Lastly, a final critique. If you have filmmakers paying $300 for a plane ticket, hundreds on hotels, & hundreds more on advertising, and you have festival goers paying $250 for a ticket, then you do NOT have a CASH BAR at the awards gala. That is a big old festival no no. Needless to say that most people were out of that gala by 9:00 when it was scheduled to go until 1:00 am.

Closing Comments
Great weekend, had a blast even if we didn't bring home any awards. Curt (the actor who plays Fandango) and his girlfriend Kelly were great hosts, even if they do have all three volumes of Married with Children on DVD. Keep ya updated on festival submissions. Right now we're in the running for a festival to take place early in 2006 in Anchorage, Alaska.