First teaser trailer is out for "Grindhouse" the new Rodriquez/Tarantino films that will be released in April (as a double feature).

Pretty cool - very much a throwback look to the 70's. I'm sure Rodriguez's film was shot on HD. Not sure about Tarantino's though...

-Blake

Here's the new poster without the orange/warm wash on it... we're playing with both looks for different uses.

-Blake

I've had very little time to blog lately. Between finishing the color correction (it's done), the sound mix (it's done), and working on NEW artwork (again) for the movie - I've been busy as all get out. Not to mention I was in Vegas on a corporate shoot early last week, and then back in Dallas later in the week directing a TV spot for an alarm company... it's been crazy!

But, things are looking good on the "Killing Down" front. As I've said many times, it's taken A LOT longer than planned, but it's almost done and will be worth the wait.

Here's a mock-up of the "new and improved" artwork:


This will be the front of the one-sheet that will help sell the movie to potential distributors. Hope to find a good foriegn sales agent in the next two weeks or less to rep the film at AFM.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Working with producer's rep and attorney Mark Litwak again. So, we'll see what offers come our way.

Stay tuned...

-Blake

This is interesting to me (being from Dallas)... not sure if it's good or bad? I'd say probably good, but there are just SO MANY film festivals these days that they all get a bit watered down. Are any of them really that important?

I mean, stats show only one in ten "Sundance" films even get distribution...

(CBS 11 News) DALLAS CBS 11 News has learned the City of Dallas has landed a major international film festival. After a year of negotiations, the American Film Institute has signed on to help run the festival.

For years Dallas has been home to several small film festivals. The city however has lacked a major international event; the type to draw world-wide attention… starting in the spring of 2007 that may change.

Cities such as Park City, Utah, Toronto and Austin have greatly benefited from high-profile film festivals. Now the City of Dallas is hoping to join that elite group with a new international film festival.CBS 11 News has learned that the Dallas Film Society has signed a deal with the American Film Institute or AFI.

According to the three-year agreement obtained by CBS 11 News AFI will provide use of its name and will help run the festival. In return, AFI will be paid $836,000.

The event will be called the Dallas/AFI International Film Festival and is scheduled to run in the spring of each year, beginning in 2007.

Although organizers declined to comment, an office for the AFI festival is already up and running in the ‘W’ building. Sources say the W Hotel will be a major sponsor.

Films are likely to be screened at the Magnolia, the Angelika and the Inwood Theaters, to name a few.

The new agreement will likely have an affect on other Dallas film festivals. While the Deep Ellum Film Festival will likely to go away, organizers from there will help run the new festival. As for the USA Film Festival, the director tells CBS 11 News that event is, “here to stay."

Bart Weiss is director of the Dallas Video Festival. He fears the new festival will be one where style wins over substance.

“It's a big festival. We’re afraid it is going to do a poor job and go out of business... and because they go out of business, it will make it difficult for all of us ‘mom and pop’ shops to keep doing what we do well, because we'll have this black mark on us."

Sources say the goal is to make the Dallas-AFI event a top 20 festival by drawing thousands of film fans, ‘a-list’ movie stars, and millions of dollars to the city.

The proposed budget for the new festival is roughly 2.3 million dollars for a 10-day event, with the money likely coming from corporate sponsorship.

Again, I do think this is good news for Dallas and film in general, but I'm just hesitant on the idea of another film festival. I think they grow on trees.

-Blake

A great actor Bruno Kirby died 3 days ago. Not sure how widely reported this was... but he was one of my favorite character actors with great roles as Billy Crystal's best friend in "When Harry Met Sally" and "City Slickers". He also played a gangster in "The Godfather II", had a very funny role in "This Is Spinal Tap", among many other great performances (including a recent stint on the current HBO hit "Entourage").

I highly suggest going back and watching "City Slickers" and "This Is Spinal Tap". These were both great roles and he created very interesting characters. You might be saying to yourself, "I don't really remember him in "Spinal Tap"? And if you do recall him, you're thinking he was only in the film for a few minutes? All I can say is watch the extras on the DVD. He plays the limo driver that picks up the group at the airport with a sign that says "Spinal Pap". But on the DVD extras his characeter goes up and parties with them in the hotel. It's some funny, funny stuff.

Anyway, it's sad news to report, but I'm glad he gave us many great performances to remember him by.

-Blake

Yahoo! News (via the AP) has a cool little story on movie titles... the good, the bad and the ugly.



Check it out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/ap_on_en_mo/film_titles

I personally like titles that say what the movie is about. Of course that can be subjective, unless you're talking about "Snakes On A Plane". ;)

-Blake

I slightly revised the latest version of the poster...























I'm about to get 1000 postcards made of this look (and in the near future some posters too). BTW, the orginal poster (on the movie website) is still in play, but we're just keeping all options open and creating different looks for marketing. If you like this new look let me know - and if you don't let me know too. :)

-Blake

iKlipz is a new "networking" website geared towards film and filmmakers. Think of it sort of as Myspace for filmmakers.

I definitely like the vlog they do with David Poland. Good stuff.

Anyway, I created a page today for "Killing Down":
http://www.iklipz.com/Movies.aspx?MovieID=1bea7e3a-d2ef-453b-91c7-66009cc6920d

Will it help market the movie? Don't know. There are a lot of these sites competing with each other. We'll see...

In the meantime please check it out.

-Blake

Check out this article in the LA Times. It's slightly depressing for indie filmmakers trying to work their way up to the big time - but it's also reassuring (to an extent) as to why folks make movies independently...

THE real magic of Hollywood is not the knee-buckling resonance of a perfect screen kiss or the ability to conjure an army of Orcs from the plains of New Zealand. The real magic of Hollywood, as any agent, screenwriter, director, actor, producer or studio executive will tell you, is that movies get made at all. Especially now.

Some years back, a commitment from an A-lister, those actors or directors whose track records proved they could deliver a big opening weekend at the box office, usually guaranteed a big-budget project would get a green light. Then the formula changed — it often took getting a star to commit to the project and then trying to get them to cut their fee. But now, apparently, even that is not enough, as filmmakers on a variety of projects are beginning to learn.

So tell me again why I'd want to work in Hollywood?

-Blake

Been playing around with a few new poster looks...























Working on alternative artwork for our upcoming industry screenings. I'm kinda diggin' this look myself. Do you like it?

-Blake

I keep hearing the term "cutting edge" about what we're doing with the post side of things with "Killing Down". This routinely surprises me too. We are finishing the film in HD, which to me seems like old news. Understand of course I don't mean it's not cool - it is very cool - but as much as I read about HD, etc. I don't feel what we're doing is that "cutting edge". However, I could be wrong...

If you follow this blog (and the progress of "Killing Down") you know we're doing our final color correction as we speak. I was in Austin twice last week working with Omar Godinez and his boutique company Color Cafe (they hadn't done an HD feature until ours).

For our correction we decided to go with a "desktop D.I." using FinalTouch HD. "D.I." stands for Digital Intermediate - which is really used for filmouts today in Hollywood (and some indie projects) - but it's traditionally very cost prohibitive. However, FinalTouch HD has put D.I. in the reach of low budget indies like ourselves. Of course we're not doing a "true" D.I. because we're not going out to film and it's not at 2K resolution (not quite anyway, we're at 1920x1080 HD resolution - just shy of true 2K).

So far things are going fairly smoothly. There have been of course the normal hiccups along the way. Mainly dealing with PC to Mac translation issues. Since we are onlining the film in an Avid DS Nitris suite (running on Windows) and FinalTouch runs on a Mac (really working in conjunction with Final Cut Pro) we've had problems reading/writing back and forth to drives and getting our QuickTime codecs straight. There have also been issues with the EDLs and some timecode problems, but I think we're about to get all this figured out.

In the end, the color correction is what matters most to me. These workflow issues suck, but the final product is what is important. That's one of the main reasons we went with Omar - he has over 20 years experience color correcting.

But as much HD production that goes on out there it seems that most do not finish in HD. They downconvert to SD and then to DVD or whatever. So, all the HD post we're doing - and btw it's all uncompressed HD that runs about 120 MBs a second (that's 35 times larger than DV) - really might be "cutting edge"? Most people I talk to or try to get advice from have never done what we're doing.

I plan to post a real "tech geek" entry soon as to the exact workflow we used covering the entire post process from offline, to audio post, color correction and final online conform. It's been very interesting and a great learning experience, but I'd probably never do it this way again (the workflow that is, I've really liked the various software and gear we used).

So I guess maybe this is all "cutting edge" stuff? Or, maybe a lot of folks out there are just slow to catch on. :)

-Blake

I haven't taken the plunge into Myspace yet, but I plan to for "Killing Down" (and maybe for myself showcasing my directing efforts).

I've of course known about it for quite a while, but haven't taken the leap because I used to think it was "only for teenage kids" and mainly geared towards music. While I still believe the vast majority of Myspace members are teenagers (and music folks), I do know a growing number of "grown-ups" using it and the new Myspace Film section looks interesting as well.

Anyway, I plan to have a "friend's list" soon, but in the meantime check Natalie Raitano's Myspace page at http://www.myspace.com/natalie_raitano.

She runs it in conjunction with a fan, so it's a legit deal. No 14 year boy from Ohio posing as Natalie. It's her and she replies to most postings.

-Blake

Well, I FINALLY got some more of the photos back from the after party of the movie premiere. We've had issues getting the pix from the photographers. We still actually have one photographer that is MIA - so, we'll have even more pix hopefully soon. In the meantime here are a few select shots...

Matthew and his fiance' Shauna (she plays "Lisa")
























Natalie Raitano, Jimmy, Rachel, Rey and Nat's friend (can't recall her name!)
























Oliver Tull with DP Alan Lefebvre and his wife
























Jesse Cortez and Shauna
























Natalie Raitano and Sheree Wilson
























Jesse and Natalie
























Sheree, Matt and Natalie
























Natalie and Blake (yep, on the phone at the party)
























Thanks to Jesse Cortez for getting me these pictures. As mentioned, I hope to have the last round of them up soon.

Oh, and the final version of the movie is ALMOST DONE. :)

-Blake

We're starting our final color correction and have done some test this past week.

We're doing what I'm calling an "indie DI" using FinalTouch HD at Color Cafe in Austin. Omar Godinez is the colorist (and owner of the company) and has over 20 years experience working at places like Filmworkers Club and Video Post & Transfer (both in Dallas).

Here's a quick sample of what we're doing...

Original Image:















Corrected Image:















The original was shot very flat, low contrast with a lot of dynamic range knowing we would be doing color correction.

Pretty cool process and fun seeing it "come alive".

-Blake

In the article below, Jacques Thelemaque of withoutabox.com has a different take than most today on the idea of using "stars" in independent films. He doesn't think you need them. He cites examples of successful films that didn't have them (or they weren't stars at the time).

This is all great and I really like his list of "facts" - BUT it's really all based in theory and unfortunately not the case in today's real world marketplace.

For every "Napoleon Dynamite" success with "no stars" there are literally thousands of other "no star" failures.

Do stars actually help low budget indie films? Depends. If their performance is good, then yes, absolutely. If it's not good, then yes, absolutely. Why? It's all about getting attention for the work. Do I like this? Not really. But it is a fact.

We live in a celebrity driven culture and having a "star" in your film just gives it that extra "legitimacy" that some folks need (i.e. festival programmers, media outlets, distributors, etc.).

Here's Jacques article...

TIP OF THE MONTH: Avoid The "Star" Trap

I don't know how many financing and distribution seminars I've sat in on where filmmakers were sold on the importance of putting a "name" or a "star" in a film to make it more attractive to potential buyers/audiences. The logic of this is, of course, obvious. Until you break it down. Like much of the information (and people) orbiting around the filmmaking universe, the "star" thing is a superficiality embraced by the starstruck, naive, desperate and/or lazy filmmaker that doesn't hold up to substantive thinking.

Let me clarify that I am not saying there aren't benefits to having recognizable actors in your film. There are indeed. Many people in and out of the industry, including festival programmers, are star-obsessed. They put name actors on a pedestal and reward the film accordingly. But do you really want to pander to the "cult of celebrity" mentality? Especially when you do a cool-headed cost/benefit analysis (in terms of time, money, AND energy) of doing the "star" trip.

Fact #1: Very few stars can meaningfully affect a film's bottom line. Any distribution executive will tell you truthfully that there are very few actors that will significantly impact a film's potential revenue despite the widely held contrary notion. The film needs to be the star. The film needs to work.

Fact #2: Stars are hard to get. You can spend months, even years, trying to get stars interested in your project no matter how good your script is. Even if you figure out how to make contact, you are often sent from agent to manager to lawyer to publicist to dogwalker back to agent, and so on - with each one taking months to respond.

Fact #3: Stars can be expensive pains-in-the-ass. Even if you can get them to work for free (or practically free), they are still used to a certain level of treatment and perks that can wind up costing the production considerable amounts of money. Or, they just can't/won't meet the demands of your production - costing you more time, which equals money. Also, stars can often wield their experience and status to run roughshod creatively over a fledgling director and, in fact, over a whole production. Of course, there are many exceptions to this fact - known actors who are respectful and generous with their time and creativity. But there are many more horror stories.

Fact #4: Stars can upset the tone of a film. I don't know how many times I've been thrown out of the authenticity of a film by the sudden appearance of a recognizable actor - bringing with them the baggage of what we know about them from other stuff. I don't want to be lost in a film just to be pulled out when Paris Hilton shows up for a mise-en-scene-chewing cameo.

And really, what is a "star"? Or a "name"? Does it really benefit your film to have a world famous socialite or minor regular from a popular T.V. show (which is what most emerging filmmakers are lucky to have access to) in your film unless their acting ability truly benefits the film creatively? Answer: No. Instead reframe the whole star thing in your head.

First, make your film the star. Think of the film as a whole as the marketing hook that will attract investors and audiences. Your distinctive ideas and creative energy will "sell" the film. If you look at the Sundance successes over the past several years, almost none had "name" actors. From "Chuck and Buck" to "Blair Witch Project" to "Napolean Dynamite." Think of some the great films in world cinema history - DiSica's "The Bicycle Thief", Resnais' "Hiroshima, Mon Amour" or Lynch's "Eraserhead." Now, name the "stars" in them. Good luck.

Second, think in terms of casting the actor that will bring the most CREATIVELY to your film. Yes, there are plenty of "name" actors whose work you love and would be great for your film. If you can get 'em (and they won't make you pull your hair out), go for it. But always make the film, and the process of making the film, your priority in terms of deciding which actor is appropriate to cast. There are plenty of brilliant/and or perfectly appropriate actors for your film who are not "stars" or "names". Have the courage to champion them. Take advantage of their accessibility and collaborative energy. Keep your film authentic. Use them to make your film great and you will then have your "star."

Again, I completely agree with him in theory and wish it were the case. And I do definitely agree that cameos don't do much for a film. I also really like the idea of "making your film the star". But in today's marketplace it just makes sense to protect your investment by using at least a recognizable face, if not a "star", in one or more of the principle roles (if you can afford it and if the role is right for the actor).

Just use your head and don't cast the 60-year-old male cowboy "star" in a role written for a 25-year-old female lifeguard. :)

-Blake

Brian Abrams of the Fort Worth Weekly called me last week requesting a screener of "Killing Down" to do a story/review of the film. I must admit I was hesitant because the film is NOT done and I prefer to put our best foot forward when we go out to the public. But, I did screen the movie at the USA Film Festival so it is in pretty good shape - just not completely finished (mainly the score, some visual effects, color correction and some final editing tweaks).

I decided to go ahead and send it to him warts and all, primarily to piggy back off the USA Film Festival screening and the press we received from that. So I sent it and here's a link to the review (it's at the bottom of the page).

I typically don't put a lot of weight on reviews - positive or negative - filmmaking is very subjective and so are audiences responses. I tend to fall into the camp of "any press is good press just as long as you spell my name right". Of course I prefer positive reviews and in this case Brian liked the work, which I'm happy to hear.

BTW, still waiting to get pictures from the photographers from the premiere and the after party. As soon as I get them I'll post them to the blog.

In the meantime, please check out the review and remember he saw a "work-in-progress" version of the film. :)

-Blake

If you are in the film business it is VERY LIKELY you are familiar with the website IMDb.com a.k.a. The Internet Movie Database.

I personally visit this site all the time. I use it not only as a fan of other people's work, but as a tool to research films and primarily to research actors I'm interested in for future projects. This is one reason anyone who is an actor and has done any short film or feature film work should list their name on the site. Or, have the producer or director of the film you were in list it for you (they will be listing the project I assure you). It's actually very easy to do and a great way to get some publicity. AND, it's actually the main site that everyone (including Hollywood folks) use to look people up - from grips to actors to directors. If you are in the entertainment industry you should be on IMDb.

This brings me to the main point of this post. The NY Times has a really good article on the relatively unknown founder of IMDb. His name is Col Needham. I have been using the site for at least 8 or 9 years and I had never heard of him. All I knew was that the site originated out of England - and sure enough - that's where Col is from.

From the article:

As the founder and managing director of the Internet Movie Database, Mr. Needham might just be the archetype of the telecommuting Web-head. The site he founded and runs, http://www.imdb.com/, ranks as the 10th-most-popular entertainment spot online, according to ComScore Media Metrix. It had 18.6 million unique visitors in April, a 67 percent surge from a year earlier.

Internet Movie Database began in 1990 as a bulletin board database of movie credits. It was started by Mr. Needham and some film-buff friends. At the time, Mr. Needham was working as an engineer in Bristol at Hewlett-Packard (or, as he says in his native Manchester lilt, "Hewlett Pa-Cod") and had only a rudimentary strategy for financing the site.

"We didn't sit down and think, 'What's the best way to make money on the Internet?' " Mr. Needham said. "This is very much a labor of love. When we started the company, there was no commercial use of the Internet."

By 1998, the database had established itself as a favorite on the early Internet, and Mr. Needham was amused to receive a number of buyout approaches.

One was an invitation to a London hotel in January to meet with Jeffrey P. Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Mr. Bezos told Mr. Needham that he thought the movie database could help Amazon sell VHS cassettes and DVD's — Mr. Needham points out that it was in that order in those days — but also recognized that the site would need to be run separately to maintain its personality. Amazon, of course, could handle the technological end and pour resources into upgrades.

I didn't know that Amazon OWNS IMDb. I've always seen the links to Amazon, but they are very subtle. This might be changing soon though. In the article it mentions that Amazon might start using IMDb as a "front door" to their new movie download service that will allow users to burn their own copy of a DVD at home. Details are still being worked out, but there are several Hollywood studios involved. Sounds interesting for sure.

I just hope they keep IMDb the same. Without it no filmmaker or actor would have proof that they even existed (except of course their films, and they may not want to show them). ;)

Read the full article from the NY Times (you might have to register to read it).

-Blake