The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

That's it? 3 full days of reactions, and the board goes silent?

Sounds like I would have had a good time despite my severe reservations. Still, for me, I would much rather have seen 3 or 4 more vintage titles (and 'vintage' can mean as recent as the early 00's if they were worthy) than stuff like PEOPLE VS G.L. or TROLL HUNTER.

The marathon is NOT a Zero-Sum game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero%E2%80%93sum_game) like checkers*: You can't simply say that TROLL HUNTER is a good movie and (to just grab an example) FREQUENCY is a good movie. Therefore, it doesn't matter that TROLL HUNTER was shown this year, you still had an equal value in good movies.

Why it's not Zero-Sum:

1. TROLL HUNTER is currently on-Demand and will be in theaters soon. It's fresh and new and can easily be viewed. It may not play in all cities in theaters right now, however, prints would still be available next year or the year after.

2. FREQUENCY is an eleven year old movie (believe it or not!). Available prints are already rare (IF they exist at all). Sure, most have seen it, and you can get the DVD, but to ever get the chance to see it in a movie theater (with a cool audience) dwindles every year.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Sum for this one slot on the schedule is a net-negative, NOT Zero. The value of securing a print of FREQUENCY this year was higher than getting a so-called "Premiere" of TROLL HUNTER that already is in the release pipestream.

Post-Script: Under that same reasoning, LATE FOR DINNER was a much more valuable use of a slot than PEOPLE VS. GEORGE LUCAS. Take out PEOPLE VS. G.L. and LUNOPOLIS and substitute in a FREQUENCY and a THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE and the marathon would have been stronger. IMHOP, natch!

* Essentially, a Zero-Sum game is one in which no matter what each side in a two person game chooses, the sum is always zero. In checkers, there is a winner and a loser. There isn't any greater value to the winning side (black or white) than to the losing side. You start the next game with exactly the same number of pieces. The stock market ISN'T a zero-sum game because though there is a winner and loser on a sale, there is ALSO a value in the stock to the company who's stock it is (not to mention building a portfolio etc etc).

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

I can see your point about the value of seeing older films versus ones where the print is easily available, but I think another thing to consider is the value of "Will this draw people in?"

Using your example, would Frequency have brought people in the door for the marathon more so than Troll Hunter? Would Frequency have convinced people to stick around until the final film slot more than Troll Hunter? Personally, I can say "No." I remember seeing "Frequency" at a marathon past, and while I enjoyed it, the final slot of the marathon is often a "Do I really have the energy to stick around for this?" case for me. (Coupled with "Is it worth ticking off the family member who is waiting for me to relieve them of watching my children by staying here past noon?") I had never seen "Troll Hunter" and - especially in Columbus as opposed to LA - had no idea if I would ever again get to see it on a big screen. So, I stayed for Troll Hunter, but might not have for Frequency. Which means that I wouldn't have made an additional purchase at the concession stand during "The Giant Gila Monster," since I would have been heading home afterwards.

I know I'm picking on the particular example you gave, and there are certainly other films in the docket that could have been changed out (replace, say, "The People vs. George Lucas" with "This Island Earth", for example). And I also will freely confess I was in the "I want more classic films" camp heading in to the marathon. But I think that there is some value to premieres for "Getting butts into seats," regardless of their value to dedicated marathoids/film fans.

This year I got more tired, more quickly and I think it's because of the lack of "classic titles" to keep me going......Let me explain....

During a premiere movie (in this case premiere means a movie that almost no one at the marathon has seen) the audience is usually very quiet and pays very close attention to the movie (yes there are a few exception, Automatons comes to mind).

During a "Classic" Movie the audience comes alive and laughs along with the movie and a few snarks can be fun (to many can ruin the whole marathon, have to be careful)

So an even mix of "premieres" and "Classics" are needed to keep people awake for the whole 24 hours.

This year there were to many "premieres" which means too quiet, which means too tired to stay awake for Troll Hunter (See Below)

This brings up another point, I am not a fan of ending the marathon with a "premiere" or any movie that is subtitled. After 24 (or more) hours staying awake is hard enough but having to put forth effort becomes almost impossible.

I know not every marathon can end with FLASH GORDON or WRATH OF KHAN but the ones that did looked to have a record number of people stay till the very end. In my humble opinion the marathons need to end with a huge bang and and the "premieres" need to be shown early enough that the mass majority will be able to enjoy them.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

Fair points all.

Certainly, the lure of a 'Premiere' is what drives festivals from L.A. to Cannes. But, are you really drawing in that many new folks when you are proclaiming a 'Premiere' for a film that is on pay-per-view for weeks before a Festival? For films that have been on DVD for 2 years (in some extreme cases in Boston at least)?! For films that will likely never get a regular release anyway, and then ooze out on some grade Z video label?
Sure, long time Marathoners have fond memories of seeing some particular 'Premiere' or other, but, are they what attracted you to buy your first ticket??!! Or, were you drawn to the idea of getting to see a FORBIDDEN PLANET, BLADE RUNNER or 2001 on the big screen with a cool audience?

I would doubt that FREQUENCY would have been swapped directly with TROLL HUNTER as far as closing out the Marathon (and, I just tossed FREQUENCY out there as a loose example, anyway). But, to Jaws3d's point: I do think you are on to something with the idea that too many 'Premieres' stunt the flow of a Marathon. Most true film festivals play out over a full week (or more), so you only are seeing 2 or 3 films a day. With a new film that you aren't familiar with, you have to pay more attention in order to appreciate what they have to offer. It takes work. With familiar classics, you can relax and enjoy the films. Even 2nd rate B movies from years gone by have been viewed over the years so you know their reputation even if you haven't seen them yourself. Again, you can just sit back and let them roll over you.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

I'm not sure what your problem with Troll Hunter is. I don't live in LA, so its pretty much the marathon or bust for me.

Maybe I would've caught it on a movie channel in a year or two, but I'm much happier that I got to see it on the big screen. Especially with a receptive audience.

And that's the thing about most premieres or psuedo-premieres. These aren't movies I'm going to see in a theater otherwise. Heck, most of them could be playing next door, and I'm not sure I'd walk over and pay $10 each to see them. But when you group them all together and charge me $34 for the whole package, they become a lot more appealing.

And by the way, if you check my rankings in the review thread, you'll see that I had WOTW, Iron Man, and Late For Dinner all pretty high on the list too. So i'm perfectly happy to see non-premieres. But I certainly wouldn't complain if Bruce said next year we'd have 12 premieres and no classics. Though one of my favorite marathon memories was King Dinosaur. (Invisible Boy was pretty fun too.)

Variety is the best. I'd vote for 6 premieres and 6 classics, though 5:7 or 4:8 are far more likely ratios.

Maybe, I should have used LUNOPOLIS or AUTOMOTONS as the example. Nothing against TROLL HUNTER per se (in fact, I have my DVR set to record it - FOR FREE - next Wed. on HDNET).

I'm trying not to make this a dupe thread of the "Sticky Issue of Marathon Premiers" thread ( http://www.scifimarathon.com/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=1131). My point here is that all the good reviews of this marathon seem to progress from the idea that a "good movie" is a "good movie" equation, whereas I contend that the very nature of an annual Marathon event dictates that is NOT a Zero-Sum game.

Now, folks like Cleazer have no problem with the Marathon becoming more and more like a Festival. And, that's cool. I'm just laying out the counter-argument. I am not as doctrinaire as some folks in Boston who are basically against ALL "premieres". Now, if you have a genuine 100% Grade A Premiere that's one thing. But, to pawn off stuff that is in theaters, on cable, long on DVD or so under the radar that they have been on the shelf (excuse me, on the "Festival Circuit") for 2 or 3 years as "premieres" is another.

Because of the reasons layed out previously, I just feel that "premieres" should be a condiment and not the meal.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

I agree with this for the most part but there are always exceptions like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Next Generation" which Joe and I premiered at the First Ever Shocktoberfest for example...it was shelved (and for good reason) but if not for us showing it at the marathon the lucky few who were there would not have seen this gem for several years before it hit DVD.



premieres are like McDonalds fries, they just make the whole meal that much better, I have never once went to McDonalds and just ordered fries.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

I've been scratching my head for a few days on how to reply to this. I guess I'll just brain dump.

I think the "Zero-Sum" analogy is largely pointless. Choosing which films will play is not a game or a contest, it's an exercise in determining what will sell more tickets and what will make the audience want to come back for more.

Your point is valid, that it's not "Zero-Sum", but that's also precisely why you can't "rate" whether you should eschew premieres in favor of older prints. Not every audience viewer is the same, not every Marathon crowd is the same. No ten films are going to mean the same thing to two different observers.

What's going to make me buy a ticket? Well, seeing Cargo on the big screen definitely pushed me to attend (even having seen it already on DVD), and the buzz behind Troll Hunter was quite intriguing. It definitely felt worth taking the risk. Frequency on the other hand wouldn't have moved me one inch. (And for the record, neither would Jason X.) Would I watch them again? Sure. Does the prospect of seeing them on the big screen again excite me? Not particularly. I'd much rather miss a chance to see Jason X again on the big screen than possibly miss Troll Hunter in its probably-oh-so-limited theatrical engagement.

Sure, I could have done without Lunopolis or The People Vs. George Lucas, but premieres are a wildcard ... that's one reason why I don't recommend having a lot of them.

My overarching point is that the rarity of older films does NOT guarantee that they're going to be more valuable of a draw for an audience, or that they're going to enhance the audience's enjoyment of the event. And this coming from someone who AGREES with you that this year was too premiere heavy.

Premieres are like ketchup. Nobody over the age of eight should put them on hot dogs, but I do anyway.

_________________
David A. Zecchini; Creature of the Wheel, Lord of the Infernal Engines
"Damnati Im Ludum" (VitruvianZeke@att.net)

Because the Marathon isn't a Zero-Sum game - there is no one "correct" answer.

I do think however that VitruvianZeke inadvertently helps make my point. Sure, I agree that one or two well-chosen "Premieres" helps add value to the Marathon, but, bad "Premieres" like AUTOMONS can detract as well (not to mention my larger point that picking more known vintage titles instead of weak alleged "Premieres" is more valuable for multiple reasons). Sure, long-time Marathoners can wear 'surviving' a bad premiere as a sort of badge - but, how many first-timers get turned off in the process?

I agree that the Ticket Sales issue is complicated. Still, I feel I am on firm ground in stating that most First Time Attendees are attracted to the Marathon because of variety (including some "Premiere" condiments), much more so than the lure of several LUNOPOLIS -es.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

Variety is surely the correct answer. I was sitting in front of a couple of people this year who remarked that they'd never seen Iron Man before. A few years ago at the horror marathon, I was next to a whole group of people who had never seen From Dusk Til Dawn, and explicitly stated that was their main reason to attend the marathon.

This post goes out to all the haters who complain about any recent mainstream releases showing at the marathon!

I don't think a 15 year old movie is exactly a "recent" release. The recent release factor for me is 5 years or less. As much as I like Iron Man and appreciated it's time slot to wake me up, I think there are plenty of slightly older and equally loud films that could have done the same thing. But despite my own hesitancy about recent releases playing, every now and then something like Equilibrium plays and surprises the heck out of me (though to be fair I think it got about 5% of of the audience Iron Man had on its initial release).

To the greater point, I think it is a shame to spend 8-12 hours of a 24 hour event on premieres, many of which do disappoint or are utterly forgettable. I'd also throw out the idea NO MORE DOCUMENTARIES-PERIOD! There are so many great films that we've been begging to see at marathons for over a decade that have still NEVER played a marathon before. And as much as I love Buckaroo Banzai, War of the Worlds and Planet of Vampires have all played before (granted a long time ago). So this year I'd go out and say that there wasn't a single classic that's never played a marathon before. I liked Late for Dinner but it's not a classic. Iron Man may one day be considered a classic, but it's too new to call it that now. When year after year the same requests for Jason X, They Live, Gojira, Soylent Green, The Running Man, Galaxy Quest, etc... go ignored and instead we had 12 hours of Columbus premieres. There is value to be had in premieres but I think if we had Troll Hunter, Robot (let's not debate again the premiereness of it), and Cargo only for our Columbus premieres and replaced Lunopolis and The People Vs. George Lucas with any of the above titles I think we could have had a much more balanced and better marathon. I think Jeff wants more premieres to lure new-comers but let's face it: there just aren't a lot of newcomers going to these anymore. In fact, the next generation doesn't seem to care about anything they can't see/read/hear on their frickin' phones! I'm sure Lawrence of Arabia looks great on an iphone.... But these marathons are thriving on the hardcore marathoids and our ability to bring in a new generation or new friends to these things. So I think that's why we get a little proprietary on these message boards.

_________________
"I came here to chew bubble gum and kick a**. I'm all out of bubble gum."

I am not sure but I think the theater gets premieres for free so that would be the major incentive for wanting to show more of them than the classics that have to be paid for, it makes the event more profitable,

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

Really, none of those have played before?

Godzilla is a classic. They Live is just about as beloved as Buckaroo Banzai is, if not more. (And certainly more for me personally, though obviously I don't speak for everyone.)

But the one title that really stands out there is The Running Man. That movie seems like it would make an excellent closing movie. I'd gladly watch that at 10am.


On the other hand, I've seen all 6 of those movies that you listed, as I'm sure many people here have.

Do people really want to drive/fly/walk/bike/hitch all the way to Columbus just to see 12 movies that they've already seen before? I really need some new content in there to really get me psyched up for a marathon.





Really? That's rather surprising. I wouldn't have guessed that.

Though if its true, that certainly answers the "zero-sum game" question.

A few points:

1. The cost of premieres can vary wildly. Some distributors will charge a flat rental rate (plus shipping), while others (especially smaller companies) will only ask for the theater to cover mailing costs. There's often no definite pattern to discern, although in general premieres tend to cost the theater some kind of compensation.

2. Playing well-known classics tends to be an exercise in walking that mythical fine line. But the reaction to them can often be heartening and surprising: witness the warm ovations that Frankenstein and Psycho received last year. Ultimately, watching something like Psycho fifty times on video and seeing it on the big screen with this great audience are two wildly different experiences. And longtime Marathoids (myself included) can often forget that there are large chunks of newbies or short-term attendees who have never seen genre stalwarts like Evil Dead 2 or Re-Animator, let alone in a theatrical setting (Raimi's film, especially, plays much differently with an audience than at home).

The guiding principle that I've followed in any Marathons that I've organized (or co-organized with Bruce) has been to keep the lineup varied, but also to sell the event as a whole. It's been a principle that has been at the heart of some of the best Columbus SF and Horror Marathons since 1987. This includes everything from the decorations to the intermission music to what we show on screen in-between films. The lineup can sometimes feature films that most of the audience has seen before, but their role in combination with 10-11 other films, along with everything else that goes into the event, can often outweigh any problems with familiarity.

One other thing to consider is how some well-known titles play unexpectedly well when the day of the Marathon rolls around. Witness From Dusk Til Dawn at the 2007 2-Headed Marathon. Most of the board wanted it to show last so that they could hit the exits early. HA! So naturally, I scheduled it first. And it went over really well! It's a pretty great flick to open a Marathon with: it has a tense opening that draws the viewer in, but also almost an hour of slam bang gore to let the audience exhaust some of the nervous energy they've accumulated in line.

Sorry to stray off topic, but since you brought up From Dusk Til Dawn, I wanted to touch on something specific that has always bugged me.

SPOILER ALERT, I guess, if you know absolutely nothing about the movie.

That film is good, yet I contend that it would have been an entirely different experience, and perhaps even elevated itself into "instant classic" territory if not for one thing: I wish that somehow, someway, by hook or by crook we could have all gone in NOT KNOWING about the vampires. I realize this would have been near impossible to sell and/or promote, and granted, the reveal is relatively early compared to other films with "twists." But can you imagine enjoying this edgy Clooney/Tarantino road trip/crime spree movie having no idea what their ultimate fate in the Titty Twister was to be?

For me, a film always gets bonus points if there is a reveal that makes sense and at the same time catches me totally off guard. My wife is still mad at me over The Shawshank Redemption. While in line for that movie many moons ago, I was wondering aloud why they dropped the "Rita Hayworth" from the title of the King novella it was based on, and went into specifics which ended up spoiling one of the more talked about twists in movie history. In my defense, it was NOT a shocking revelation in the novella, so I really had no idea.

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"