The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

Ah, for the days when Ami Dolenz seemed to appear
in every other Marathon premiere...

So as many of you know, I didn't start attending this cinematic thing of ours until the 1993 edition of IT CAME FROM THE DREXEL NORTH. I knew about the Marathons since their inception, but I was 11 in 1987, so that younger version of me figured that there was no way in hell that my parents would let me attend such an event, especially the Horror Marathon. Seeing the full page ad for the first NIGHT OF THE LIVING DREXEL in Hoot still ranks up there as one of the key forbidden fruit moments of my childhood. It's almost like Bruce was dangling candy at me from afar, luring me into his gingerbread house of horrors.

Um...oh...sorry....yeah.....anyway, back to my main point. I've always felt like I missed out on the true golden age of the Marathons, so over the years, I've tried to gradually fill in the blanks by watching the premieres that I missed in those first few years. And so it was that this week, I finally checked out John McNaughton's THE BORROWER and the short-lived Fangoria Films' CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT. If you haven't seen either, they're worth checking out, even if neither is great shakes. THE BORROWER is a major tonal shift from HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, and its attempt at slapstick humor often drags (although watch out for TWIN PEAKS hottie Madchen Amick in a small but key supporting role.) CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT is truly a child of the EVIL DEAD family, chock full of deeply expressionist lighting, skewed camera angles and often over the top acting (and some ace SPFX work by the budding mad geniuses at KNB.) I can totally see how both films were tailor-made for the decidedly magical and unique crowd that is the Marathon faithful.

Okay, okay, but what am I trying to get at? Well, watching these two films made me ponder the programming of premieres over the lifespan of both Marathons. The 4th edition of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DREXEL at which BORROWER and CHILDREN took their bow (info for which can be found here...but c'mon now, you have this page bookmarked, don't you?) also featured the U.S. Premieres of Brian Yuzna's SOCIETY (he was in attendance, along with his son Conan) and the Romero/Argento tag team effort TWO EVIL EYES, and the semi-legendary Midwest Premiere of THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE, directed by Rolfe Kanefsky (who by all accounts stole the show with his ace guest appearance.) That's almost half of the lineup composed of films making their local or regional debuts.

So my question is this: all things being equal, do you prefer a lineup (sci-fi or horror) heavy on premieres or focused on classics, cult items, underseen gems, etc.? Is there a hard and fast rule for you? And has your philosophy on this topic changed over the years?

The reason I ask that final question is mainly due to the changing nature of premieres over the years. Traditionally, horror premieres have always been a bit more plentiful than their sci-fi brethren, so it makes sense that those classic editions of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DREXEL sometimes featured more new films. But as the years have passed, premieres have been a bit more difficult to obtain. The internet has certainly played a role in this, but the increased number of genre film festivals in major cities has also made it more difficult to convince a distributor to allow for an early screening in Columbus (we've gone over the various levels of illogical thought that goes into this in past threads.) And there are far fewer reliable, small exploitation factories around to produce low budgeted by still spirited genre flicks. More people have access to filmmaking equipment, but as a cursory troll of YouTube will tell you, more people are also making no budget crap. As well, a theater like the Gateway has the ability to book many genre titles months in advance, guaranteeing the film companies at least 2-3 screenings during the week (which often trumps the Marathons six ways to Tuesday.) In the run up to last year's Horror Marathon, I tried my damndest to book 1-2 decent premieres, but was stonewalled at every turn. As a result, Bruce and I decided that we'd rather show a few recent, but underseen films instead; hence, KILL LIST and THE LAST CIRCUS.

So yeah, things have changed. And may continue to change. But looking over the history of the Marathons, what have you traditionally preferred in your lineup balance? I've generally held fast to the philosophy of balance, unless the extra premieres are well-worth seeing. For example, I was decidedly underwhelmed by SF27, mainly because several of the premieres were pretty weak sauce. And they ended up pushing several rare prints into the wee hours of the night. And the final NIGHT OF THE LIVING DREXEL in 1994 had far too may schlocky premieres (on top of too many schlocky films in general), almost none of which were even decent. Premieres for premieres sake? Not a fan.

So what do you say? Where do you stand?

Oh, and a postscript about my late entry into the Marathon lifestyle: many years after my first event, my parents casually told me that, oh yeah, they would've let me attend those early Marathons. My sister could have taken me. AGGGHHH!!!!

As I've been going to the SF Marathon for 11 years I've saw many premieres. Some I like some I detest. True I didn't care much for Starship Troopers2 and I lothed The Captains from last year. Now I rewatched Ink and It is still a good movie. Just re watched Stingray Sam and still it is one of my fave films. For me Premires are a mix bag.

I would suggest that limited the premiers to three. Then have more classics and recient films to round out the lineup.

I know there's been lots of debate on this, and I'm generally cool with whatever is shown. But for me personally, I'm satisfied if there's even ONE good, solid premiere of something of decent quality that hasn't come out yet. There doesn't have to be a LOT of premieres. Just give me one title. It doesn't have to be a huge blockbuster or anything like that. In fact, I usually prefer the smaller films. Just something that looks interesting, hasn't been released yet and has the potential to be good.

I honestly believe that premieres are part of the appeal for some people. Not the ONLY appeal by a long shot, but it's that little extra something that gets people to buy a ticket. It's something special, something just for this audience. "Oh, they're showing (insert unreleased title here)? Wow, I have to see THAT." If you can stay home and watch the same films on video or Netflix streaming, it doesn't entice certain people to make an effort to come. If, for example, Brandon Cronenberg's Antiviral was showing this year (hint hint), that stirs up interest for people who might consider staying home otherwise.

Of course I realize that premieres are more and more difficult to get. But I think it's still worth making the effort. Especially now with the transfer from film to digital, I think there are some people who will have yet another excuse to stay home, and any enticement to bring them back to the marathon is a good thing. Just my opinion.

I love premieres and I love the idea of premieres. Sure, they're not all great, but I feel that they're a big part of what elevates a marathon from just being "we're getting together to watch movies for 24 hours straight" to something more of an event.

As pointed out, premieres may be more difficult to come by these days, but for me "underseen" films such as Kill List or The Last Circus may as well be premieres since I haven't seen them, and they fulfill the requirements for balance and variety just as well.

That said, I do feel it helps to be able to advertise 2-3 premieres. It just feels like it adds to the prestige of the event.


As for the final question of whether my opinion on this has changed over the years, I'm not really qualified to answer. I've only been going to marathon for 10 years or so. So I'm already past the time of widespread home video availability and the like. As has been pointed out many times, the nature of the "need" for a marathon has certainly changed since the 80's, and in my mind that just helps the solidify the notion that variety and balance are most important to the continued viability of these marathons. And both premieres, old classics, old rarities, underseen new films, and even modern blockbusters should be part of that mixture.

I like a couple a year. I think one of the best all time was Frequency. Honestly as the marathon keeps slipping into May I keep hoping some studio will take a chance on getting us a big summer movie early. However, thanks to smart phones and the like, it would be hard to keep it under wraps, which was another advantage of the Golden Days of Marathons. Bruce would swear us to secrecy, if need be, and even if we wanted to tell the world, it would have been considerably harder than today.

I'm pretty easy to please and rarely get out to the movies anymore or get to watch much at home, so I'm pretty happy with most anything put up there. I used to be opposed to more recent films that were not premieres, but now they are a chance for me to see them on the big screen when I wouldn't otherwise. Inception, for example I have not seen on big or little screen. But I'm wandering off topic.

I have a friend who used to manage a theater for a chain here in Columbus. We used to go to Cincy for small pre screenings of films like Alien 3 and Batman Returns. Sometimes they films wouldn't have all of the final SFX shots included. I'm not expectng that kind of thing at the Marathon. I've been happy with what we have had the last few years, but like I said earlier, I am easy to please.

_________________
The wages of sin are royalties.

My biggest issue with Premieres is most of them are movies that not everyone has ever heard of and they are usually subtitled. To me a premiere should be special, not just a movie that is new and has never shown before. I realize getting movies like "Frequency" are not always easy for our small event especially with so many Large Horror Movie Events that the studios are more likely to allow to show grade A movies.

When dealing with a sleep deprived audience the marathons should limit the subtitled movies to 1 per event and that 1 should be chosen very carefully, like "Versus" for example or the "Chinese Ghost Story" Movies.

Now that most theaters are all digital I am sure we will see more direct to video movies like "Tremors 2" and "Starship Troopers 2" which personally I am fine with. The whole point of the Marathons is to find and share that rare gem with your fellow marathoneers however we will probably see less rare classics that are so obscure they have never had a DVD release and will probably never see Blu-Ray like "Night Life"

So in a nutshell to me a premiere should be something that people are excited about not just a movie that has never shown.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

I find it amusing that people who still have issues with subtitled films. They are just "picture books" with moving pictures. Subtile films are easy to follow.

Anyway as long the film is good subtitles should be a non factor.

For me, premieres are nice, but at the same time, I'd like to see a rare gem or something "classic" on the big screen as well. I know there were some people who complain about seeing a film (or digital presentation) and it's the same as watching it at home with friends. I vehemently disagree. I have a 52" TV and a decent surround system, but still something special and magical about a theater screen.

The marathons for me are also a way to re-discover films of my childhood (and back). A great example was at the horror marathon last October. I hadn't seen "Something Wicked This Way Comes" since I was a kid. To the point where my memory was too fuzzy to remember if I liked the film or not. After watching it, it didn't matter, I absolutely loved the film. Many times I'll re-watch a film within the same year of the marathon. Not only did I enjoy the film in a theater, I have this amazingly positive experience to associate with when watching it at home.

I can say the same for Brainstorm, as a kid I didn't care too much for the film outside of Christopher Walken, but after seeing it on the big screen, I have fond memories and will continue to watch this at home with my wife - as we experienced "no, you go to hell!" together. I know for everyone it's different, but since we both love cinema, it's a fantastic place to be!

So I like 1 or 2 premieres, but I also like a stable of classic and rarely seen gems. If I watched Starship Troopers 2 on the big screen, I wouldn't have been too happy.

How about a silent short like the newly remastered (hand colored) Le Voyage dans la Lune (Trip to the Moon) with the new score by Air?
It's less than 15 minutes long, and is very much a classic.

Sorry for the ramble, but I just wanted to say I'd rather see quality rather than a need to premiere a film.

I've a copy to A Trip to the Moon and the restoration/reconstruction of said film looks great on my 46 inch LED TV and my Boise haeadphones and my basic Altec Lansang audio system. The restoration-reconstruction via by digital means was great.

Why not screen this at this year's SF Marathon. Paired it with other shorts.

I did remember that Starship Troopers 2 did aired on cable before the 21st SF Marathon. Now I did like Starship Troopers 3 and the animated sequel.

I tend to be pretty much in agreement with Joe here, and SF27 actually is a great example of what can happen when you front-load a lineup which results in diminishing returns. That year featured the awesomeness that was Stingray Sam, but also threw in the kitchen sink with Ink,Sleep Dealer,Richard Garriott: Man on a Mission, and the unnecessary sequel The Lost Skeleton Returns Again. And don't get me started on that 30 minute monster movie parody that somehow made the poster and was advertised like it was some sort of big deal.

Okay, so the Garriott doc booking is defensible because we were only the second audience in the country to see it and there was no predicting how boring and ordinary it turned out to be. I thoroughly enjoyed The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, though I know a few regular marathon goers who would disagree. But even I'm smart enough to know that it was NOT going to work again on it's own merits, let alone up against the standards of what a good marathon "premiere" should be.
Ink and Sleep Dealer were both interesting in their own way, but here's the problem: both suffered from the inclusion of the other. If either one of those had been the ONLY premiere of the lineup, along with Stingray Sam thrown into the mix, they would have been thought of more highly I expect.
The result that year is a giant cluster of below average leading into the wee hours, where many slept through what should have been a Marathon highlight of a gorgeous print of Battle in Outer Space which was relegated to the 3AM slot. Follow that with the horrible placement of Galaxina next to last and you have a lineup that just doesn't work at all as a whole.

Then again, one could make an argument for a premiere heavy lineup like SF15 in 2005 that actually DID work well. I mean, you can't go wrong with Primer,Steamboy,The Apple and Code 46. Sure, that horrible Matrix parody was a mistake, but merely a pimple in an otherwise solid lineup of films. Steamboy's not my cup of tea, but all four of those premieres were heavy-hitters and diverse enough so as not to take away from the enjoyment of any of the others.

So yeah, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by something, but in recent years there has just been too much thrown at the walls, with not much sticking. I can't speak for the last two years because I wasn't there, but looking on as an observer, it appears to be a little better than that year. At SF28, Troll Hunter is pretty good, and Buckaroo Banzai was still able to be showcased early in the lineup, but did anyone really care about watching the ho-hum Lunopolis at 3AM? Then at SF29, from what I hear The Last Push went over well and didn't suffer from being in the same lineup as Electroma and The Captains. But, think about this, what if instead of those stinkers we had a genuine classic or a recent successful film? That just elevates something good like The Last Push even more, dontcha think?

I don't really have a solution, but I think history has shown when it comes to "premieres" and recent fare, less is more. And more special, I think.

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

Jacks makes a very good cogent argument. My only quibble is the SF/15 discussion quoted above. PRIMER, STEAMBOY and CODE 46 were all films that had already been released to good reviews in other parts of the country, PRIMER also having won major awards at SUNDANCE and other fests. They had already been "proven" in the marketplace so to speak. It's a little bit of a stretch to compare them to an AUTOMATONS or a MANBORG. The same goes for FREQUENCY which has, ahem, frequently been mentioned as a stellar example of a "Premiere". Finally, THE APPLE was a 20 year old film that had also played midnight shows for a full year or more before hitting Ohio.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

Another point I was going to make (but forgot) is that it might be easier to get a good premiere on digital, because all the studio has to do is send over a disc. I may be totally wrong on that point, but it seems like it would be less work for them. I'm sure Joe could speak to that with more authority than I could.

It's also important to differentiate between "regional premiere" and "national premiere". I imagine it would be very, very difficult to get a national premiere. I think the best premieres are usually regional premieres, films that have shown in other parts of the country but have not hit Columbus or the Midwest yet. To use my previous example, Antiviral's release date is actually April 12, but I'm assuming it won't be playing Columbus before the Marathon date. Unless I'm mistaken on that, in which case, it's just an example. But films that have played film festivals are usually a crapshoot. Yeah, it might have played at such-and-such festival, but does that automatically mean it's any good?

It is true that Premiers are a crapshoot. During the film era of the SF Marathons in my opinion that having premiers keep me going for 11 years. I can get to see some new films or films that didn't get a normal release or any release here in Ohio. If the lineup just contained movies that have been already have a release it might give me pause.

These days with video rental services like Netflix or Dish's Blockbuster via optical disc or streaming people have more access to films/movies that the old brick and mortars didn't carry. For example The only commercial way a person can see 1982 version of S.H.E is via Netflix.

Now since the Drexel is all digital more of the obscure titles can be screen.

This is all true, and was kind of the point I was making with the comparison. There's a big difference in "hoping for the best" and booking something for the sake of newness and doing a little research beforehand to see what might work in a marathon. Those titles were not necessarily brand new, but all were advertised technically as premieres because none had screened regionally in a movie theater, including the 20-year-old The Apple.
None of this is helped by the fact that Bruce's taste can tend to vary wildly from Jeff Frank's from time to time, as evidenced by Jeff's heavy promotion of crap like The Room and Birdemic the last time I was at the Drexel marathon.
From what I understand, the folks in Boston are quite familiar with questionable judgement when it comes to newer, independent releases inserted into the marathon lineup, at least in the years since your festival has expanded a bit.

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

Ah...I wish. If anything, many of these smaller distributors are less willing to give us titles. In part, they're probably concerned with market saturation. But again, they also tend to see a Columbus Marathons as a rather low level one day event, while South By Southwest, Toronto, etc. are MAJOR FESTIVALS that get lots of internet and press buzz. It's a long way from the days of THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE, when Rolfe Kanefsky was highly advised to screen his film at NIGHT OF THE LIVING DREXEL because it was one of the Midwest's booming genre events.