www.jakestarkey.com

Looking forward to this film:

The Wrestler Trailer

The Season Finale is this Tuesday, so people, please, you have one week to catch up on 7 seasons of one of the best written tv shows ever.  And I don’t say/write that lightly.

This past season has been heartbreaking, intense, action packed and sad.

I have no idea how it will end, and I make no assumptions, especially after the most recent episode, but here’s the number one reason to watch.

The Shield will go out with a bang.

I was talking with a friend yesterday and I realized something.  Most tv shows go out with a whimper, only now are networks getting the guts to end with a season finale.  What I mean by that is this entire last season you could sense that end was coming, that something was on the horizon.

This entire season the decisions that are made by the characters create a situation where there is absolutely no going back.

After the final episode, there couldn’t be another ‘normal’ episode of The Shield.  Heck since episode 6 of this season there couldn’t be a ‘normal’ episode.

Something bad will happen and it will not be what you expected.

And I can’t wait.

Congrats to Shawn Ryan, Kurt Sutter, Michael Chiklis, Walton Goggins, et al.  Television will be a little worse off on Wednesday morning.

Jake

Only took what seemed like forever.  And this is actually a repost of sorts.  I have a good friend Andy Coon (a link to his site is to the right) and he posted a question on his blog “Red vs. Film.”

And because I like to speak my mind (in case you haven’t noticed) I decided to post a lengthy response, which I’ve put below.  Feel free to comment, I’m interested in all opinions, but will only approve those that agree with me - just kidding.

***

Red, RED, RED!!!

Film is dead.  I don’t mean that in a pompous or arrogant way as so many others in this era mean it.

I mean it like this:

Originally film was the only option (from wwwwaaaayyyy back in the day), video was/is crap and you had to use film to be respected.  This is no longer the case.  Films such as Apocalpto, Remote, Zodiac, Superman Returns, Soderbergh’s two Che films, the Star Wars films and I believe (could be wrong) Peter Jackson’s new film Lovely Bones have been shot entirely in some form of digital medium, not just the RED.  These are today’s most respected, forward thinking, innovative filmmakers – Singer, Fincher, Soderbergh, Lucas, and Jackson.  That’s not even mentioning movies like Wanted that used RED’s for fx work.  (for more info on films shot on RED visit red.com)

Additionally, lets look at what the negative’s are of shooting film:

- At minimum a one day turnaround on footage.  More than likely more than that unless you can/will be a priority for a transfer house.  Yes you can have playback on set, but it looks like crap, requires extra extra crew and is not a good approximation of what you are getting.  No WYSIWYG with film without a much higher budget.
- The workflow is now down to two options, shoot on film, transfer to dvcam w/ timecode, edit, then master back to film OR shoot on film, transfer to HD/D5 etc and then master the HD, never going back to film.  The second is infinitely cheaper, less time intensive, and nowadays you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.  However in theory you are losing information from the second option by going to a ‘smaller’ image, so film becomes a waste of money again at that point.
- You guys work a lot like I do, very hands on, very interested in being a part of the equation.  Unless you (and by that I mean your team) are experienced film DP’s you will not get the look of your work to translate to film.  And if you do, it will be through post, which is again why you would want to use RED 4K, which is even a larger original image then 35mm.
- And ultimately, the only person who might possibly be impressed nowadays is Spielberg, the last hold out.  Yes, he would be impressed, but he wouldn’t look down on a ‘nonfilm’ film either.

The upside to RED:

- Instant feedback – have a nice monitor and you’ll be able to see the pore’s on the actor’s faces.
- Instant edit – if you were to set up your production/postproduction workflow right within a day of shooting you’d be able to see an edited scene, with color correction with minimal hardware needs
- Image size – 4K vs. 35mm image size puts RED at an advantage.  Yes you have to shoot off speed footage at 2K, but still that’s what they did Spiderman 2 DI’s in to get the best image quality.
- Audio sync – Yes you have to still run cable, etc.  but having your audio synced on set vs. syncing in post is so much nicer, even if you ADR the entire thing, at least you aren’t going through the trouble of having to spend time building a scratch track.
- It’s a money saver – Using a RED allows you to save money and/or put it towards other items like hiring bigger name actors, etc.  It’s amazingly easy to find ‘name’ actors willing to come work on a film that gives them something they want – the chance to be a lead, the chance to play against type, the chance to make a film that is ‘fun’, among many others.

Ultimately, the age of film distributors wanting only films shot on ‘film’ are gone.  Yes there might still be some, but a good movie gets bought, a bad one *might*.  Make a great film and it won’t matter if you shot it with an old VHS camera tethered to a VCR.  People will want to see it and people will want to buy it.

But shoot on RED.  If anyone tells you that you *have* to shoot on film they are scared of the unknown,  Don’t be that guy, be the guy that says he wants to make a sci-f movie about a young kid named Skywalker.

That’s who you want to be.

Hope that helps.

Jake

***

Write to you later, Jake

Let it be said from this day forward that if given the opportunity

to serve your country,
to help those who cannot help themselves,
to do better for your children then was done for you,

that you will no longer be allowed to squander that opportunity and you will be held accountable for your actions.

God bless America and God bless President Elect Obama,

Jake

Scary, yet funny all at the same time

In high school we had to read a lot of Hemingway and his writing style drove me nuts.  However I saw this and was reminded of his writing after seeing what is both the shortest short story ever and also incredibly sad all at the same time.

As a writer myself I tend to try and find a way to use 50 words instead of 5.  Here’s why that’s unnecessary.

Here is the entirety of Hemingway’s short story…

For sale. Baby shoes. Never used.

Huge props to Matthew and Monica for staging the BandCamp Houston event.  It was a packed house at Caroline Collective and I was glad to be a part of it.  I had meant to post this prior to heading up there but didn’t get a chance.  Nevertheless, enjoy.

Here’s a quick 5 (notice not TOP 5) things to consider when marketing your band, your music, or honestly even yourself.

Enjoy…

1. Myspace is not the world wide web – Yes, in this day and age you need to have a Myspace page, but it cannot be your only source of advertising or marketing.  Fan pages are good but vanity pages get obnoxious quick.  You need professional websites, music videos, cd design, epk’s and photography.  Professional does not equal expensive to your pocketbook, but rather equals dedication and perseverance in the eyes of label A&R executives interested in pushing bands that push themselves.

2. Find an advocate for your music – It can be a label, it can be a PR firm, it can (also but not exclusively) be your fans.  However, YOU, the artist, cannot get up there and say how great you are.  It will endear you to some for your cockiness, and turn away a vast majority.  Which brings up:

3. Word of mouth is better than any type of marketing – However it’s been proven that a person who dislikes something is more likely to tell others than a person who likes something.  Not sure about the specific stats, but I believe it’s something along the lines of 8 people who dislike something will tell others for every 1 who likes it.  So word of mouth cannot be the only thing you rely upon.

4. Why marketing is still important – Marketing is not sales.  Marketing is raising an awareness of your performance this weekend, the cd you are promoting, etc.  When people show up to your show and buy a ticket, or order your album on iTunes, that’s sales.  Additionally, marketing is not about finding new listeners, it’s about reinforcing your standing with your current ones.  Think of it like this: the reason you market is to make your current fans die hard advocates, which means they’ll forward the link to your music video, to your website, to your music online, to your performance dates to their friends, which gets them to buy the cd and go to the show.  Your biggest fans are your salesmen, the ones getting your music heard.  Marketing is the tools YOU give THEM to make the sale for you.

5. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound – And here’s the big kicker.  You are an artist and yes it is possible to be both an artist and a businessperson, but my personal opinion is that at any moment you can only be one or the other.  Jamming with your bandmates in the rehearsal studio is not the time to sit down and write a business plan.  So don’t make your music based on preconceived (and ill conceived) ideas of what will make a hit.  Make the music you want to make, then find the right people that knows how to get your music heard.  Because making music that no one will hear is like not making the music at all.

Make your music, your art, using your vision and your passion.  Then consider letting someone who has a passion and vision for how to express your music visually to help you.

And speaking of that, here’s the shameless plug:

Jake Starkey
Mobile      (832) 748-7568
Email        jake.c.starkey@gmail.com
Twitter     jakestarkey
MySpace   myspace.com/jake_starkey
WWW        www.jakestarkey.com

Specifically anti-war films.

Before I get too involved in this conversation let me give you a quick glimpse into how a person’s point of view can change, even in a short life.

When I was in high school I saw “Full Metal Jacket”.  At the time I could not for the life of me understand why the drill sergeant had to be so incredibly mean and horrible to Private Pyle.  The film actually infuriated me with the treatment of Pyle, a “lesser” human being who might need to be looked after some more.

But then, at the sage old age of 21 I watched it again and had the exact opposite reaction.  Watching it again I felt that Pyle needed to work harder, needed to get better because a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link.  I still didn’t agree with the hazing from the fellow soldiers, but I did better understand the pushing and prodding of the drill sergeant.  He had to have everyone at the same speed, intelligence, etc. so that in a gun battle they would know how the other would react.  In their non-uniqueness they would become a larger whole.

So with that little glimpse into the physocis of Jake, let me dive into two recent anti-war films that I have watched.  One blew my mind and one I turned off halfway through.

First the “bad” one - StopLoss…

In wanting to tell a story of how the process of stop lossing is a fubar move by our government, this movie tackles what one soldier does after having it happen to him.  Within the first 30 minutes you have a gun battle, 3 random music video montages, 2 marriages broken up, a fist fight and a guy on the run.

The gun battle - handheld, which if anyone’s seen any of my work knows that I actually like handheld better, it’s more viseral INHO.  However this was missing something, the anticipation, the suspense.  The only thing I can attribute it to is this - I knew which characters were going to live cause I’d seen the trailer (and months have passed since it came out lol).  But to me the movie is about what happens when they get back and the crux, the bridge of the first to second act (King being stop lossed) seemed to come much later then it did.  It felt like there was too much of a film already, too much needless information.  I wanted to see how King dealt with the situation and instead I started to get bored waiting on it.

Right before I turned it off this idea popped into my head, “I would have loved to have seen this movie directed by Terence Malick.”  I think the director Kimberly Pierce was too steeped in information that she truly wanted to get as much in as possible and it ended up hindering the film.

The Good one - “In The Valley Of Elah”

I heard director Paul Haggis talking about the film and he said (in my bad summation) that he wanted to create a film about how we treat our soldiers when they come home within the context of a murder mystery.  Basically a “Law & Order” episode with the twist being a morality play.

The film is beautifully shot by Roger Deakins, the performances are given room to breathe, the film is just about pitch perfect.  There seemed to be an ominousness to the film that pervaded every frame and kept the audience (me) looking for the truth without wanting to find it.  It’s a fine line to walk and one that Haggie and company did exceptionally well.

AintItCoolNews led me to this fascinating article on the fear of studios of the auteur director.

While I agree I would be nervous about spending those amounts of money on films period, to tell filmmakers like Cameron, Fincher, and Jonze to “reign it in” is probably not the wisest way to get the best work out of them.

Throughout the history of the motion picture business there has always been those who have decided to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, what is entertaining and most importantly, what is possible.

Even D.W. Griffith’s (incredibly racist) Birth of A Nation was the most expensive film of all time - at that time - with a budget of $112,000 (2.2 million nowadays).

Without George Lucas we would not have Pixar or Avid.  Those are both companies he helped create in one form or another before ultimately selling the company and/or the technology to others.  Without Spielberg forcing the hand of CG during the filming of Jurassic Park, we wouldn’t have the sci-fi action adventure bonanza’s we have today.  I’m not saying they are all good, but look at The Dark Knight. to see what can happen when an true auteur is given free reign.

Every industry needs the mainstream mavericks.  Those that are within the industry and push it to go farther.  Us truly independent filmmakers rely on story and controversy and a select few have the capability to be do effective fx.

With a potentially unlimited budget and from within the studio system, someone must push those boundaries.  And for my money I’d prefer it to be Cameron or Fincher or Jonze.  Even Spielberg.

I’m not saying it’s okay to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on films, far from it.  I’d rather take 100 million and make 100 one million dollar films.

Actually I say that but there are some films I’d like to make that will actually require a larger budget.  My point is that without allowing doctors to experiment and go down unbeaten paths we wouldn’t have penicillin.

And no, penicillin and film making are not the same thing, it’s just an analogy.

In closing I guess the best way to put it is that you wouldn’t want to give me 300 million dollars to make a single film, I wouldn’t know where to begin to spend it.

But Cameron has earned it and I for one can’t wait to see Avatar.

Jake

So according to this msnbc article Microsoft has pulled the plug on the Seinfeld/Gates ads.

What went wrong?

Perhaps it’s the loss of why the “I’m a mac” ads worked.

The Mac ads actually did two things very effectively.

1. Showed the difference between macs and pcs.  Short and to the point the ads easily pinpointed how the two systems are different.  It went deeper then “It just works” and delved more into misrepresentations such as the fact that mac’s do indeed run office and can run xp.

I will add my personal caveat though - PC’s will have TONS of little problems, Mac’s will have ONE HUGE problem.

2. The mac adds branded itself as fun, thus appealing to the youth market that it is targeting.  Who was the target market for the Microsoft ad’s?

And finally, I think the final flaw with the Microsoft ad’s was the dependence on name recognition of Bill Gates.  The Mac ad’s had a consistency in color (white background) and focused on actual ways that Mac’s are better.  The Microsoft ad’s simply showed Gates buying new shoes.

In fact if you want to read into it I think what the ad was trying to show was that the same “version” of the old, reliable “shoe” was better.  However it could also be read as “when the old shoe stops ‘working’ for you, perhaps it’s time to try something different.”

My two cents.

Agree/Disagree?  Let me know your thoughts.

Jake