2455 replies to this topic

[The_Puritan]

This is my first year at comic con,

lol, I'll definably be taking pics! Lots of pics!

Hall H will be my first stop on Sat morning, as early as possible, eh... it will be crazy!

[crossplain pilgrim]

That's the spirit, Puritan! And forum members abed at home will curse their names and hold their manhood cheap that they were not there...at ComicCon! Well, I will, anyway.

[Aaront596]

Hey Wanderingstar can you enlighten us as to what info was used to come up with the origin that Kane was a bad man before he became what we all know him as. I hate this origin because I'm pretty sure Kane was never meant to be anything but a stand up dude. I think this origin makes Kane into something Robert E. Howard never wanted him to be. Part of Kane's character is that he's always been a do gooder, it's an important part of who he is. I really don't like it that that is changed in the film. That being said I'm looking forward to the film and and I hope the story while not an original is faithful to Howard's vision other than the left field origin. I just want to know where this idea came from and why make such a huge change to a character when there is no reason that I can see to do so.

Here is a quote describing Kane from the story Red Shadows:

"All his life he had roamed about the world aiding the weak and fighting oppression, he neither knew nor questioned why. That was his obsession, his driving force of life. Cruelty and tyranny to the weak sent a red blaze of fury, fierce and lasting, through his soul."

"All his life" I guess that pretty much means the guy was a good guy always, and that disagrees completely with the origin this film portrays. Right? So what's up with that?

[Waldgeist]

Hey Wanderingstar can you enlighten us as to what info was used to come up with the origin that Kane was a bad man before he became what we all know him as. I hate this origin because I'm pretty sure Kane was never meant to be anything but a stand up dude. I think this origin makes Kane into something Robert E. Howard never wanted him to be. Part of Kane's character is that he's always been a do gooder, it's an important part of who he is. I really don't like it that that is changed in the film. That being said I'm looking forward to the film and and I hope the story while not an original is faithful to Howard's vision other than the left field origin. I just want to know where this idea came from and why make such a huge change to a character when there is no reason that I can see to do so.

Here is a quote describing Kane from the story Red Shadows:

"All his life he had roamed about the world aiding the weak and fighting oppression, he neither knew nor questioned why. That was his obsession, his driving force of life. Cruelty and tyranny to the weak sent a red blaze of fury, fierce and lasting, through his soul."

"All his life" I guess that pretty much means the guy was a good guy always, and that disagrees completely with the origin this film portrays. Right? So what's up with that?

Even though i am not asked, i am going to throw in some bones that could have motivated the origin story in the movie.

Different types of media, different types of presentation demand for a different approach to story telling. A short story can (actually should) throw you right into the action, without too much time spend introducing the world, the character or the situation. It is a very cut-down type of story telling. Down to the very basics, exciting situations, characters and locations, typically with a big bang (emotionally, actionwise, situationwise) that lets the story resonate in the back of your head for a while. Solomon Kane was written that way and no one will question or ask for an origin story in a short story.

If you would write a Solomon Kane novel, you would need to develop the character a bit further, his abilities, his background. The typical editor would throw the novel back in your face if all your reasoning is "well... he is just that way.. he just knows how to fight.. because he is cool". Because they demand you to give every piece in your story a reason, meaning, so no reader will drop out of the immersion of the novel thinking "uhm, but how is this possible". So you would need to give a reason for the character being able to fight so extremely well. Where and more importantly WHY was he trained? A pure do-gooder would not train in killing someone with no reason. So many other questions need answering.

The same applies for a movie. But i DO agree that it was not the best move to make a purely good person into an evil person fearing for their soul, that then switches to be a good person. In the end, we will have to watch the movie, before we can judge if he made it so, that the character itself is not Solomon Kane anymore, or if he spun it the right way, to give a simple reason for many questions that would else loom in the viewers mind.

Cheers,
Waldgeist
PS: Don't kill me, i am on your "side", just trying to provide some points to why they maybe went that way!

Edited by Waldgeist, 20 July 2009 - 12:33 PM.

[The_Puritan]

nobody really knows what REH would think of the movies' Kane, but let's wait until after the film comes out to do the judging.

[Michael J Bassett]

Hi
Seems unfare to lay this question at Wandering Star's feet when I'm the guy who wrote it...
Waldgeist has very preceptively nailed certain points in terms of working in different media and trying to reach different audiences. Sometimes it's just pure pragmatism that drives even creaive decisions. In this case, it really wasn't. I determined to start the (hopeful) trilogy of films with an origins tale.
To find this origin, creatively I took my cue from REH's poems and his allusions to Kane's pagan heart which seemed to me to be somewhat at odds with his constantly stated devotion to God's word and absolute correctness of his mission. There is such a good tension at work there. And for the specific idea that he may once have been a bad man in need of redemption there's a line in 'The Blue Flame of Vengeance' where Kane says: " Aye, I led a rout of ungodly men, to my shame be it said, though the cause was a just one. In the sack of that town you name, many foul deeds were done under the cloak of the cause and my heart was sickened - oh, well - many a tide has flowed under the bridge since then, and I have drowned some red memories in the sea...." which really grabbed me.
Now, and clearly this is all about personal interpretation, when I was looking for little chinks of light and clues as to how I might find an 'origin' for this stern and unforgiving man this line was a fascinating insight into what he might once have been. He was a privateer and a leader of bad man. You're hardly going to be the leader of such cruel men without being a little like them. And then the hint that there might have been some kind of Mi Lai massacre in his past. Just too interesting to let it go. I just don't buy that he was always a good man writing wrongs, he's just too dark a character for that. He feels like a man paying penance to me and that's why I like him so much and forgive the grimness. That's what I went with instead of the very closed motivation given in the Red Shadows line. To me, one character is interesting and the other is more of an automaton who would be hard or indeed impossible to make play in a movie.
And that's not to say you won't entirely disagree with my interpretation and loath every frame of the film but it felt right to me. Wandering Star who has slogged away at getting Kane to the screen for over a decade now supports the choice and we both think it works as a movie for people who have never heard of Kane and for those who are more versed in his 'true' history.
Hope that clarifies things a little.
MJB

[Kortoso]

Thanks for the clarifications, Mr. Bassett!

[duaneshadow]

Hi
Seems unfare to lay this question at Wandering Star's feet when I'm the guy who wrote it...
Waldgeist has very preceptively nailed certain points in terms of working in different media and trying to reach different audiences. Sometimes it's just pure pragmatism that drives even creaive decisions. In this case, it really wasn't. I determined to start the (hopeful) trilogy of films with an origins tale.
To find this origin, creatively I took my cue from REH's poems and his allusions to Kane's pagan heart which seemed to me to be somewhat at odds with his constantly stated devotion to God's word and absolute correctness of his mission. There is such a good tension at work there. And for the specific idea that he may once have been a bad man in need of redemption there's a line in 'The Blue Flame of Vengeance' where Kane says: " Aye, I led a rout of ungodly men, to my shame be it said, though the cause was a just one. In the sack of that town you name, many foul deeds were done under the cloak of the cause and my heart was sickened - oh, well - many a tide has flowed under the bridge since then, and I have drowned some red memories in the sea...." which really grabbed me.
Now, and clearly this is all about personal interpretation, when I was looking for little chinks of light and clues as to how I might find an 'origin' for this stern and unforgiving man this line was a fascinating insight into what he might once have been. He was a privateer and a leader of bad man. You're hardly going to be the leader of such cruel men without being a little like them. And then the hint that there might have been some kind of Mi Lai massacre in his past. Just too interesting to let it go. I just don't buy that he was always a good man writing wrongs, he's just too dark a character for that. He feels like a man paying penance to me and that's why I like him so much and forgive the grimness. That's what I went with instead of the very closed motivation given in the Red Shadows line. To me, one character is interesting and the other is more of an automaton who would be hard or indeed impossible to make play in a movie.
And that's not to say you won't entirely disagree with my interpretation and loath every frame of the film but it felt right to me. Wandering Star who has slogged away at getting Kane to the screen for over a decade now supports the choice and we both think it works as a movie for people who have never heard of Kane and for those who are more versed in his 'true' history.
Hope that clarifies things a little.
MJB

there's an interesting thing about driven men who are convinced they are absolutely correct, in that they tend not to reflect on their own behaviour. the imposition of a personal 'map' upon reality always causes a degree of tension when your view is tested against reality, eg when your morailty and ;cause' are put to the test. like the old chinese proverb about a willow tree being flexible and therefore surviving a hurricane where an oak tree wouldn't. I would like to see a single minded driven man like Kane forced to reflect on his conduct - the tension between his just cause in the name of god and killing numerous people is a potentially interesting avenue for this. Just look at the hypocrisy of george dubya and tony blair - both christians directing wholesale slaughter, same as characters like Charlemagne. this has always fascinated me.

Incidentally MJB, I'm ecstatic that someone who is a fan of the source material has made a movie. I have faith.

[crossplain pilgrim]

Well, a visit from Mr. Bassett! What a way to start the week. I knew when Aaront96 tossed up that origin argument it would draw a few posts. This debate, as far as I can tell, has raged off and on for about two-and-a-half years now on this thread ever since it was started by guys like Strom, Kortoso, Budgie, terryallenuk, Lord Crom and others (not to mention all the previous discussions before this thread). I think Mr. Bassett has explained his decisions forthrightly and well. As most of you know, I am an ardent supporter of this film, even though I have never accepted the idea that Kane was an evil guy who needed a cathartic event like a run-in with the Devil's Reaper to convince him to change his ways. I've also read those lines in "Blue Flame" but my interpretation is one: Kane was being a little hard on himself (as usual) for participating in events he probably could not have stopped, and two: that Kane came to his salvation through the strength of his own character and conscience, not out of fear of being dragged to hell.

The thing is, however, that is just my interpretation, and Mr. Bassett has his. Both opinions can be reasonably argued and neither of us can prove ours is either correct or in error. I do not think you can read Mr. Bassett's reasoning on his decision and not accept that his was an honest conclusion based on the way he personally read the character. Lord knows, it is difficult to find two forum members who agree exactly on any particular points in the Howard cannon. It seems to me Mr. Bassett has an equal right to his interpretation. Waldgeist's post, as usual, is right on the money IMO as to the different necessities of Howard's short stories, a novel and a film. If you couple that with the fact that an origin story is pretty much demanded by audiences these days, it would have been extremely unlikely for the Kane film to not to offer an explanation of the character.

I have read in previous posts allusions to Clint Eastwood's character in the Leone westerns or the Dirty Harry films as examples that explaining a character's origin is unnecessary. But those films were made in the 1960's and '70's at a time when most audience members were well acquainted with the traditional cliches of the mysterious wandering gunfighter and hard-nosed cop. No explanations were necessary. Today's audiences have a far more narrow frame of reference (to put it kindly). I would not suggest quizzing your average teen-age film goer on the societal and moral realities of 16th Century England if you are expecting many answers. This is not an art film. It is a dark adventure film with strong doses of fantasy and horror. It is meant for a wide audience. It is a harsh reality that audiences today have no memory of the old swashbuckling adventure genre and have certainly never heard of Robert E. Howard. The film makers have to do some explaining.

Lastly, it seems ill-timed, to say the least, to be debating this moot point after the film has long since been completed and we are all eagerly awaiting our first glimpse of the film this week at ComicCon. Few of us can be unaware of the narrow range of films being made nowadays: CGI-animated films, comic book heroes, dating romances, teen gross-out comedies, and slasher films pretty much rule. It is something of a miracle that Davis Films, Wandering Star, and Mr. Bassett were able to bring forth a film based on REH's Solomon Kane at all. From all available information to date, they have fashioned an entertaining, quality film. Remember, there are millions of dollars at stake. If they had picked a contemporary comic book hero to put up there on the screen they would not be searching still for a U.S. distributor. From the beginning, they have displayed an remarkable appreciation and concern for the opinions of the REH community. I personally am deeply appreciative of their years of devotion to this project. Don't forget, there has never been a film quite like this one. How many of today's filmmakers can say that?

[Aaront596]

Wow! Thanks Michael! That?s the exact answer I was looking for! When I asked the question I never thought I get it straight from the director/writer of the film but that?s what I hoped. So thank you for the prompt and complete answer. I posed the question to Wanderingstar because I felt he was the most regular visitor of someone having deep ties with the film, but I?m very pleased you chimed in. I would have asked the question of you if I would have known you?d even see it.

So my thoughts are that I presented a quote that seemed to back up my opinion on what Kane used to be, and you presented a quote that backed up your opinion on what Kane used to be. And it did back it up very well. While I still feel Kane was always a man of good deeds because that?s just the impression that I?ve always gotten from reading him, seeing that quote you presented has really lent you a lot of credit. Knowing exactly what lines you pulled this origin from really helps put my mind at ease about it. While our two quotes seem to be at odds with each other, they are both Robert E. Howard and now that I have this information it seems totally legit for you to make this origin for Kane. While I still feel it?s not the Kane I?ve always envisioned I can?t argue that it?s not the Kane Howard envisioned. And so you have changed my mind about this origin. I no longer hate it. It could be 100% what Howard had in mind. Maybe not, but it could be and your quote supports that. Sweet! Now I feel even better about this film than I did!

Lastly everyone here really appreciates both your and Wanderingstar?s contributions to this forum. It?s awesome of you to come here and explain yourself to us, when you surely have a million other better things to do, but know that you?ve made my day, by sharing exactly why you wrote the film like you did, and while I still don?t know if I agree with it, I have to say it seems legit. I can?t wait to see the film. Thanx again!
-Aaron

PS. Sorry to kiss you ass so much but I really am tickled to have the perfect response to my question from the only person who could really answer it.

[Aaront596]

I've also read those lines in "Blue Flame" but my interpretation is one: Kane was being a little hard on himself (as usual) for participating in events he probably could not have stopped, and two: that Kane came to his salvation through the strength of his own character and conscience, not out of fear of being dragged to hell.

I'd have to agree almost completely with this statement, but I still remain sympathetic to Michael's origin, he backed it up with proof I can't argue against and that's all I wanted.

Edited by Aaront596, 20 July 2009 - 07:04 PM.

[crossplain pilgrim]

I think that you and I, at least, Aaront, share the conclusion that Mr. Bassett's interpretation of Kane is a legitimate one, if not universally accepted. No criticism of your opinion, original or revised, was meant in my someone long-winded post. I agree also that t's pretty cool having the writer/director and the producer of Kane appear in our own backyard.

[Ramonon]

Hello all! Longtime ....Super-longtime Kane fan and follower of this thread. But first-time poster. hmmm. the anticipation of the film, especially the impending Comic Con appearence has forced my hand to finally post and greet the others. the Longtime followers like me: Strom, Kortoso, Lord Crom, and CP pilgrim, etc.... and the noob posters, also like me! lol...anywho, thank you all for the comments, insights, and info, especially Mr. Bassett and Mr. Barrow. and i'm dying slowly with you all until the ComicCon and eventual (hopefully) film release later this year! Aye, true believers, vengeance will soon be ours!! SK 2009....

[Kortoso]

Hello all! Longtime ....Super-longtime Kane fan and follower of this thread. But first-time poster. hmmm. the anticipation of the film, especially the impending Comic Con appearence has forced my hand to finally post and greet the others. the Longtime followers like me: Strom, Kortoso, Lord Crom, and CP pilgrim, etc.... and the noob posters, also like me! lol...anywho, thank you all for the comments, insights, and info, especially Mr. Bassett and Mr. Barrow. and i'm dying slowly with you all until the ComicCon and eventual (hopefully) film release later this year! Aye, true believers, vengeance will soon be ours!! SK 2009....

Welcome Ramanon! You have joined us at an auspicious time.

[crossplain pilgrim]

Hello all! Longtime ....Super-longtime Kane fan and follower of this thread. But first-time poster. hmmm. the anticipation of the film, especially the impending Comic Con appearence has forced my hand to finally post and greet the others.

Very glad to have you on the thread, Ramonon! As Kortoso pointed out, things are getting very lively around here as we approach ComicCon and the European releases of "Solomon Kane" later this year.

[Ramonon]

Thank you, Gentlemen...

[wandering star]

Hey Wanderingstar can you enlighten us as to what info was used to come up with the origin that Kane was a bad man before he became what we all know him as. I hate this origin because I'm pretty sure Kane was never meant to be anything but a stand up dude. I think this origin makes Kane into something Robert E. Howard never wanted him to be. Part of Kane's character is that he's always been a do gooder, it's an important part of who he is. I really don't like it that that is changed in the film. That being said I'm looking forward to the film and and I hope the story while not an original is faithful to Howard's vision other than the left field origin. I just want to know where this idea came from and why make such a huge change to a character when there is no reason that I can see to do so.

Here is a quote describing Kane from the story Red Shadows:

"All his life he had roamed about the world aiding the weak and fighting oppression, he neither knew nor questioned why. That was his obsession, his driving force of life. Cruelty and tyranny to the weak sent a red blaze of fury, fierce and lasting, through his soul."

"All his life" I guess that pretty much means the guy was a good guy always, and that disagrees completely with the origin this film portrays. Right? So what's up with that?

Very simple to answer. The Poems and a few short lines in the clasic texts. He fought for Elizabeth 1, he was captured by the Inquisition and tortured in this role. He turned away from this life and became the man we know and love. Indeed there is a conflict in the texts if taken in isolation but their is plenty of evidence to suggest his life before he became a wanderer. The origin story explores the Poems and text that Howard suggested in these perhaps esoteric pieces. In essence we felt the arc of the character from the genesis was important for the emotional investment in the characters arc over a number of films.

[crossplain pilgrim]

Well spoken, WS! You and Michael J. Bassett on the same day. Our humble thread runneth over. I think you and Mr. Bassett have both made a pretty good case for your approach on the first film. What I especially like is you made your decision based on Howard source material. Not everyone who's posted on this thread would agree with your take, but no one could argue your interpretation was totally unrelated to the original stories and poems.

You noted earlier that you were (at that time) in London. So, I am assuming you won't be at ComicCon. I was curious, however, how many people it will take to man the trenches for "Solomon Kane" at ComicCon. In fact, what does it take to present at ComicCon? Do you share technical people with other Davis films making an appearance? For instance, I read that "Dr. Parnassus" will also be presented. I would hope you'll allow Bassett and Purefoy a few posters to sign. That would sure endear you to some of the forum members who plan to attend. Which reminds me, how's that trailer coming?

[Kortoso]

Way to ratchet up the pressure!

[Strom]

Comic-Con's Saturday schedule - I don't think it has been posted already - my apologies if it has

SATURDAY JULY 25TH

Iron Man 2. 'Nuff said. Will we see War Machine? Don't bet against it!

11:00-12:00 Lost: The Final Season Begins, with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse? In appreciation of all the fan support through five seasons of Lost, co-creator/executive producer Damon Lindelof and executive producer Carlton Cuse will pay homage to all the fans at their final Comic-Con appearance for Lost. Questions will be answered. Fun will be had. And you won't want to miss the surprises in store for the audience! Hall H

11:15-12:00 Family Guy? Seth MacFarlane and the brilliant creative minds behind Family Guy present a raucous discussion of what goes on behind the scenes of TV's most subversive animated hit. They'll also be offering a not-to-be-missed sneak peek at "Something, Something Dark Side," the Empire Strikes Back parody follow-up to Star Wars: Blue Harvest. Giggity! Ballroom 20

12:00-1:00 Indiana Jones Fan Group Meeting: Indyfans and The Quest for Fortune and Glory? The Indyfans are back for their third year. Meet the documentary's filmmakers and discuss all things Indy. Talk with special guests from within the world of Indy merchandise, and don't miss out on giveaways, and more! It's time once again to keep up with the Joneses. Room 24A

12:15-1:15 Solomon Kane? From Robert E. Howard, the legendary creator of Conan and Red Sonja, comes Solomon Kane, the epic tale of a savage warrior in 16th Century England who seeks redemption by renouncing violence to live a life of purity, only to find himself challenged to pick up his sword once again to vanquish an evil so great it threatens the world. Anchored by a star-making performance from James Purefoy (Resident Evil, Rome, The Philanthropist), Solomon Kane is an action-packed, dark and intense story directed by Michael J. Bassett with a stellar supporting cast, including Pete Postlethwaite, Max Von Sydow, and Rachel Hurd Wood. Appearing in person are writer/director Michael J. Bassett and Solomon Kane himself, James Purefoy. Hall H


1:30-2:30 Miramax: Extract? Mike Judge, the creator of such comedy classics as Office Space, Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill is back with his latest film Extract starring Jason Bateman (Arrested Development), Mila Kunis (Forgetting Sarah Marshall), and Kristen Wiig (Saturday Night Live). Join Judge and his cast for a discussion and first look at scenes from their new film. Hall H

1:45-2:30 The Simpsons? Now entering its record-breaking 21st season on the air, The Simpsons is the longest-running series in the history of American television and a household name around the world. Get a behind-the-scenes look at what's coming up in the Simpsonverse, including never-before-seen highlights from the upcoming "Treehouse of Horror XX," with a panel including Simpsons creator Matt Groening, showrunner Al Jean, executive producer Matt Selman, and supervising director Mike Anderson. Ballroom 20

2:45-3:45 Sony Pictures: Zombieland and 2012? Sony Pictures previews two exciting new movies at Comic-Con!

Zombieland ?What if the Zombies won? Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) has made a habit of running from what scares him. Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) doesn't have fears. If he did, he'd kick their ever-living ass. In a world overrun by zombies, these two are perfectly evolved survivors. But now, they're about to stare down the most terrifying prospect of all: each other. Also starring Emma Stone and Abigal Breslin as two sisters who seem to constantly cause even more trouble for our erstwhile heroes. Appearing on stage: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and director Ruben Fleischer.

2012?Director Roland Emmerich has tried to destroy civilization before, but nothing you've seen will prepare you for what he has in store for the world in 2012. Never before has a date in history been so significant to so many cultures, so many religions, scientists, and governments. 2012 is an epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors. Roland will be onstage to reassure us it's all make-believe...we hope. Hall H

3:30-4:30 The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day? In the sequel to the cult classic The Boondock Saints, Director Troy Duffy brings back Sean Patrick Flanery (Suicide Kings, Powder), Norman Reedus (American Gangster, Blade 2), and Billy Connolly (The Last Samurai) and introduces Clifton Collins JR (Star Trek, Crank 2) as a new partner in crime and Julie Benz (Rambo, Punisher 2, Saw) as the sexy F.B.I. operative who is hot on their trail. Please join Troy and the cast for a panel discussion about the new film and the world premiere of the trailer. Room 6DE

4:00-5:00 Paramount Pictures and Marvel Entertainment: Iron Man 2? Paramount Pictures and Marvel Entertainment present the sequel to the blockbuster film based on the legendary Marvel superhero Iron Man. Directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man 2 stars Robert Downey Jr. Joining Downey in the cast are Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Jon Favreau, Clark Gregg, John Slattery, Mickey Rourke, and Samuel L. Jackson. Hall H

4:30-5:30 Vanguard Films: Emo Boy? Vanguard Films will announce its slate of new projects including Emo Boy, the big screen adaptation of Stephen Emond's SLG graphic novel, with a special Q&A with the movie's director, Kyle Newman (Fanboys). Other projects to be announced include Illegal Aliens, a new graphic novel/movie franchise being produced by Vanguard and Platinum Comics, and Alien Band, an animated feature set to go into production in the fall of 2009. A preview will also be shown from Vanguard's upcoming film Space Chimps 3D. Room 10

5:15-6:45 Kevin Smith? Direct from New York City, where he's directing the new Warner Bros. film A Couple of Dicks starring Bruce Willis, Seann William Scott, and Tracy Morgan, Kevin Smith returns to the Hall H stage for his annual report to the masses. And remember: he flew in just for YOU. Hall H

6:30-7:30 Black Dynamite? He's super cool and he knows kung-fu! When "The Man" murders his brother and floods the ghetto with adulterated malt liquor, Black Dynamite is the one hero willing to fight all the way from the blood-soaked city streets to the hallowed halls of the Honky House. Michael Jai White (The Dark Knight) stars as Black Dynamite, a gun toting, nunchuck-wielding ladies' man and soul brother. Director and writer Scott Sanders (Think as Thieves) is joined by cast members including Byron Minns (Undisputed), Salli Richardson-Whitfield (I am Legend), moderator Elvis Mitchell, and more! Room 5AB

6:30-8:00 Troma Roast? Join Lloyd Kaufman (Troma Studios president/founder, director of Toxic Avenger) as he gets roasted by Tromaster of Ceremonies Adam Green (Hatchet), and help from BFFs: Stan Lee (Spider-Man, Fantastic Four), Terry Jones (Monty Python?s Flying Circus), Brian Pulido (Lady Death, Evil Ernie), Chad Gilbert (lead guitarist of New Found Glory), Richard Saperstein (John Q, Se7en), Batton Lash (Supernatural Law, Simpsons, Archie), Steven Paul (Ghost Rider), Penelope Spheeris (Decline of Western Civilization, Wayne's World), Ron Jeremy (Toxic Avenger: Citizen Toxie, Killing Zoe), Joe Lynch (Wrong Turn 2), Jim Salicrup (Marvel editor for Toxic Avenger, editor-in-chief Papercutz), Mick Garris (Stephen King's Desperation, The Stand, Sleepwalkers), John Rieber (G4 senior VP), Jean Prewitt (chairman of The Independent Film Alliance), Tim Seeley (writer/artist/creator Hack/Slash), Alan C. Carroll and Mimi Cruz (Night Flight Comics), Brick & Tiger (One Shot Presents), and more! What a way to celebrate 35 years of Reel Independence with Troma Entertainment! Indigo Ballroom / Hilton Bayfront

8:30-12:15 Watchmen: Director's Cut?Live with Zack Snyder! Plus Sneak Peek of Batman: Arkham Asylum with Mark Hamill & Kevin Conroy? Get the ultimate inside track on two landmark Warner Bros. releases with the world premiere screening of Watchmen: Director's Cut and a first-look panel for the breakout Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment game Batman: Arkham Asylum. The festivities will open with a Batman: Arkham Asylum panel led by the benchmark voices of Batman and the Joker, Kevin Conroy (Batman: The Animated Series) and Mark Hamill (Star Wars), as well as award-winning writer Paul Dini (Batman: The Animated Series). Then Watchmen director Zack Snyder, legendary illustrator Dave Gibbons and actor Jackie Earle Haley discuss the nuances of the film's Director's Cut? which hit stores on July 21. And for the pi?ce de r?sistance, Snyder will host a BD Live Community event?providing a real-time, in-person director's commentary for Comic-Con attendees (and BD Live viewers at home) as the film rolls. Audience members will have the opportunity to ask questions of Snyder via computer kiosks within the room, making for an entirely interactive viewing experience. Room 6BCF

8:45-1:30 Masquerade Party? Join your friends in the Convention Center's beautiful Sails Pavilion to party the night away while the Masquerade plays on the big screen! Sails Pavilion