Baltimore Fire Academy Video

I made this as part of our final project in the Military's video school. I was put in charge of a small group of people to document the academy. We were there for a week shooting. And then we had 2 days to edit our own videos. I'm proud of my finished product, as were the instructors; it was awarded the best final doc in the class. Hope you like it, & tell me what you think (Comments are now open to anyone).

Needless to say, I got an A.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Turkey Day

Eat some food, give thanks and have a look at this...

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Venice comes to Ridgecrest

This morning I woke up at 4 in the morning, and could not get back to sleep. Why? because it had begun to rain and it was loud enough to keep us awake.

Since I moved here in March, I have seen it rain 4 times. And of those 4 times, thrice it has resulted in the streets being flooded. I was going to take a picture of the river in my street this morning, but it was too dark. Here's a photo on the web of a similar flooding in Ridgecrest:

I had to damn near bust out the oars to get Becky to work at 5 in the morning. But by the time I myself had to go to work, it had already gone down significantly. That's one of the things about flooding in the desert, when it happens, it comes in fast and drains away just as quickly. But never will there be a little flooding, every time it turns the town into Venice. Time to invest in that gondola I've had my eye on.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

An Interesting Tree

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The gimmick of 3D

I saw Bolt over the weekend, in 3D. And as a quick review I will say it was one of the best Disney films in ages (excluding the Pixar made ones). Great funny family flick. Highly recommend it. But was the 3D great? While it was cool, it didn't stand out as something that can't be missed.

3D is the newest craze crafted by the studios to get people back in the theater. Or realD, or Tru-D, or blast-yo-eyes-out-ya-head-D. If you didn't know that the movies are in trouble, you're living under a rock or you're one of the people killing the film industry by staying home.

People like DVDs, they like watching movies at home. Who doesn't? You can curl up comfortably in your own house and watch the latest flick in your comfypants (or no pants at all if it suits you). But because the window between initial theatrical release and the DVD release has gotten so small, many people have begun to get the mentality of "I'll just wait for the DVD."

So now that people aren't flocking to the theaters, the studios must come up with something that nobody can get at home. And as of right now that thing they are focusing on is 3D. I find it terribly ironic considering the same plan of attack was used against TV in the 50s. Granted today's tech allows for a much better viewing experience on today's 3D screens. Gone are the cardboard red and blue sunglasses. Now you get plastic, polarized ultra-cool 3D shades. And the difference is clearly noticeable.

However cool the tech is, today's 3D offerings are awful. They use the third dimension as a cheap gimmick, throwing things at the camera in an attempt to "draw" you in to the flick. I groan every time something jumps out at me. It is a sad and blatant attempt to show off the "cool factor" of the 3rd dimension. What filmmakers don't realize is that we live in 3d everyday. I walk around and I can have things pop out at me at anytime. I'm not looking for things to poke me in the eye, I'm just saying that no amount of 3D "coolness" is better than my own eyes in the real world. The movie doesn't need to show me I'm watching 3D, it just needs to let it be a part of the story. When you show me something that I wouldn't see in the real world, then it becomes truly interesting.

But the notion of taking you to places where you see things you haven't before, that's a theme that is as old as movies themselves, and it is what I feel is the true power of cinema. Simply slapping a third dimension onto crap doesn't make it any better. It is still crap. And sadly, every 3d movie I have seen so far just doesn't do it for me. Beowulf was a kick ass movie, but the third dimension didn't really do anything for me. It has a coolness factor, but it wasn't any different than had I seen it in 2d. The 3d drew way to much attention to itself. Too many times I could see the filmmakers say "Oooo, look out there, we just popped a dragon in your face, look you are impressed at our amazing new technology." And I'm not.

One day, when a filmmaker decides to not use 3d as a cheap little addition to a movie, and give me something that is genuinely compelling and thought-provoking that could never have been achieved without the use of 3D, THAT is when I think 3D will have a place.

As of right now, I don't think that film exists. Many people say it's James Cameron's upcoming Avatar, a sci-fi epic. Nerds are praising the film (mind you before a single frame of it is seen by anyone) as the greatest 3D film ever!!! I'm just not buying it. But I think if anybody has a shot at making 3D work, It would be him. If Cameron can't pull me into that world, impress me with the story and the characters, while simultaneously & seamlessly integrating that third dimension, he will have failed.

What I think studios ought to be doing, instead of trying to cram 3D crap down our throat, is focus on IMAX. This summer, The Dark Knight was released in IMAX. What made it different than other theatrical film released on IMAX, was that certain scenes were shot with IMAX cameras, giving the viewer an incredible amount of clarity and detail that isn't found in other movies. Chris Nolan had the right idea when he made the decision to do that, because 3D can be replicated in a home environment, a 5-story-tall screen sitting in your face can't. That is the true next-gen movie-going experience..

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is taking a page out of the Nolan book as certain action scenes were filmed in the large format. I can't wait. Avatar, not so much.

*Note: The 50s saw two main innovations to the cinema experience (as a response to tv), 3D and widescreen. Which do you think has had a bigger impact over the years? Here's a hint, it's the one with the bigger screen. Time will tell.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Why do preteen girls fawn?

Don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about here! Every single year, there seems to be something that little girls just swoon for en masse. The current one that I am discovering is a crazy obsession with everything Twilight.

Twilight is a book telling the tale of a mortal teen girl who discovers a boy who just so happens to be a vampire. They fall in love but he's a vampire and she's a human, yada yada yada... yawn. Well anyway, this book is apparently beloved by girls (and their Moms) everywhere and the movie is being released today. But rather than talk about this silly movie, I thought I would take my time and talk a little about why it is that girls do this massive crazy obsession about things.

I think the clearest example would be Titanic. The girls loved that movie (and Leo, much to his dislike), so much that they watched it, and watched it and rewatched it, and watched it, and watched it again. They sent it into astronomical, record box office numbers. It didn't hurt that the movie was pretty good, and yes, I will put it into public record that I enjoyed that flick. I saw it 4 times I believe. But before you start calling me a hypocrite, let me continue because the issue runs deeper than simply seeing a movie many times. I see them multiple times because I am fascinated with the filmmaking process. The girls see it to satisfy something else…

The pre-pubescent girl craze thing is not just limited to films. Boy Bands were a recent fad that thank God died away. But now they swoon over celebs like Hannah Montana, Zac Efron, and now the star of Twilight, Robert Pattinson. What is it that causes these girls to melt and scream and cry en masse? I think the issue is much more spread than simply being about young teenage girls. Adults are capable of doing the same thing.

I have come to the conclusion that it is all about the celebrity. Our society and pop culture elevates these mortal men and women so high, that us normal folk look up and admire them to ridiculous levels. And an even bigger problem than just our looking up to them, we have corporations that sell us these people. Disney is the guiltiest. I can't see myself ever buying a High School Musical lunchbox or pajamas, but they exist. Or how about Hanna Montana's clothing line?

I have no problems with commercializing a product, but to commercialize and make money off a person's name, it kind of disturbs me. J.Lo's got a perfume line. P.Diddy has clothes to sell you. And don't get me going on the teen empire of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. It sickens me that people produce this crap, but it sickens me even more that people actually BUY IT!! ARGH!!!

But anyway… getting back to the original topic... Why do girls, or people in general, fawn over the "celeb"? I believe it has something to do with the way we develop as young children. We tend to look up at the popular girls and boys, trying to love them, so maybe we'll be accepted. It's a very shallow way to be IMHO, and while I don't think that necessarily explains the celebrity, it is something that happens when you want to be accepted in a group. But why try to be accepted? Why do we humans want to be loved by others? Simply put... it makes us feel good.

But I think more so than what others think, you have to love yourself, and most importantly be true to that person. And if you are true to yourself, why would you need to be like others, like that "celeb?" Find who you are. That’s important, not what others think.

And this celeb craze is becoming a pandemic that I don't think people recognize. And that's the most dangerous kind.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Appaloosa Review

This was released in September, and I wanted to see it very badly, but just never got the chance. And one day I checked to see what was playing at our local poh-dunk small town theater, and I was surprised to find that it was showing. This is strange, considering it has been out for so long and is only now making its way to Ridgecrest. But whatever, I don't question Serendipity. So I went to go check this thing out.

First off, I love a good western. And I especially love modern westerns, mainly because it's a genre of movie that you just don't see get made very often anymore. So how does this one hold up? Is it really any good? And my answer is a tricky one, primarily because I love these actors so much but I feel differently about the film as a whole. In Appaloosa you have Ed Harris (also serving as director), Viggo Mortensen, Jeremy Irons, and a small role by Timothy Spall (great character actor IMHO). But was the story any good? I'm not sure.

The story is as follows: Two gunfighters (Harris & Mortensen) are hired to police a small town (Appaloosa) when a rancher (Irons) and his hands begin to bully the local citizens, even killing a Sherriff and his two deputies. They eventually get a witness to the murders and a trial begins.

Various other little stories pop up here and there, including when a young good-looking single woman comes into town looking for work and ends up wooing pretty much every guy in the movie. Played by Renée Zellweger, this character was actually a big sore point in the whole story. Primarily because the character was just bad, as you could never tell what she was thinking or who her loyalties were with. Saying it like that may make her sound interesting, but believe me it wasn't. But I think the character fails also because I just can't ever seem to buy Renée Zellweger as anything but Renée Zellweger. She always seems to immerse herself in the role, but somehow every time I see her, I can't separate the celebrity from the character. It isn't Renée Zellweger PLAYING a part as much as it is Renée Zellweger IN a part. Make sense?

The pacing is slow. Not paint-drying slow, but steady and deliberate. It's not bad enough to become a detriment, but you certainly feel it while watching. The gunfights are quick and to the gut (literally). The characters (Zellweger's discluded) are very interesting and they all have a few bad notches on their belt.

I greatly enjoyed how the movie moved around with time and places, and it gets to be very interesting in the end when the main baddie comes back into town with a Presidential Pardon after being on the run for a little while. He buys a hotel and begins the straight life, well this greatly irritates the two lawmen who put him away. And it is a very interesting thing to see played out. He is guilty, he has been proven guilty, but yet here he is smiling and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it, or is there?

The things I had wrong with this film were few, but very noticeable. As I said before, the pacing is very deliberate and methodical, but sometimes it can be uninteresting. The cinematography, normally a standout in many westerns, is surprisingly very underwhelming. The music is nonexistent, and the action is sparse. But I think the real strength of this picture is its actors and to an extent the dialogue. Ed Harris has assembled a fine pedigree of great performers and they deliver the goods. But I still have issues with Renée Zellweger.

This is not a shoot 'em up kind of film, and it knows it. The characters are rich with history and angst. And everybody plays it up to their fullest, giving us a very interesting addition to the western genre. I recommend going to see it, just don't expect to be blown away.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Woodland Waterfall

Thought I'd post a... post with a photo. Took this a long time ago in Oregon...

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Am I a Monkey?

So I was having a conversation with a fellow employee of the US Navy today, and he was telling me that my job was easy, that a monkey could do what I do. Initially I argued with him since I took great offense at his remark. I told him how what I do is important and at times can be quite a bit difficult, especially to those who don't know how to do it.

So what is it that I do? Well I am a Mass communications Specialist in the United States Navy. I am stationed with a squadron named VX-9 out of Ridgecrest CA. What I do for the squadron is provide support to the Squadron via Printing, Graphic Design, and Photographic services. Does that sound easy? Well let me tell you a secret... It is.

What I do here at the squadron is very menial and often unexciting:

• Somebody needs a 100 copies of a 50 page document. Put document in machine, type 100, and press go. Boom! Done.
• Somebody needs a photo of a plane because they are designing a model and need a picture of the Jet's Paint scheme. Go downstairs in to the hangar, point camera, focus, shoot, download and burn. Boom! Done.
• Somebody needs a poster to say "What've you done for the Fleet Today?" Open a cool photo, slap on some text and Boom! Done. Actually... that's not easy. And point of Fact graphics work is a little challenging if you don't know what you're doing.

Ok so with the exception of graphics the majority of the work I do here is not all that exciting or difficult to learn. But all that aside, as an MC in the military, I am required to know a great deal of information. I have attended 4 different multimedia schools as part of my training in the military. I am an accomplished video shooter/editor, and over the 6 years in the military I have created some things I am very proud of. But is that easy? Not really.

Going out and finding a story to shoot is difficult. Shooting the story, while I may be used to it, can be a challenge. And then there is the editing, the writing of the script, and add a few finishing touches and Boom! But VX-9 doesn't really care about Video pieces, so it's a moot point here.

So where does this issue rest? I honestly feel that I am not being challenged at work. We aren't required to do very much here. And since it is a shore duty, and after serving on a very hardworking aircraft carrier for 4.5 years, I am not really looking for the challenge. I am just coasting along.

When it's spelled out like that, it kind of makes me nervous. How can I afford to take a break now, when I need to be planning and preparing for a very big step within the next 2 years? How did I get like this? Maybe I am the monkey after all.

Guess I'll have to fix that, or just go get another banana.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Playing some Gears of War

So I am little over video-gamed right now. This season has too many great A-list titles that I have to take advantage of. To name a few on my list: Fable 2, Little Big Planet, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, and Gears of War 2. Now I bought Gears of War 2 the day it came out (Friday the 7th), and I was too caught up in Little Big Planet (I will talk about this one later) that I hadn't gotten a chance to pop it in until today. And oh my God, it is awesome.

To the uninitiated, Gears of War is a series on the Xbox 360, that pits a hardy group of tree-thick human brutes, known as Gears against an invading unstoppable horde of underground beasties known as locusts. Their (Humans) planet has been ravaged by Civil War for nearly a century, and when they are at the brink of destroying themselves, a new enemy (locusts) bursts forth from the ground (literally) and begin to decimate the entire planet. I really love the setup and the story to the original, so I am very anxious to play through this one.

The gameplay is different from other shooters in that in it you are forced to use cover 95% of the time. Rather than jumping, blindly firing at enemies you are forced into ducking and covering, taking quick potshots over a rail. The action is crazy intense, and the graphics are just out of this world. Check out this screen shot:

Or this one:


The original Gears of War was released in Oct 2006, and up until its sequel, was the best looking game ever. So far this one has easily been able to surpass its predecessor. But I haven't finished it yet (I only started today), but I have a feeling this is going to be an instant classic. And I hear the multi-player is very good as well. We shall just have to see.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Quantum of Solace Review

OK here we go, Quantum of Solace. I was one of 4 people who did not like Casino Royale. Without going into too much depth, I felt that while it may have been a good action picture, it most certainly was not a good Bond movie. My opinion of Quantum of Solace is not that much different.

I understand that the Bond series has grown tired and felt forced over the years. I get that a change had to be made. But I think they went in the absolute wrong direction. And I have to agree with another reviewer's phrase: "James Bourned."

It is so blatantly obvious where the inspiration for this new James Bond is coming from. With its merciless attitude and hard hitting in your face cutting and action, these two new Bond films very much resemble the Bourne films. You may say, "Well, that ain't so bad. The Bourne movies were awesome!" And I will agree. The Bourne movies are in fact awesome. But we're not talking about that character. We are in fact talking about the greatest cinema legend EVER!!! JAMES "SHAKEN NOT STIRRED" BOND!!!

Where is the Bond I fell in love with? Sadly I feel he is long gone. With the public loving Casino Royale, and judging by the enormous Box office receipts for Quantum, It doesn't look like this new "Bourne to be Bond" formula is going anywhere. And it saddens me a great deal!

To go off on this movie, here are the things that stood out to me:

1. The villain is just atrocious. A little slimeball that not once you feel threatened by. Not even when for no fricking reason, he gets all retard-strong in the end to hold off 007 with a firefighting axe. And he makes the most awful squeal while flailing the axe about. And his brilliant and dastardly plot: extorting high water prices in Bolivia. Yep, Bolivia, and yes, water prices. Dear god, What happened to manipulating two super powers to destroying themselves in WWIII, by simply controlling a newspaper... That was a brilliant and a dastardly plot (and that was one of the weaker ones)

2. James Bond is hampered down by his feelings every single minute of the movie. Oh Vesper this, Vesper that. When in Casino Royale you barely got the sense they were even attracted to each other. And she betrayed him!! Yet here he is, still swooning over this chick. I do understand why it was written like this, they want to give Bond a humanizing factor, something that brings him down to that of a normal man gunning for revenge. And also to try and tie back to the first movie, but it is just mishandled all throughout the picture.

3. Daniel Craig is not James Bond. Daniel Craig is great at what he does in these movies, but again, what he does is so un-bond-like that he doesn't even resemble the Sean Connerys, or the Pierce Brosnans of yesterday. He is doing something completely different than any previous Bond has ever done before. Now here is where somebody who loves these movies will say, "That's what makes them so good. they're being different." And let me say this, I understand being different, but to completely forgo 40 years and 20 films of development of a now classic character, and not even remotely resemble the films that millions of people have loved for decades, is pathetic.

They didn't use the full on Bond theme (until the credits that is). They removed the shaken not stirred line, yet again (while still paying homage to it I will admit). And not a one-liner in sight. But again, people seem to like it this way. I do not.

The action was not shot with any thought for screen direction, pacing, or just plain ability to follow it. Some action scenes were shot in close-up so much that I could not tell what was going on. This is a trend I see more and more that I am beginning to loathe every time I see it again. The Bourne movies were slightly guilty of it, but they always seemed to let the audience follow along without inducing a terrible headache.

If somebody took Dorothy from the classic Wizard of Oz, A character that everybody knows so well, that everybody loves so much. To take Dorothy and try and turn her into Diana Ross (I'm talking the Wiz here people) is frankly dumb. But I get that people like that movie (I have no idea who). I also get that people love Daniel Craig as James Bond. But this new James Bond, just saddens the hell out of me. And I don't think there will be going back.

C

*here is an afterthought when you go see this movie: it cost $230 million to make. And not once while watching it, could I see that money on the screen. Where did it all go?

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content