tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89754460857063467892024-03-13T01:02:17.478-07:00Lexicon, Syntax, Semantics & PragmaticsWhen history, literature, film, video games, technology, politics and forgetfulness collide.Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-35143483339282564532011-05-09T19:58:00.000-07:002011-05-11T07:28:01.181-07:00Indeed, What the Hell is Wrong With Us?As some of you know, I have a very talented brother who is a
novelist, Bob. He's recently started a new blog and having read a particularly
meaty post, I thought it only appropriate to respond to his very important
query: What the Hell is Wrong With Us? Please read his original post on
<a href="http://bobalpi.com/?p=112" target="_blank"> BobAlpi.com</a>.
<br /><br> My answer: <i>Money.</i><br /><br />
Bob has hit upon something that's disgusted me
ever since I was introduced to tabloid newspapers by my friend's mom in ole
Bombay, NY. At first I thought it was a joke since my friend and I often
read MAD Magazine and watched Saturday Night Live. I soon found out
however that people actually read tabloids as news. Over ten years later,
it was start of the second Iraq war when my roommate was watching news about
it on her TV. I was aghast at the broadcast because it was the most sensational
newscast I'd ever seen while the pundits reported with actual excitement as movie
trailer-worthy graphics exploded across the screen. I thought it must have been a
tabloid show-- something out of a sci fi movie that used such news networks
as an illustration of the degradation of society. I thought the news was
very liberal. I had watched CNN now-and-then after the first Iraq war propelled the
network to the fore in '91 and thought this had a similar tone-- although far
more sensational. I asked my roommate what network it was-- FOX News. We
didn't get Fox where I grew up and when I moved to bigger TV
markets, I didn't watch much TV. I then learned it was supposed to
be the conservative voice in TV news. What? After what I saw?!
It was news marketed for easy consumption similar to propaganda, I
thought. I wonder now if the second Iraq war is what propelled Fox News to the fore.
<br><a name='more'></a>
<br />
Since that time, scripted TV which often featured heroes
have been replaced by stories about villains and "reality television."
The values inherent in myth have been decreasing in popularity just as
the late myth scholar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell" target="_blank">Joseph Campbell</a> foretold. I'm sure CNN, NBC and other
news casters have done their share, but Fox is the one who has succeeded at blurring
the line between news and entertainment. Talk show hosts are presented as
reporters and are allowed to skew facts, use rumors spread on the internet, imply falsehoods or simply lie to
support a point. Reality shows on all networks are similar as they present them as real
while events caught on camera are actually influenced by the creators,
re-ordered and edited in a way to support a narrative. (In the end,
they need a story to follow or no one would watch. They need to make it
sensational to keep people watching.) Reality TV originally began as a
twist on documentaries, an experiment to show real drama in the lives of normal
kids in <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103520/" target="_blank">The Real World</a>.</i> It was obvious even then that the camera
changed the situation entirely. These kids wanted to use TV to gain notoriety and they could get a whole lot more screen
time on MTV then they could on Jerry Springer. The show eventually
devolved into a moral dilemma for the participants to either keep to their
career-related intentions or do something infamous to become a minor celebrity.
And breasts were then flashed and walks of shame were caught on tape.
Once these shows <em>Big Brother, Surviror</em> et al about regular folks ran their course, makers of this
content needed to up the ante. They started building shows with an odd mix of minor names-- infamous spectors from the tabloids or had-been actors or music stars. This then led to following off-center celebrities like Hulk Hogan, Ozzy Osbourne and their families. I can only descibe this whole genre as disturbing st best.<br /><br>
Celebrities have always been created by our country in one
form or another, but the habit probably didn't explode until movies began to
talk. As a culture, we became interested in their romantic misadventures and bad
behavior and blew it up into a real life soap opera. Some people made an obsession of it for sure, but never before
has there been such interest in and availability of these tawdry, titillating tales.
Everywhere you look there seems to be a photo or story about the latest
footstep taken by Hilton or Lohan. But why?! Follow the money. Our
society has gone from 'root for the underdog' to 'destroy all who show any
talent or unique thoughts.' It's gone from celebrating triumphs of mind,
humanity and creativity to lauding stupidity and all because it makes more
money. In a film likely considered ancient and out-of-date by today's
popular opinion called <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/" target="_blank">Citizen Kane</a></i>, Charles Foster Kane (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000080/" target="_blank">Orson Welles</a>) builds a
newspaper company which gains popularity by being the independent voice of the
people-- reporting on what he said other well established papers were afraid to
because of their ties with business and government. However, Kane
eventually changes his 'printing what people <em>need</em> to know' mantra to 'what
the people <em>want</em> to know'. With that seemingly slight change of
focus, he then builds a huge media empire based on bold, trashy
headlines and sensational stories of celebrity. He becomes a celebrity
himself and makes more money than he could ever spend, but he is ultimately
destroyed by his own creation. In essence, this is the story of a villain,
but its status as a cautionary tale, and one of the finest films ever made, is
never in doubt. Today, I fear this story would be told with Kane actually succeeding by somehow making his selfishness and self loathing an asset and
surviving for a sequel. In a very real way, I think this same story is
playing out in many people's lives the world over. On a mass scale we're
not only allowing these things to exist, we're supporting them with our hard
earned money. That true believers is a very scary thing!
Little-by-little we've built the foundation, the walls and offices, the antennae and satellite dishes to beam this content in every nook
and cranny it can penetrate. It's gone from advertisement and brand overload
to celebrity overload. Perhaps that should be the subject of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1041597/" target="_blank">Morgan
Spurlock</a>'s next documentary-- what happens when brands have faces instead of logos and you don't own the intelletual property of your face?<br />
<br>
Is there hope to combatting this billion-dollar industry?!
What can I do if everyone is doing it? How can I combat it if the
world is saturated in it? It all starts with the one, my friends.
As my brother Bob said, don't buy this crap, don't watch it-- even if you just have
the TV on for background noise. Be a shining example for your friends and
families! Just because you believe that some things are still precious in this world or you think we can do better doesn't make you an elitist, jerk, crazy, curmodeon or old fogie. You'll be abundanly surprised and pleased to lear that people still respond to REAL
values and that even the most cynical of teenagers will hear you even if they won't admit it. We all
feel the grey seeping into our lives, but I think there's a lot we can make
ying-and-yang again. Evil is still evil even if it's only a little evil at a
time.<br>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-44417719745572078552010-03-13T17:44:00.006-08:002010-03-14T10:50:21.442-07:00Something Awesome HappenedThis week had it's trials, but you know what? There was a little bit of awesome in there. It certainly seems that sometimes in our lives it's hard to find the positive. But I'll bet there's at least a little bit of awesome in your life, too. You don't think so? Did you check?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMePLJsmP4WoGgUmSNkTpfoCD95xzH0YuxrLbC2QFt7nd__qSzF9s7HwxS7YYdXco6q0qclTKClOOO-ucfNU1Jz617m40mWSuMtXXfiKjQRz7UTWe0UDc-BW3Nkk8qfSwpvk6OUHERw-s/s1600-h/2010-03-10-015a.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMePLJsmP4WoGgUmSNkTpfoCD95xzH0YuxrLbC2QFt7nd__qSzF9s7HwxS7YYdXco6q0qclTKClOOO-ucfNU1Jz617m40mWSuMtXXfiKjQRz7UTWe0UDc-BW3Nkk8qfSwpvk6OUHERw-s/s200/2010-03-10-015a.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5448378411349958418" /></a>When we call our friends or family, conversation can often lead to commiseration or venting about work, school, life and significant others. In some cases, the entire conversation can be filled with all the unfortunate things that happened. And one conversation can string to several of the same tone. The same can happen in your inner dialog. But, was your year, month, week, day all bad? Perhaps, but I'd bet there were rays of sunshine in there. Sometimes though, you have to dig for them. It can be something as simple as a baby you saw at the store, the sound of the wind blowing through the trees or even the aroma of a cup of coffee. If we have to dig, is that a negative thing? Not at all. It may be that things really do suck the majority of the time, but there is a chance that it's just our perception making it seem like it does. For folks dealing with real issues like disease, death and other trauma, it certainly can seem that the world is coming down about them. Those are situations that need real help and not my simple thoughts, but I would wager that they wouldn't mind knowing little bits of awesome are still happening. In less severe cases, it can just feel like the world is against you. Nothing seems to come out right. Some might say that things are going wrong because you're following the wrong path. But, what if you can't change your path? You're stuck at your job in order to afford to feed your kids or maybe you're unemployed.... You love your husband, but he's not spending enough time, or too much, with you... Your grandmother has dementia and you have to care for her... These are all easily imagined or you live them every day. So ask yourself, when you call your mom or brother or best friend, do you just tell them about the negative? Do you not talk because you don't want to just vent? Venting is a healthy thing. If you have someone to vent to, you're a very lucky person (return the favor!) If you don't, find one! Just try to adopt this little habit: Be sure to toss in at least one event that was awesome.<br /><br />For many of us, it can seem like there is no awesome happening to us. We tell ourselves there's nothing good and eventually, we make it a reality. We keep looking out from the shadows only to see more shadows. That's when you have to start picking out the pools of light. Challenges and difficulties will be a constant and you'll need to keep working through them for sure. Yet perhaps every week or every day, take a moment to reflect and find whatever either brought you or will bring you a little joy. Find the something awesome that happened and eventually, there will be a whole lot of awesome in your life.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#990000;">Photo by Nathan Linn</span></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-63672936022855076032009-03-18T10:29:00.029-07:002011-05-09T19:54:07.458-07:00Sci Fi Channel and the Death of Science Fiction TV<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/89/SciFi_channel.svg/209px-SciFi_channel.svg.png" target="_blank"><img style="margin: 5pt 5pt 5px 5px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 209px; height: 68px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/89/SciFi_channel.svg/209px-SciFi_channel.svg.png" alt="" border="0" /></a>Bye bye Sci Fi.<br /><br />If you haven't heard, Sci Fi Channel has announced that they're changing their name to SyFy Channel in an attempt to broaden their audience. What we have to remember however, is this is about dollars, not geeks.<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php" target="_blank">TVWeek.com</a>:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 102);">“We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.</span><br /></blockquote><br />Looking passed the fact that "sci-fi" and "science fiction" are synonyms in the vernacular (as much as Harlan Ellison hates it), this statement still doesn't quite jive with reality. Sci Fi Channel started in 1992 under an advisory board including <i>Star Trek</i> creator Gene Roddenberry, author Isaac Asimov and if my memory of the comic book ads is correct, actor Leonard Nimoy. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Farscape_Logo.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="margin: 5pt 5px 5px 5pt; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 171px; height: 132px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Farscape_Logo.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>A joint venture of Paramount Pictures, USA Networks, and Universal Pictures, the whole point of the channel was to rerun old science fiction shows and movies of which the studios had many. It was to be a celebration of science fiction although, I personally didn't know if there was enough applicable programming to support an entire channel. These days, you can catch an episode or series online or on DVD, but in those days, if you missed a show, it was possible that you'd never see it again. So at the time, the chance to see <i>Twilight Zone</i>, original <i>Battlestar Galactica</i> and <i>Buck Rogers in the 25th Century </i>was pretty darn cool. Unfortunately, we didn't get the channel at the time and I was relegated to reading about it in Wizard Magazine. Brooks' claim that they were trying to distance themselves doesn't seem to ring true until the 21st Century. Until that time they did run a lot of horror, but I still caught <i>Star Trek, Space Above and Beyond</i> and <i>Babylon 5</i> through the turn of the century. Prime time on Friday nights (oft called SciFridays) was their most advertised lineup and has contained much of their original programming like <i>Farscape, Stargate SG-1/Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, Andromeda </i>and <i>The Secret Adventures Of Jules Verne</i> plus, <i>Dr Who</i> (BBC). Sounds pretty science fictiony to me. Even some of their largest ventures were two massive <i>Dune </i>mini-series. Still, direct-to-video quality horror movies, paranormal programs like <i>John Edwards</i> and <i>Ghost Hunters</i> and reality shows were creeping in around 2000. And meanwhile, science fiction was disappearing from American networks.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/images/downloads/desktops/thumb_season03.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="margin: 5pt 10px 5px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 151px;" src="http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/images/downloads/desktops/thumb_season03.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>It seems that network execs were increasingly interested in getting rid of expensive science fiction shows and wanted to replace them with cheaper contemporary police procedurals and reality shows. Perhaps what happened was the existence of a science fiction channel finally gave them an out. Why produce sci-fi when folks can just tune to the science fiction channel? Whether that's the case or not, <i>Threshold </i>and <i>Invasion</i> in 2005 were among the last of their kind until <i>Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles</i> (FOX) in 2008. <i>Lost </i>is not sci-fi and <i>Smallville </i>and <i>Heroes </i>are attempts to exploit the popularity of super heroes while boiling off enough to attempt a broader appeal. What I don't understand is if Sci Fi is the de facto place to find science fiction, why is NBC changing it into typical 'whatever' channel? After being purchased by NBC, Sci Fi quickly became its dumping ground. <i>Lost, Threshold, Heroes;</i> all reruns from the larger network. For Sci Fi, I think fans agree that ECW Professional Wrestling was the first solid sign that the channel was ending and that American science fiction television is dying.<br /><br />More from <a href="http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php" target="_blank">TVWeek.com</a>:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 102);">“The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular,” Brooks said.</span><br /><br /></blockquote> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.scifi.com/atlantis/downloads/desktops/images/desktop_15_800.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="margin: 5pt 10px 5px 0pt; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 199px; height: 149px;" src="http://www.scifi.com/atlantis/downloads/desktops/images/desktop_15_800.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>What we have to remember though is it's all about the money. What Sci Fi is trying to combat is the perception they think advertisers hold-- their audience is limited to some kind of male geek fringe. If they can change that perception and appear to be broadening their audience, then more advertisers will be willing to spend their dollars at SyFy. However, if the advertisers have ever been to a modern pop culture convention like <a href="http://dragoncon.org/" target="_blank">Dragon*Con</a> or <a href="http://www.comic-con.org/" target="_blank">SDCC</a>, they know who their core audience is. They would know that many of them are actually social and attractive females who enjoy dressing up as their favorite <i>Battlestar </i>and <i>Stargate </i>characters. They'd also know that panels of creators and stars attract tens of thousands and fill large halls. These "geeks" enjoy this stuff that much and spend a lot to get it.<br /><br />So, this is why you got a weird feeling when NBC bought Sci Fi. Deep down, you knew that what you sensed was happening was about to accelerate. Science fiction and fantasy are the most expensive shows to produce because the further a concept gets from contemporary times, the more money has to be spent on development, sets, costumes and special effects. And unfortunately, right now profit rules. Whether it's a film or television show, profit potential has to be exceedingly high and then keep growing. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://benalpi.com/blog/keyart_800.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="margin: 5pt 10px 5px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://benalpi.com/blog/keyart_800.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>TV series are put under amazing pressure to show profits in short order or they're canceled. Some of the most popular shows ever like <i>Cheers,</i> took a few seasons to find their audience. These days, it seems shows are lucky to get a full season. This is part of a far greater problem of how the system has mutated. Marketers have made the only important line in a show or movie the bottom line. This cannot be allowed to persist or we will be doomed to watch the same stories and actors over and over as evidenced by the non-stop release of remakes, sequels and TV show adaptations. That, my friends, is one of the signs of a failing society. The importance of art to society is incredible as well as incredibly devalued by the current cultural climate. If Sci Fi is willing to spit on its core audience to gain market share, what does that say? At this point, I have no idea why <i>Stargate: Universe</i> is going into production. Not only is the franchise getting tired (similar to <i>Star Trek</i> post <span style="font-style: italic;">Next Generation</span>), but it will be pretty lonely. <i>Battlestar </i>is ending, <i>Stargate: Atlantis</i> has been canceled as has <i>Sarah Connor Chronicles</i>. Are <span style="font-style: italic;">Sanctuary</span> and Joss Whedon's <i>Dollhouse</i> (FOX)<i> </i>the last bastions of hope?<br /><br />What can't be denied is science fiction is an essential component to our continued progression as humans. Be it in understanding humanity, in racial, sexual and religious tolerance or in relating to technology, science fiction's effect is indelible and must be continued. All I can say to geeks and non-geeks alike is let your opinion be known. If you love science fiction and want to it continue, let the marketers and advertisers know it. And if you think art is worth more than money, let them know that, too!<br /><br />I was inspired to write this by a great post on <a href="http://www.pinkraygun.com/2009/03/18/geeks-aren%27t-friendly-to-humans/" target="_blank">PinkRaygun.com</a>. <br /><br /><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" ><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Ben Alpi is a geek who enjoys watching science fiction and playing video games, but is *ahem* fully functional and has never lived in a basement.<br /><br /></span></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-32448120847555676062009-01-07T08:42:00.000-08:002011-05-09T19:54:36.389-07:00Gaming Beyond DirectX?I know a little about video game engines and such, but I thought I'd submit this to my readers to see if maybe you could help me with the gaps in my knowledge. As some may know, I'm not happy with DRM and resource heavy Windows Vista and I'm wondering what might happen in the PC gaming world when Microsoft stops selling XP. Mainly, the question is, can OpenGL completely replace DirectX 10+? Mac, Unix, GNU, Linux all use OpenGL, but looking into DirectX, it would <i>seem </i>it's more powerful than OpenGL when matched with the right GPU (Graphics Processing Unit.) DirectX 10 is supposed to be fast and streamlined, which is cool, but it's only on Vista. The thing is, both OpenGL and Direct X use the same Shader Model. Does that mean OpenGL has the same abilities? I speak mainly of the amazing texturing and displacement mapping now possible with engines like the <a href="http://www.unrealtechnology.com/technology.php">Unreal Engine 3</a>. From what I have read, that engine was built for DirectX 9 (and patched to 10) so, I don't know how viable OpenGL is on "next generation" platforms. Then again, Call of Duty 4 is on Intel Macs and doesn't seem to take a hit graphically (although I've never played it on an Mac so, I'm not an authority.) So, anyone have the skinny this stuff?<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Unreal_Engine_Comparison.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 282px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Unreal_Engine_Comparison.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />Then, enter the Apple-lead <a href="http://www.khronos.org/opencl/">OpenCL</a> (Open Computing Language), the open source programming language that I've read will give unto us cross-platform goodness and unlock GPUs so they can be used by more applications and processes. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL">Wiki</a> say " The purpose is to recall <a href="http://www.opengl.org/">OpenGL</a> and <a href="http://connect.creativelabs.com/openal/default.aspx">OpenAL</a>, which are open industry standards for 3D graphics and computer audio respectively, to extend the power of the GPU beyond graphics." So, I know that GPUs are exceedingly fast and I love that physics in games (Physx on NVIDIA Series 8+) will be run by them, but is giving other apps access to them a good thing? Apple will implement OpenCL in <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/">Snow Leopard OS 10.6</a> (to be released in 2009) and a lot of companies are on board including IBM, Intel, AMD/ATI, NVIDIA, 3DLABS, Activision Blizzard, Codeplay, Electronic Arts, Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia and Samsung. But what will this do for graphics? Anything? What effect will it have on positional audio in games? And finally, will this make playing games without Microsoft truly viable?<br /><br />Lastly, I'd like to mention another perhaps obvious question: What about multi-core processing in games? Sure, opening up GPU's will be great, but what about the 2-to-8 cores churning inside many PC cases? Could using multi-threading and breaking up processes within games to different cores speed performance? Are bus speeds a bottleneck?<br /><br />Let me know your thoughts!Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-87299315034568423412008-12-17T10:04:00.013-08:002011-05-09T19:52:05.797-07:00Tension! Tension! Tension!<span style="font-style: italic;">A conversation on how tension and taking a second look at your writing can give it more HECK YEAH!</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Pirates_3_AWE_Poster_International.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 223px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Pirates_3_AWE_Poster_International.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>In working on an alternative future feature-length screenplay with writing partner Tom Mercer, I recalled something I had been talking to comic book artist Rick Arthur about. Rick, a great writer in my opinion, and I have had long conversations on tension. At the time, I had been working on a different script and in trying to "up the stakes," I wrote a scene that happened to have a similar fight to a later scene. I suppose that other people, looking at the recent crop of lack-luster action adventure films, would have left it as was, but I knew the earlier fight would take away from the later one and worked hard to fix them. Thankfully, I was able come up with a solid solution that achieved all the plot points, but in a different way. This reminded me of one of the talks Rick and I had about <span style="font-style: italic;">Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones </span>and suggestions he had for the gladiator scene (you know, the one with the three beasts who were to eat up Obi-Wan, Anakin and Padmé.) Lately I've been rolling my eyes at films like <i>Pirates of the Caribbean</i> II and III and X-Men III for they're trade-in of story for special effects and because the films failed to utilize their genre roots. <i>Attack </i>was also guilty of this and Rick told me it was because they attempted an homage to gladiator movies, but didn't do the classic arena scene justice. As he and I talked about, it also showed gross negligence in not seizing the possible tension nor the possible plot points. Not to droll on about the Prequels, but I almost wish I could somehow redo that scene to show how it could have worked. Hopefully Rick doesn't mind me mixing in his ideas in the following description of how I might change such a scene...<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/e/ea/Geonosis_arena.jpg"><img style="margin: 3px auto; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 226px;" src="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/e/ea/Geonosis_arena.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">The arena from Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones</span><span style="font-size:78%;">.</span><br /></div><br />First, Count Duuku visits Padmé in a holding cell. He may try to seduce her and make her a pawn for his uses (and fail) if it doesn't take too much screen time. But, I would have him drug her ("Something for the pain, my dear." [insert evil laugher] ). So then, Anakin and Obi-Wan are in the anti-Force restraining units (ugh, but okay) and are wheeled out on a balcony overlooking the arena. The crowd CHEERS and the two Jedi see Padmé is restrained on a pillar down below. In Padmé's vision, her sight is blurry and the cheering is oppressive to her. Ani and Obi-Wan try to reason with Duuku etc, but to no avail. Duuku places their lightsabers on the rail before them and goads them. Three lion-like creatures (slightly bigger than Earth lions and more teeth) are released. ROAR! YAY goes the crowd! The cats circle their prey. Padmé's vision is still fuzzy, she sees and hears echoes of the cats. The two Jedi pull on their restraints, but can't get free. Obi-Wan calls out Padmé's name! Ani fumes, then quiets, his anger smoldering, building within him. The cats test their prey, jumping towards her and away. One swipes at her and she yelps! White fabric is torn from her belly and the claws graze her skin leaving bloody scratches. "Duuku!" Ani says. "I will kill you for this!" Ani's closes his eyes and concentrates, flexing all his muscles. A low rubble emits from him. He yells and rips his arms free, the metal shattering, electronics popping! He pulls his lightsaber to his hand and cuts Obi-Wan free. Obi-Wan yells, "Get her!" Ani launches into the air and into the arena. Obi-Wan spins in the air, his lightsaber bursts to life as it flies to him and he brings it down on Duuku in one swift flourish. Duuku ignites his saber and jumps back, blocking Obi-Wan's blow just in time...<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Aotc.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 5pt 0px 0px; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 236px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Aotc.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Hopefully that's more intense a scene and I think it establishes two plot points missing in the films-- Ani's ultra power potential and his touching the Dark Side. It also achieves an objective that Mr. Lucas undoubtedly had, which was to make it different enough from Luke's fight with the Rancor. I think it also gives Padmé a little more worth by sharing some of her experiences personally. Also, drugging her implies that Duuku sees her as a threat. One other idea I had was for the <i>Return of the Sith</i>. I thought if Padmé had gotten hurt more seriously at the end (meaning Ani was more gripped by the Dark Side) that instead of just speeding her to doctors, Obi-Wan could have had to hurry and deliver the children himself before Padmé died. So, it takes the last of her strength to deliver them and she dies asking Obi-Wan to look after them and thanking Obi-Wan for being a true friend. When I thought of that I said WOW! It was going to be a downer ending anyhow, why not let it make sense? I mean, I think Lucas already went outside the bounds of action adventure serials with these films, why not make them really dramatic, intense and have deep impact and resonance?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/X2_poster_version2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0px 0px 5pt; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 238px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/X2_poster_version2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>In the end, there's nothing we can do but make sure we try our best in our writing. That and maybe we should consult people we respect to consult on our writing (and listen to them.) Writing takes a lot of time and care and let's face it, can be the least expensive part of a film. Why not put more stress on that and get more for your money? Certainly there are all sorts of factors that effect, filter and possibly degrade the writer's work before it gets to the screen, but just as certain is how the story should be central to the work. I suppose also I must ask producers and directors to take better care of the writing because no matter how many Johnny Depps, Ewan McGregors or Hugh Jackmans you have delivering great performances, there's only so much they can do to help the writing. And whatever happened to 'special effects are a tool and shouldn't take over the story'? Looks like getting back to our roots is more important than ever. Tension, tension, tension! Best of luck to all you film makers out there!Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-7413246564090213962008-11-25T21:53:00.023-08:002010-05-08T11:09:48.688-07:00Frozen River: A Film Funded by the Kindness of Forgotten Strangers<i>The humble beginnings of the award winning feature film and the amazing crew it was founded on.</i><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje4s2cF4wubX_8ZcXSZJA2BuAVSU9Jsc5eP-es8AxwJ2mrdN6KdIOtN6v482ThnvmmblUoW4MisAkJM_TSu4BVDDgsCSASjUzEp__847keLYuJCO0dBPkOadA2pYL84HAo0lv0lTXSF9c/s1600-h/efudd_me.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5272840907062915506" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje4s2cF4wubX_8ZcXSZJA2BuAVSU9Jsc5eP-es8AxwJ2mrdN6KdIOtN6v482ThnvmmblUoW4MisAkJM_TSu4BVDDgsCSASjUzEp__847keLYuJCO0dBPkOadA2pYL84HAo0lv0lTXSF9c/s200/efudd_me.jpg" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 200px; width: 144px;" border="0" /></a>Making independent film is hard. Damn hard. When starting out making their first films, most filmmakers have little money and have to rely, at least partially, on the kindness of strangers. As anyone who has tried it knows, without a substantial budget it's difficult to afford to pay your cast and crew. I know this from personal experience. I've been lucky enough to have had individuals willing to stand in the cold <span>and </span>the heat to aid me in such endeavors. And I've tried my best not to forget them. The crew of <i>Frozen River</i> I'm afraid, was forgotten long ago.<br /><br />It has been a long time since I aided the first narrative film I've ever known to shoot in the region I grew up in. I was reminded of the shoot by an interview by Liane Hansen with <i>Frozen River </i>star Melissa Leo on National Pubic Radio's <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97365642">Weekend Edition Sunday</a>. Leo makes mention of the short film (of the same name) which was shot back in the winter of 2004. The progenitor of the Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize winning feature, also written and directed by Courtney Hunt, was filmed on locations in and around the Akwesasne Mohawk Nation in Northern New York. No, you won't find it on IMDB even though it traveled the festival circuit and won funding for the feature at the IFP film market. From Hunt's <a href="http://frozenriverthemovie.com/Bio.htm">website</a>:<br /><br /><i>"The film premiered at the New York Film Festival in 2004, and went on to screen at numerous other festivals, including the Los Angeles Film Festival, Nashville, Williamstown, and the American Indian Film Festival in San Francisco."</i><br /><br />There isn't anywhere on the internet that I know of where you read about the twenty-eight-plus crew who largely volunteered their time. (The names I know are listed at the end of this article.) You also can't read about Upstate Independents, a filmmaker's organization in Albany, NY, where Hunt asked for and received free help and crew, including myself, from its members. You can't find anything about the months of preparation done by Debra, Al and Amanda, Hunt's intrepid pre-production team, to gather a crew in what can be easily considered a remote location. Being originally from the area, I helped to connect them with the local high school and businesses.<br /><br />As is customary in indie film, the agreement between Hunt and I was in return for working on the short for free, I would receive lodging and meals during the shoot, credit and if the short ever garnered her a feature film deal, I would be amongst the first to be called to work on it for pay. This was the same agreement given to the entire crew including those who were paid at a discounted rate. To my knowledge, none of the members of that crew were ever contacted when the short won Hunt funding. The only individuals I know from the short to work on the feature, were actors. I've also never seen the short. There was one screening that we were told about, but that was too long a drive for me to make. In all, I received three emails from Hunt early on, but that was it. One of them thanked us for our hard work, which I did appreciate. But, I would have appreciated if she had honored our agreement a whole lot more.<br /><br /><i>"Courtney wrote and directed Frozen River, the short film, starring Melissa Leo and Misty Upham, which was shot in sub-zero weather on the Canadian border in Upstate New York."</i><br /><br />Yes, it was cold. We filmed for five nights in all. We shot outside of Massena at Bob's Motel, over near Hogansburg at the Wolf Pack, down near the St. Lawrence River off Garrow Rd. and actually on the river ice. For those of you who are unfamiliar, a normal shift on a film set is twelve hours. Sid, our tough, prideful Gaffer, Ryan, our towering bright Key Grip-turned-First Assistant Director and myself, the lone Grip were the first to arrive in the early afternoon and the last to leave the set in the wee morning hours. The three of us put in more hours on set (sometimes working over 15 hours) than anyone so, yeah, it was cold. Eddie, Ryan, Sid and myself also drove the trucks. The food on the shoot was fantastic, though. I wish I could recall Melissa-the-Chef's last name. The Production Assistants who helped her were also awesome. Actually, everyone was awesome. Camera, Grip and Electric, Art, Production... everyone.<br /><br />Through all the frigid, long hours no one complained. Not a one. Ryan was even sick, yet he soldiered on. The next to last night when we filmed at the old camper, I recall looking around at all the crew who occupied probably a sixty-foot radius around the car we were filming in. Each of us dressed in at least three layers of clothing waited patiently and quietly standing steadfast in the cold. I realized; here we were in the middle of the night, in the middle of no where, standing on inches of snow and ice, freezing our asses off, for over twelve hours a day... mostly for free. I was astonished by the kindness of all of these individuals to do this for someone they don't even know-- at least not well. That's when I realized how many films like this rely heavily on the kindness of others. There were even a few times when the dedication of the crew was brought into question (not by the director), but there was absolutely no questioning our dedication and Hunt later told us as much. Through it all, the crew just kept doing their jobs silently and respectfully. Hunt did tell us many times how much she appreciated our efforts and what an awesome job we were doing. We shot a lot of film and from what I heard, the footage was amazing. Therefore, I cannot believe there is any performance-related or other legitimate reason why none of us received any word what-so-ever about the feature (if even to tell us somehow the situation barred her from bringing us on.) I am proud of my efforts on the short and enjoyed working with that exceptional group of people. It is only the lack of follow-through that I have any issue with. And not really for me, but for the entire crew from the students from St. Lawrence University, to the long time pro's from around the Northeast. They deserve recognition for their great effort and their contribution to getting the feature funded. At the least, I feel it's time their existence was known. Unfortunately this is a similar story to countless others in independent film, but luckily I have the ability do a little something to ensure these folks aren't totally forgotten. Hopefully knowing about this will encourage future filmmakers to honor their agreements and give their crew the credit they deserve. The following is a partial list of credits for the short film <i>Frozen River</i>. My thanks to all the cast and crew for their camaraderie and excellent achievement on the frozen border of a great Nation.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Frozen River </span>(2004)<br /><br />Written & Directed by<br />Courtney Hunt<br /><br />Produced by<br />Don Harwood<br />Courtney Hunt<br /><br />Director of Photography<br />Marc Blandori<br /><br />Edited by<br />Tony Grocki<br /><br />Line Producer<br />Debra Pearlman<br /><br />Production Manager<br />Amanda Brooks<br /><br />First Assistant Assistant Director<br />Al Halstead<br /><br />First Assistant Assistant Director<br />Ryan Gates<br /><br />Script Supervisor<br />Kevin Craig West<br /><br />Second Assistant Director<br />Deb Shufelt<br /><br />First Assistant Camera<br />Eddie Rodriguez<br /><br />Second Assistant Camera<br />Jill Maouf<br /><br />Gaffer<br />Sal Martarano<br /><br />Key Grip<br />Ryan Gates<br />Mark Sasahara<br /><br />Grip<br />Ben Alpi<br /><br />Sound Mixer<br />Martin G. Kelly<br /><br />Boom Operator<br />Bret Lafontan<br /><br />Location Scout<br />Tim Schneider<br /><br />Props Artists<br />Len X. Clayton<br />Andy Dorr<br />Chuck Robeland<br /><br />Prop Master<br />Josh Wyman<br /><br />Wardrobe<br />Kristin Edwards<br /><br />Key Production Assistant<br />Mike Camoin<br /><br />Assistants to the Director<br />Patty Mason<br />Amanda Crowley<br /><br />Production Assistants<br />Tim Gallivan<br />Travis Wyman<br />Etienne Gupta<br />Brian Willmert<br />Micah Warren<br /><br />Special Thanks<br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);font-size:85%;">(This is a list of people I would think need thanking)</span><br />St. Regis Mohawk Tribe<br />St. Lawrence University<br />Upstate Independents<br />Thomas Mercer<br />Katsitsionni Fox<br />Salmon River Central School<br />Bob's Motel, Massena, NY</div><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">(</span></span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">photo:</span></span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Ben Alpi (rt) and Kevin Craig West,</span></span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> courtesy Jill Maouf. </span></span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">)<br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-size:85%;">Anyone with corrections, additional information or photos, please comment and let me know!</span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-14290795866056846322008-11-19T18:19:00.003-08:002008-11-19T18:25:31.528-08:00A Quick Word for Those in WaitingA quick note to those of us interested in one day having a relationship, but are still sitting on the sidelines and to those who are trying to get back on that horse.<br /><br />If you truly want to share your love with someone, don't wait. You will make mistakes. You will fail. You will cry. It will hurt sometimes. But it is also one of the most glorious, fulfilling and exciting things you'll ever have the pleasure of doing. Risk is an unavoidable part of life. You're scared of what could happen, that's totally understandable. You're afraid of failing or of succeeding. Why would someone be interested in ME? How could someone totally be into just hanging out with me? Want to love me? Care about what I do and what I think? What if all they want is my body? To tell you the truth, it is kind of weird, even shocking, to realize someone is content just to stare into your eyes. But, when it's genuine, it's amazing. So, you've put a lot of thought into this. You've convinced yourself that you have too many quirks to succeed. You're too busy to cultivate a meaningful relationship. Well, what if you're wrong? Reality is always different from what we predict. It will surprise you how much so, actually. You'll surprise yourself, too. As you think back to all the reasons against having a relationship, I'll bet you honestly feel at least a little differently about most or all of them if not outright disagree with some of them. We all need to take our own time in life and love. No one can criticize you for doing so no matter your reason and it's probable that the time you're taking to learn about yourself will really help when/if you choose to take the plunge. If you don't want to have a boyfriend or girlfriend, that's totally cool. But, if you're reading this, you're at least considering it. The reality is if you truly wish to share the infinite love you possess with another, you'll be kicking yourself the longer you wait. We don't have an infinite amount of life and it would suck if you didn't get to experience a loving relationship or didn't get to share it for very long. Besides, it's too difficult to find a good match to delay! Just be sure that no matter what you're not holding yourself back out of fear. Fear will limit you and for absolutely no good reason. There are people out there looking to pass their unhealthy habits on to you. That's a nice way of saying there are people who want to use you. That's scary, but you can protect yourself by being vigilant and realistic. If you do get hurt, use the experience to firm up your defenses and to improve yourself. Trust your gut, but don't let fear hold you back. Be honest with yourself. Forgive yourself. Love yourself. Love is always inside you and no one can take it away. We all have quirks, issues and foibles. You're not abnormal, you are unique. You have power and independence. You can do anything that you decide to do. You may have to modify your methods along the way or perhaps your goals will change some, but nothing can stop you if you're dedicated. Society would have you believe otherwise, but the self is important. You are important. You are capable. You are beautiful. You are good. And, you are not alone.<br /><br />Good luck out there!Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-14633762006970079262008-11-04T21:20:00.001-08:002008-11-04T21:20:33.306-08:00November 2008Yes we can.Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-21060671609751356432008-10-03T07:38:00.006-07:002008-10-03T07:54:05.842-07:00Silver Lining Now Distributed by Ouat Media<a href="http://www.runicfilms.com/film.html"><img src="http://www.runicfilms.com/images/lil_slideOuat.jpg" border="0" width="103" height="53" /><br /></a>Project: Silver Lining<br /><a href="http://silverlining.runicfilms.com/" target="_blank">Silver Lining Website</a><br /><a href="http://runicfilms.com/" target="_blank">Runic Films Website</a><br /><br />It's my humble honor to announce that <em>Silver Lining </em>has been signed with international distributor <a href="http://www.ouatmedia.com/" target="_blank">Ouat Media</a>. After seeing the film CFC Worldwide Short Film Festival, Ouat's great representatives contacted me. And I couldn't be more thrilled!<br /><br />Ouat Media [pronounced "what"] is a global media distribution specialist based in Toronto, Canada. Ouat Media’s mandate is to be the premier short-film aggregator and content provider for broadcast, internet, mobile devices and all other newly developed media outlets. Stay tuned to find out where <em>Silver Lining</em> will be next! Many thanks again for all the fine folks who helped this film come to fruition.<br /><br />-BenBen Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-68593734505856881702008-09-29T21:49:00.002-07:002008-09-29T22:52:27.501-07:00Republicans + Bailout Failure = Political Theater<span style="font-style: italic;">House Republicans Effectually Say Pelosi Speech Caused Them to Put US Economy in Jeopardy.</span><br /><br />Today, the US House of Representatives failed to pass a $700 billion rescue of the financial industry. After the vote, House Republicans held a press conference. I was expecting solid complaints about the bill and how it wasn't ready yet. At most, I thought I'd hear some ideological rhetoric about Socialism. Instead, a succession of three Representatives lead by minority leader John Boehner said a speech late in the process by Speaker Nancy Pelosi sounded too partisan and thusly, the bill lost support from Republicans. All I have to say is how stupid do they we think we are? They repeated that this is problem has no party affiliation so she was in the wrong. Ironic. The Someone delivers a speech that you think is too partisan so, you act partisan in return? The last of the trio, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) stated, "Clearly, there was something lacking in the leadership here." Clearly, the lack was in the Republican leadership since they felt their sensitive sense of pride was more important than the American people.<br /><br />Reading portions of Pelosi's speech, she said "...tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies--policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system." The rest of the speech spoke of Democrats leading the way to change, but I didn't see anything solidly bashing Republicans-- or even naming them. So, House Republicans chose to go against their President because the Democrats delivered an anti-Bush administration speech? Democrats side with Bush and Republicans side against him? Certainly pigs are flying. So, as outlandish as this all sounds, one then searches for the real reason for this. Well, all of the Republican "nays" were from Rep's who are embroiled in tough reelections. At a time of very high news viewer/readership, these politicians chose to make headlines. What I surmise will happen is after they make this splash, they'll demand some cosmetic changes to the bill and it will pass easily. Then, of course, they will be the saviors of the American taxpayer. Simply political theater. Too bad you don't get your money back if you don't like the show...<br /><br />Here are some very general points as to why this isn't a "Wallstreet Bailout," but a shot in the arm to save our economy. This situation was started by banks taking on exceedingly (stupidly to the extreme) risky loans. It really doesn't have much to do with the other companies on Wall Street, just with banks and investment firms who bought up tons of those now toxic loans. In time, these loans will be foreclosed on, currently at a rate 6,000/day, and all this money that was supposed to be there will not. So, banks are afraid to borrow from each other-- they don't know who's infected with toxic loans. That's step one. Next, they won't give loans to businesses including small business loans-- something many businesses need to exist. Then, they won't give personal loans like home loans, car loans or student loans. The last step is banks will fold. No credit equals no money in your ATM. It also means a global recession. The last US recession was not fun for anyone, myself included. Company spending freezes, wider wage freezes, more massive layoffs and whole companies failing. In other words, if this bailout doesn't pass, then life will tough for everyone, not just Wall Street or bankers. Let's not forget the thousands of homeowners holding onto the other end of those toxic loans. This bill means the government will take the loans and renegotiate them and more people will get to keep their homes.<br /><br />From what I'm hearing from top analysts and investors like Warren Buffet and Jim Cramer, this is a good deal with sufficient protections for the American people (including if bailed-out companies will have to pay back the difference if this doesn't work fully.) Cramer even said he wished he could get in on it since it's the quintessential buy low-sell high scenario. The taxpayer may even make money on the deal.<br /><br />One last bit of irony. Before the shenanigans after the bailout vote failed, minority leader John Boehner gave an emotional speech where he pleaded with his colleagues to vote yes with him. Maybe they will when this bill comes up again... because it will.Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-88507945823604259452008-09-14T21:17:00.006-07:002008-12-24T08:38:00.939-08:00Tiny Bubbles - Has America Gotten Too Greedy?<span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"></span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;" >The "Internet Bubble." The "Housing Bubble." What bubble will burst next? If we know an industry is getting artificially inflated, why don't businesses or investors take steps to prevent a burst? Is it blind greed?<br /><br />The debate about the positive and negative aspects of big business and big government aside, there has been an obvious trend where whole industries have rocketed to new heights and crashed utterly. This, some say, is all part of a free market system. If that’s so, why is our government taking control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It would seem that deregulation to "empower" the free market has done little to improve performance. If anything, it's showing that companies are uninterested in protecting consumers or giving them what they want. They're out for themselves.<br /><br />Over the last ten years, regular hard working Americans have again started to question the actions of their employers. Some are asking how they, the forces on the ground, can see consumer buying trends change. Even inexperienced market-watchers and investors are asking why their peers or companies invest in stocks, real estate or loans that have no reason for being hot or solid investments. If laypeople can see it, why can't the heads of corporations or banks? In some ways, these companies are small countries. They have a president, a cabinet, budgets larger than many countries, citizens who work for them and in some cases they own the infrastructure of whole cities. With teams of lawyers, they lobby legislation, loop-hole around taxes and can crush anyone who tries to bring them to court (or at least make it unfeasible financially.) What they don't have is a system of checks and balances and without government regulation, they've proven time and time again, they're willing to choose fast money over ethics.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Internet Bubble</span><br />Internet companies of the late 90's were young, hip and providing virtual products. If all your products are virtual, what is there to invest in? This is one fact I think many companies couldn't avoid and since they ultimately couldn't prove their value, they failed. Investors were out to make a quick buck and inflated the stocks of hundreds of companies only four years old. They paid the price, but unfortunately so did hundreds of thousands of employees who lost their jobs. The climate that followed was one that said Americans didn't have the know how and thousands of foreign programmers and other tech professionals were imported and continue to be to this day. Are the multitudes of American programmers that bad? I'm not so sure about that. Are foreign workers willing to work for less and work under worse conditions? I'm not sure about that either. What I do know is even laypeople knew the risks investors were taking were bad bets. The writing was on the wall, but the bubble was still allowed to grow and pop. Companies that survived like Amazon, provided a real service with tangible goods. Google, the most famous virtual goods provider, is almost a fluke, but survived by offering solid advertising model while helping you efficiently find what you were looking for in the vastness of the net. Also, they stayed private longer and it doesn't seem like their sole objective has been to make money (at least considering how well they treat their employees.) These companies also continually diversify and try to improve their business. They also listen to their customers. Unlike the American auto industry.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The SUV Bubble</span><br />I don't know if any reporter has said it yet, which is odd considering their penchant for attaching "gate" and "bubble" to things, but what's happening to GM and Ford can probably be called the "SUV Bubble." The corporations were making upwards of $30,000 per SUV sold. With a markup like that, who wouldn't want to keep that going? The majority of consumers were still buying cars though. And as gas prices began to climb as early as 1999, American automakers continued to concentrate their business on SUVs. They have tried to blame their woes on the retirees (you know, those people who brought their corporations to new heights and to whom they promised pensions), but the reality is the pension model works just fine as long as the company doesn't make poor choices. The poor choice in this case was they actively ignored the trend toward hybrid vehicles like the Toyota Prius and hybrid flavor of Honda Civic. GM even made and then scrapped their popular electric car. The writing was on the wall in big letters if not since the 1970's, then in the several years before the decent of these corporations. There was even a palpable resentment of drivers of monster luxury SUVs by much of American culture and around the world-- isn't it reasonable to assume that if you offer a product that a lot of people actually hate and find unsafe might be a reason to reevaluate your product line? I think the only answer here is the relationship that exists between a company and a consumer. A company usually offers a product to fill a customer's needs or wants. If the customer agrees it does the job, they're happy to buy the product. If they don't think it fits the bill, the product fails. In modern times, this has changed to where a company tries to convince the consumer they want or need a product. That's not entirely a bad thing, it's sales after all, but when the company tries to dictate what the consumer should want, that's going too far. American automakers are guilty of this and the results are clear.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The <del>Housing</del> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-style: italic;">BANK </span></span>Bubble</span><br />The unprecedented investment in housing was also obviously inflated. We knew that house pricing was shooting up for no good reason. Folks were making incredible amounts of money many times faster than in the 1990's. Investors and want-to-be investors flipped houses they never intended to live in and get rich quick courses taught you how to do it! Well, booms bust just like London's housing market did almost two years before our crash. The writing was on the wall and we all knew it. Worse than investors though, were banks. Stories about the sub-prime loans began surfacing even before the crash. No interest for a year or more, then over 20% interest? Anyone who knows anything about credit would call that a terrible loan. Banks weren't going after you though, they were going after people outside of the know. They went after folks without credit or with poor credit and told them this was their best chance to ever own their own home. And who doesn't want their own home? Now worldwide, we're paying the price for these practices. Why around the world? Because banks sell off your loan many times over. (Other banks around the world also offered sub-prime loans and are also failing because of it.) America will continue to see the worst of it since we hold the bulk of these bad loans. Record foreclosures have been chosen by the banks instead of renegotiating their loans. Some have been renegotiated sure, but only a small percentage. I'm not an expert, but this might be because they sold your loan off and so they've locked themselves in. Not only have these actions aided greatly in the devaluing of the American dollar, they stand to cause the economic downfall of our country. Some may ask why terrorists haven't attacked us since 2001. Perhaps it's because their objective was to ruin our economy and either they're succeeding or we're doing the work for them.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The US Government Bubble?</span><br />The government to the rescue of the banking industry. I have to wonder how many people realize that the government's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which isn't actually a bailout because they are actually taking control) is essentially the federalizing of our banking system-- growing the government, the exact thing the Bush Administration says is wrong. Not only is the American taxpayer expected to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we're now expected to pay for the failure of the banking industry. WAKE UP KIDS! Are we a democratically elected republic or Socialists? The healthiest governments today perhaps have a balance between Democracy and Socialism, but no healthy government keeps writing checks it can't cash and it certainly shouldn't be taking over any industry. It was bad enough when this administration cut taxes and obviously went into debt to do so. Now we're allowing the government to put the burden on a couple more future generations. As a nation we really have to ask what's going on here. The taxpayers should not be used to rescue reckless business practices. Unprecedented has been used all too many times recently to describe government and business. These bank takeovers are most certainly unprecedented events worth a whole lot of attention.<br /><br />All of these events are obvious signs of failed policies and a lack of ethics in government and business. Not only big business, but right here at home. Investors, employees and business owners who might be your neighbors. On one hand, citizens all over the country are willing to follow blindly as long as their niche is safe and on the other hand are a growing number of Americans unable to defend their economic future because they're too busy trying to feed their families. Altruism does not exist. Communism proved that. But, I think as a nation we respond very well in crisis and we honestly look to help our fellow humans when they're in need. Unfortunately, this crisis isn't as apparent as a tsunami or hurricane. This is cancer. Slow to develop and hard to detect. We must change our ways and I know for a fact that swapping out the man or woman in charge will only change so much. We all need to participate. Regular citizens have the power to change the fate of a nation. We're not stupid! These are not complex issues, they're events we can see clearly. Information is available for you to read yourself without the filter or slight of hand. Stop supporting candidates and start addressing the issues you know are important. Mobilize your community and bombard your representatives with letters. Make sure the mainstream media knows about news they haven't reported and if they did know, pester them for a reason why it wasn't reported. All of these mechanisms are supposed to work for on YOUR behalf. The only caution I have to make is you may have to set aside some issues for now because they're quagmires that will only delay our progress. Anti-flag burning amendments are meant to distract from the real issues. This is for survival friends. This is the big time. If you like keeping your standard of living, your privacy and want to help those in need, we have to act now.<br /><br />Thanks for reading!</span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-86953828490033286122008-06-10T16:42:00.000-07:002008-07-09T16:43:40.687-07:00Broadcast with a Silver Lining<span style="font-size:85%;">June 10, 2008<br />Project: <b>Silver Lining</b><br /><a href="http://silverlining.runicfilms.com/" target="_blank">Official Website<br /></a><br /> It's my pleasure to announce that <em>Silver Lining </em>has been selected as one of the short films to be broadcast as a part of the <em>TVFilm</em> series on WMHT PBS Television. WMHT is located in NY's Capital Region and is the only full-service public broadcaster serving eastern New York and western New England. TVFilm is a six-episode series spotlighting filmmakers from our region. <em>Silver Lining</em> will be broadcast on the TVFilm premiere on Thursday, June 12th at 10pm and will repeat the following Saturday at midnight.<br /> <br /> <strong>This just in:</strong> Watch the extended interviews from <em>TVFilm</em> (including mine of course) at <a href="http://wmhttvfilm.org/tvfilmforum.html" target="_blank">their website</a>. (Adobe Flash Player required) -Ben </span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-72973428574175350552008-03-02T11:34:00.006-08:002008-12-24T08:49:39.452-08:00Why is “Professional” a Dirty Word?Since when did “professional” become a bad word? Since when did it mean unoriginal, uncreative, overpriced, inflexible and/or elitist? Why are professional methodologies so immediately rejected in today’s marketplaces, businesses and creative endeavors? If you undergo years of training or you have several years of experience-- that’s a bad thing? Being involved with a number of industries, I see it more and more. If a professional mentions industry standards, professional methods or structures or even accepted practices they get immediately rejected or even insulted. It's happened to me many, many times. Let’s say you own Cogswell Cogs. You want to design a new cog so, what’s the first thing you do? Create a computer model? <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Let’s go 3D, Wooo!</span> Sorry, but when did the first step of problem solving become model a solution? <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">HUFF! That tired, old, dusty, outdated, outmoded and certainly high-horsed ‘5 Steps to Problem Solving” can’t apply to our new, totally different, techno-world!</span> To coin another <span style="font-style: italic;">ancient </span>phrase, balderdash. Since you’ve admitted/found that there is a problem/need for this new cog, why wouldn’t the next thing be to define the problem? Why wouldn’t you talk about the need for this cog and what it should accomplish? Then perhaps you should use a low-cost method to envision the cog... perhaps even use... a... pencil. NOOOOOOO!! Graphite must be bad for the environment or something because no one seems willing to allow sketches anymore. The brain-pencil (or pen) connection is scientifically proven to engage the brain more fully than a keyboard and mouse. I’d wager even a tablet or other pen-like computer input device is still not as good as the real thing, but that’s me. Still, that’s not our focus here.<br /><br />Let’s look at it a different way. A number of people have said to me that they’re proud of their success without training or experience and with less-than-professional tools. That’s great. I’m glad that anyone can pick up a tool and make something that allows them to express themselves and maybe even gives them a measure of success. That's freedom. I guess my problem is many of these people think their success means they’re suddenly da Vinci, a master at their craft. In many cases, they fail to realize the other factors that added into his or her success. Let’s say one of these folks is named Pat. Pat, who is without training or experience, has gathered a small team and together they’ve built a house using tools and materials afforded on a shoestring budget. A week after completion, the house is still standing and everyone in town loves it. <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">It’s not totally level, but that’s okay. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Genius!</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"> It doesn’t meet all the codes and standards, but that’s fine. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Brilliant!</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"> Pat made it on a shoestring so, that sort of thing is understandable. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">A Marvel! </span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Against these great odds, this house is a towering achievement of the layman who has conquered those terrible professionals!</span> What Pat hasn’t told people, or doesn’t realize, is the team pulled all-nighters and worked for reduced rates without overtime or for free. Pat also doesn’t mention that some of them were actually trained carpenters who showed the team how to fill in the cracks when the pieces weren’t flush. Pat doesn’t admit that the project was a house of cards and at any moment, were it not for the kindness of others, the project would have failed. And, were it not for the vigilance of Pat’s team, someone could have been hurt or killed if the house of cards had fallen. Nope, Pat jumps from rooftop to rooftop yelling that s/he’s a visionary. Pat also doesn’t realize the ramifications his house has on the industry. Other folks in the town also want to make houses on a shoestring and complain when the (evil) professionals quote them prices ten times what Pat’s house cost. <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">How DARE they!</span> Soon, the professionals have to lower their rates to get any work and try to find ways to cut costs. The townspeople are unapologetic. They know you can cut costs because pros are SO overpaid and they saw that all you have to do is get cheap unskilled laborers like Pat did. And of course you don’t need to use quality tools or materials; <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">you’re a pro and can work miracles!</span> Wait, wait, wait. So pros are miracle workers and so they should be paid half and forced to work twice as hard? What is going on here?!<br /><br />Folks, “professional” is not a bad word. Working your ass off through rigorous training doesn’t automatically mean you can’t think outside the box. Years of experience doesn’t mean you’re old and don’t apply anymore. Would you expect some untrained person to be as consistent as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Abram">Norm Abrams</a>? Just because Norm has been in the business for decades, does that mean he can no longer function? Have you watched <span style="font-style: italic;">This Old House</span>? Mastery of one’s craft takes a lifetime. It doesn’t mean you have to know everything, but it does mean you know who to ask. And I don’t see why being good at what you do and knowing a solid, proven methodology is such a horrible concept-- to the point of insulting professionals for merely suggesting to Pat that s/he might want to look before leaping. And, being nice people who care about their craft and whose latest project is their calling card, they take it upon themselves to make it work. That my friends is eking by, not a mandate. Yes, it may work out in the end at least to an extent, but the means matter. The means matter because they always have longer lasting ramifications. Ramifications beyond that one project and perhaps even into our everyday lives.<br /><br />This is not an attack on layman or on independent endeavors. I don’t think you need a huge corporation to do... well, much of anything. I’m actually a firm believer in partnerships and localizing. What I’m saying is there is a standard that should be sought and fought for. The standard is the challenge. If we keep lowering the standards and slapping down anyone who strives to exceed them, we hurt ourselves as a people. These habits bleed into the rest of our culture. This goes for high school math brains to musicians trying to share their music. It also goes for anti-social artist types and mighty athletes. It’s not the accolades that matter; it is the progression of the human race. Striving to be a pornstar college dropout Heroin addict? That’s a goal? Being the person with the most hits on Myspace or most friends on Facebook is a goal? Posting pics of your cleavage and of you and your friends getting drunk is bucking the system? As long as you have the latest cell phone, all is right with the world? What the crap is going on here? Would you want to go under the knife of a surgeon who believes a few mistakes here and there aren’t so bad? This devolution is occurring because people are lowering their standards for everything. This may be because a growing mass of people are becoming evermore lazy and wish to satisfy whimsical and shallow desires ASAP. <span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255); font-weight: bold;">I want, therefore I am.</span> Is that what we're saying?! Perhaps I should have entitled this “Why is REALITY a Dirty Word?” Face up, anything good takes time and effort and you never do anything totally alone. If you want something really good, open your mind and heart and listen to a professional who might know a thing or two about what you’re trying to do. Even if that pro is a psychologist. And when you’re done, be realistic about what the final product is and strive to do better next time. And PLEASE strive to pay people an acceptable wage or make it worth everyone’s while somehow. All I ask is that you don’t use professionals as mindless tools, keep your promises and don’t ask anyone to sacrifice their integrity to complete your project. We’re all in this together. Making adjustments for safety, courtesy or quality doesn’t make it any less your baby. And lastly, give credit where credit is due. Not only make sure you have everyone’s name spelled correctly, but if someone on your staff was key to the completion of your project, let people know. Acting like you did it all alone will only harm you in the long run. If you can loosen up on the reigns a little, you’ll find you still stay on course and it’s a more rewarding ride.<br /><br />That’s enough metaphor for one day! Thanks for reading. Please share your opinions and experiences. I mean that! Also, please take some time today to hug a professional. They need hugs, too.Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-62927729758189908052008-02-04T12:16:00.001-08:002008-02-16T12:21:33.381-08:00"Indies at the Madison" Success!<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Many thanks go out to all the great folks who came out for "Indies at the Madison," a week-long showcase of independent short films from local Albany, NY filmmakers. Our show actually out performed all six Hollywood films at the Madison Theater over the weekend. <span style="font-style: italic;">Silver Lining</span> was one of the films featured along with shorts by Jeff Burns, Kevin Dobies, Joy E. Reed, Michalina Almindo, Frank D'Andrea and Terry J. Field. </span><a style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RqqTM_Uyk" target="_blank">Click here</a><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> to see the trailer and for more info check out our </span><a style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" href="http://www.myspace.com/indiesatthemadison" target="_blank">Myspace</a><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">.<br /><br />For more info on <span style="font-style: italic;">Silver Lining</span> and to see the <a href="http://silverlining.runicfilms.com/">official site</a>. For more info on Runic Films and to see full credits from the film, visit <a href="http://runicfilms.com/">RunicFilms.com</a>.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thanks again intrepid indie-goers! </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ben</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Writer/Director, </span><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Silver Lining</span></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-51184208998736636682007-12-16T12:14:00.000-08:002007-12-18T08:38:26.759-08:00Tom Curley asks "Would you pay for a great production sound crew?"Tom Curley, a friend and fine production sound mixer in Hollywood recently asked some fellow film folks this question...<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">"Would you pay for a great production sound crew? Why or why not?"</span><br /><br />Because I think this is a important issue and indicative of a larger cultural malaise, I thought I'd post his query here, add my reply and ask for your opinion.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Tom continues...</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">"This lament is not directed at any one person or company, but more of an observation of a trend... </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">"I am a professional location sound engineer who has years of experience, on films up to $70Million budget. I make my living doing this, and have spent [a LOT of money] on gear. I find it bewildering that a lot of production companies I run into are hemorrhaging money on the camera crew (A loader for an HD camera?) but offer me insultingly low rates, with equipment rental, and no boom operator. I might be looking at the wrong production companies, so if you know the value of a good sound crew, or the horrors of a poor sound crew, please let me know your experience?"</span><br /><br />Here's my reply...<br />I most certainly would pay for a quality sound crew. I feel for sound guys! I have seen what you describe in practice as well. I've seen sound crews understaffed, run over, pushed around and left completely out of the loop even while shooting. "We'll fix it post" is something often heard by VFX Supervisors. Now, it seems the same is being directed at the Sound Mixer. I suppose when Producers and Directors hear films like Fellowship of the Ring were 98% ADR, they think they can do it as well. They don't consider the time and money involved in doing ADR nor the quality of the actor needed to at least come close to the moment all over again in a voice over. If you're not being forced in some way (like making a trilogy of three-hour films simultaneously) I don't see why this method would be preferable. Like VFX, many practicals can be faster to build, look better and are much cheaper than CG. Why not dab a little makeup on an actor's pimple in a few seconds instead of having a VFX Artist spend hours painting it out? For sound, why spend weeks fixing and re-recording when all the actors were right there on set? I'm a director who loves sound. I also like to get everything I can while in production. It just makes sense for the time and money and it's not difficult to include the sound department in the process. That process is of course the traditional process that I learned, not the contemporary process now taking hold. The rush of and for technology is widely to blame. Most leaders are informed by the hype around tech, but they lack knowledge to implement it properly. Additionally, when they defer such decisions to their "experts" many times those "experts" aren't informed about film practices. For instance, filmmakers who have been brought up on video have a simplified view of the process that does not match the nuance of true, budgeted feature production. To many of them, the sound department is a boom operator who plugs into the camera. This techno-phage of oversimplification is affecting every creative endeavor from advertising to web design. Many people are so worried about getting or keeping a job that they extend themselves beyond their knowledge and over-commit themselves instead of saying they don't know and need to ask someone who does. Worse than that perhaps are the people who simply refuse to believe or listen to more knowledgeable people. This is a serious problem especially when that person is a producer, director, CEO, CTO, manager etc-- the people who make the decisions. And they can get incredulous, mean and insulting about it; probably out of fear of looking they don't know something. That sounds backwards to me; I highly value of experts like yourself because I don't know much, let alone everything! This is a problem facing whole industries and if it's not fixed, I don't know what will happen. This idea that "a monkey could do it" could mean the fall of our economy and our culture entirely.<br /><br />So, we've done a lot to define the situation and possible causes. What about a solution to this problem? I don't know. If a leader was unwilling to listen, I surmised they wouldn't be a leader for long, but I guess I overestimate the system and underestimate the abilities of these people to talk/convince/cajole/lie. I do hear some older film pros talk about bringing tradition back, but many are not in a position to make that happen (or they film overseas.) I guess we just have to continue whispering into the ears of those who will listen while we try to keep our standards as high as we can and still make enough money to get by. I still consider the sound dept a crucial part of a production. As I'm sure you know, the human ear can pick out audio mistakes far more readily than visual ones. Even with filmmakers like Lucas, Spielberg and Jackson who have proven time and time again how much sound is a part of the movie experience, many people ignore it. And the funny thing is we spend thousands on home surround sound systems! I guess they don't remember their Grandpa always saying "Garbage in, garbage out."<br /><br />Thanks for asking, Tom! So what about you all out there...?Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-605128668311369742007-09-08T11:54:00.000-07:002007-10-27T18:16:43.130-07:00Is There a Market For Thought-Provoking Content?<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Television is the first truly democratic culture - the first culture available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want. The most terrifying thing is what people do want."</span><br />-Clive Barnes, British-born drama critic.<br /></div><br />With the overwhelming popularity of "reality TV," I think Mr. Barnes sentiment is heard loud an clear by many. But, does that mean people don't want to watch thought-provoking television or movies anymore?<br /><br />A friend and I were talking about this subject in reference to science fiction and fantasy as those two genres are perfect for exploring the human condition. We were commiserating about the dwindling number of sci fi shows and films. Sci fi somewhere along the line was infiltrated by other genres and took over. Sci fi is now mostly an element of some other major genre like horror or drama. Horror/Slasher with sci fi elements like <span style="font-style: italic;">Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem</span>. A over-sexed political drama with sci fi elements like <span style="font-style: italic;">Battlestar Galactica</span>. Or a lame attempt at <span style="font-style: italic;">Flash Gordon</span> which is more like a contemporary cop show than it is sci fi. These shows and films do not put their sci fi roots first, they only use elements. Gone are <span style="font-style: italic;">Firefly</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Farscape </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">Enterprise </span>prematurely. Gone is <span style="font-style: italic;">Masters of Science Fiction</span>. We have to look to the Brits with <span style="font-style: italic;">Doctor Who</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Torchwood </span>to get new sci fi. <span style="font-style: italic;">Stargate: Atlantis </span>has had some really smashing shows and I look forward to more, but how many years do they have left? <span style="font-style: italic;">Bionic Woman</span> will undoubtedly be another cop show. And in the theater, what's coming? There are a few interesting children's fantasies coming, but I don't know of anything sci fi save <a href="http://benalpi.blogspot.com/2007/03/star-trek-to-be-re-imagined-for-more.html">Star Trek 11</a>. So, is there a reason for this?<br /><br />I think there is certainly a market for (real) sci fi and fantasy. I just don't know if networks are willing to fund them because they don't usually get very high ratings. They get millions of people watching, but it seems they can't get the viewership of <span style="font-style: italic;">Survivor </span>or <span style="font-style: italic;">Dancing With the Stars</span>. It's the same deal with any thought provoking show that's not a cop show. It's the same at the theater, too. Studios want shapely teen butts in seats at the mall googaplex because that's where the big money is (they think.) They want <i>Wedding Crashers</i> and remakes and cheap horror flicks because they make a bigger percentage than most all thought provoking films. They consider Star Wars and Lord of the Rings as aberrations and similar projects far too risky. Of course, they're right. They are risky and it's likely that some of the Hollywood fodder will make a larger percentage than it cost to make, but they forget that there is a good chance that well written and executed sci fi will make at least some profit and have video sales from now until doomsday. <span style="font-style: italic;">Wedding Crashers </span>will fade into obscurity, while some fans will have a SelectaVision, VHS, DVD and BluRay of Blade Runner. (They may also have the 2nd release --or is it 3rd-- DVD set coming out in December... oh and the HD DVD.) Oh, and yes I said <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc">SelectaVision</a> which was indeed the coolest thing.<br /><br />It's very possible for a thoughtful show or film to be successful, but networks and studios really have to be reminded of that over and over. For networks, sci fi is expensive to make. Reality TV is super cheap. And reality TV has been getting a massive viewership way beyond many thoughtful shows. That short term history is what they see. And the viewership has a large contingent of impressionable McDonald's eating people and advertisers like that. So, it's a really hard sell on TV because other reality-based shows are selling very well, too. Cop shows, lawyer shows and special agents are huge. It's a tough nut to crack. Of course, sci fi is sometimes too hard for marketers to grasp anyhow. And marketers rule the roost. And who knows if we'll still have an ally with Scifi Channel. They aren't producing very many new original shows and the ones they are creating are mostly cheap crap. Of course, the original movies also have not improved-- rather those crews are probably the ones who are making the shows now. <span style="font-style: italic;">Atlantis </span>is the only good show being made except for <span style="font-style: italic;">Doctor Who</span>, which is bought in syndication. They picked up <span style="font-style: italic;">Enterprise </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">Jake 2.0</span> which originally aired on failed UPN, but their running out of old shows to buy. NBC has already put at least one WWE show on Scifi and uses the space for repeats of their main network shows. I'm afraid NBC is just going to transition it into something other than Scifi because they think advertisers will like it more if it didn't say sci fi anymore. I'm not sure.<br /><br />For film, it's a little less bleak. <i>Wedding Crashers</i> made 400% more money than it took to shoot and promote. Holy wow what a bargain, right? Well, <span style="font-style: italic;">Star Wars Episode III</span> made over 500%. Return of the King, 660%. When it's good and appeals to a wide audience, the film puts butts in seats. (Heh, the LotR trilogy grossed $2,923,933,388. Yeah, that's billion with a "B." And last I knew New Line still hadn't paid the cast and crew for the reshoots.) Marketers still rule the roost, but maybe they can be more easily convinced than on TV.<br /><br />I guess the bottom line is we have to figure out how to remind those in power (marketers) that thoughtful content makes money, too. And then we have to make sure they stay out of making creative decisions! The level of trust given to creators by studios and networks may be at an all-time low. Or, maybe creators are just capitulating or simply aren't getting hired because they're... too creative? Too interested in making good content? Or is it that they're just not getting enough funding? I don't know, but something has to inform the powers that we're all in this together and new, progressive content is the only thing that will ensure a long future for filmed entertainment. Wouldn't that be a kicker if video games overtake TV and film because they're stories are deeper and more entertaining...<br /><br />So what do you guys think? Are there movies or shows coming up that I don't know about? Is there hope on the horizon that I can't see? I want to know! As always, thanks much for reading.Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-32944746802617738712007-04-25T17:17:00.002-07:002008-11-05T09:34:40.163-08:00Three Keys to Happiness & Successful Relationships<span style="font-size:85%;">A little change of pace today. I was debating some points about </span><span style="font-size:85%;">life, love and happiness with a good friend of mine and ended up writing out some of my thoughts and feelings. Since I had done so, </span><span style="font-size:85%;">I thought perhaps others might find the exploration useful. I’m not normally in the business of self-help, but here’s a summation of how I feel about creating a comfortable, peaceful and rewarding existence.<br /><br />There are three keys to happiness and successful relationships: </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Love</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >independence </span><span style="font-size:85%;">and </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >take nothing personally</span><span style="font-size:85%;">. I believe to be truly happy, one must love ones self and become self reliant. You have to interpret the meaning of that for yourself, but what I don't mean is that someone must be self absorbed or narcissistic nor do I mean you must isolate yourself to find happiness. When we grow up, we're taught how to react to the world largely by those around us and our base reactions. This web of associations in our brains comprise not reality, but our reality; our "illusion." Many young adults in their twenties have a "start of life crisis" when they start life away from parents and college find that their illusion doesn't match reality. Even some find that reality #2 isn't actually reality either, but the illusion of society, a construct we all contribute to. A lot of young men and women turn to drugs, alcohol, sex and other unabated behavioral changes to avoid reality. This is an area of psychology almost entirely overlooked. The American illusion might be that in order to be happy, you must trust your government, get hired by a corporation, get married, buy a house with a mortgage, get a loan for an SUV and start having kids all before you're twenty-five. Interesting how that correlates exactly with when young adults have a crisis. In order for us to find a healthy way out of this crisis, and hopefully the illusion, is to find what really matters in life. In a world without war and famine right outside the door, it can be difficult to figure out what really matters. When you have the freedom to complain about cellular coverage to your friend on the cell phone, while you pick up packaged food, clothes and DVD's at Walmart, how can you ever make the connection to what really matters? Usually, it takes tragedy. Someone has to have a near-death experience, lose a loved one or has to be so utterly crushed by events that they take notice. What I believe will make that inkling last though is love. It will still take years for that person to deprogram themselves, if they ever do, but eventually, it's love that will lead them to truth. Love for everything and most especially, finally love for the self. So, what kind of love is this? Well, like the Tao says, it's impossible to explain, it just is. I can't really explain it and have someone understand it. If you're to believe it, you have to arrive at it yourself. But in trying to explain, loving yourself doesn't mean you don't love anything else, it means you finally love everything. You have to make yourself a priority and heal your wounds in order to grow which also means making yourself your first priority. Now, some would call that being self-centered and selfish, but it's not. In order to help others you must first help yourself. There are times where it's right to put your life on the line for others. There may not even be time to think about it. That means you have to make agreements with yourself on what it means to you. It might mean that you're not going to let people walk all over you simply because you're a person who likes to help out. There are always sacrifices to be made, but one must make them for the right reasons; ones that don't compromise the self. In part, to maintain happiness means one has to make sure he or she is healthy, fulfilling his or her needs, that no one is taking advantage of him/her and that he/she isn’t taking advantage of, have expectations of, impeding on or projecting on others. If one first loves ones self, the rest will come out in the wash. Part of this self-love is the realization that love comes from within. If people knew that there is an unlimited supply of love within them, they wouldn't be searching the landscape for it out there. Does this mean you have everything you need so, don't talk to anyone? No. Everyone needs companionship. At times, everyone needs people who care about them to rely on. But, if you love yourself you'll only need them at times of hardship. The rest of the time you spend with them is a bonus, you'll simply be able to enjoy their company. You won't need anything from them like a junkie needs a fix, which is really what emotional dependence is like. And, often people need the fix because they're still searching for themselves in others. You won't be dependent on them. Which brings us to independence.<br /><br />What independence means to me is the ability to exist without something. I see personal independence as having two aspects: Self Reliance and Emotional Self Reliance. When we are young, we're dependent on our caregivers for our survival and companionship. When we leave the home, we have to learn how to live independent of them or we end up trying to find someone or something to replace them. The healthy way is to become self reliant. This means to establish a support network and knowledge base to serve your human needs. This doesn't mean you do everything yourself. It means that if someone is removed from the equation, you're not helpless and suddenly in crisis. If disaster hits, you have the ability to survive and maybe even help others. This could mean knowing basic first aid, keeping a stock of supplies, being friendly to your neighbors and keeping an ear on the news so you know if a storm is coming. Imagine if more people were more prepared and more self reliant before and after Hurricane Katrina hit. Being self reliant also can help build confidence, self esteem and the big one, emotional self reliance. Emotional Self Reliance is quite similar in that doesn't mean you can go without a support system of loved ones, it means that if your girlfriend or boyfriend dumps you, you don't do something drastic. If a loved one dies, it means that although it hurts, you go through all the stages of mourning until you come out safely on the other side. In other words, you don't commit suicide or immediately trade your healthy habits for unhealthy ones. You not only have an outside support system, but also an inner one with a core of infinite love. So, in this way you have to consider yourself first in as much that you don't do something to harm yourself or others. And, since you're still alive and mostly functional, you can share your strength with others, help them with their grief and allow them to help you with yours. So, you are an island, but you're also part of an archipelago.<br /><br />The last component I'll include is to take nothing personally. If someone calls you a jerk, it's either because you were or she/he sees it that way because of her/his current state of mind. Either way, there is no reason to take it personally. The only thing that does is hurt you. You also can't take praise personally. The thought there is if someone says how wonderful you are and you come to rely on that praise for your happiness, if they suddenly change their mind, the rug is pulled out from under you. The easiest example is a rock singer. Many singers get addicted to the roar of the crowd and without it, they feel small and worthless. Now, taking nothing personally may sound cold and calculating, but it really isn't. It doesn't mean you no longer have emotion, just that you're not internalizing what people say and trying to rely on it to make you happy. The Tao, Buddhism, the Toltec teachings and more say that you have to rid yourself of your passions. I don't think they mean that you shouldn't ever get excited; I think they mean that you can't let your passions rule you. This means anything that blinds you in some way, makes you exclude or avoid options or positive experiences, makes you focus on something to the exclusion of other things and/or makes you act in a way a healthy person wouldn't; pretty much anything that pushes you to unhealthy habits. So, I'm not saying men shouldn't be passionate with their wives and vice versa, I mean passions that make people fight over nothing and to stop listening. Passions like this are usually taking things personally. One guy insults another guy's mom and boom, they're families are at war. Emotional associations are also very unreliable. Just because one blonde boyfriend treats his girlfriend poorly, doesn't mean that all blonde guys will do the same. Without these emotional links that connect an action or event to an emotion, we're freed from reliving past pains and treat everything as a new experience. If you take nothing personally, you can to roll with whatever comes whether it's positive or negative. Getting insulted isn't fun, but if you're not preoccupied by taking it personally, you'll not only be able to see the situation objectively, but you also won't be hurt and won't reflect the negativity; a never ending cycle. Your objectivity might even enable you to help the person or yourself even if it’s not readily apparent. In the other instance, receiving praise and rewards are great, but if you don't need them to be happy, you won't be killing yourself doggedly looking for them and complaining when you don't get them.<br /><br />So, I don't see self love as being selfish, but a necessity. It's not that you should only love yourself, but love yourself so you may grow and love others truly; just like the old saying goes "You can't truly love someone until you love yourself." It's a way of unlocking your true self by stopping your search for yourself somewhere out there. It's also about forgiving yourself for your mistakes and accepting yourself for who you are. That's really what it's all about because if you can do that for yourself, you can do it towards someone else in the form of unconditional love. People must place themselves first if they're ever going to make the time to figure themselves out. Once they're free and know their love is unlimited, they can share it with everyone.<br /><br />As far as personal independence goes, I don't see it as being inherently insular although there are times for introspection and for being alone. I see it as being free from needing your friends and family in unhealthy ways. Achieving independence doesn't mean you reject everyone, it means you're no longer indebted to anyone in an unhealthy way (now that I've gifted you, you owe me) and you're freed from expectation. You're free to give as much as you feel you can; including an unlimited supply of love. And, you can just love the people close to you for who they are and not be constantly pulling and pushing your unresolved issues on one and other.<br /><br />And lastly, by not taking anything personally, you're no longer ruled by your positive or negative passions. You can withstand insult and don't need rewards to be happy. You can live life without drama and mood swings and function with a clear mind and spirit. And you won't go to war for emotionally-linked reasons.<br /><br />Well, there it is in a nutshell. Thanks for reading. Please note that learning, understanding and integrating any life lessons can take many years. Take your time and find the ones that work for you. And be prepared to re-learn lessons in time and to be reminded of them when you forget. And above all, have fun! If you have any comments or personal experiences to share, please feel free to share.<br /><br />Recommended Reading and Viewing:<br />The Tao of Pooh, Benjamin Hoff<br />Tao Te Ching, Lao-tsu<br />The Mastery of Love, don Miguel Ruiz<br />The Four Agreements, don Miguel Ruiz<br />The Path of the Peaceful Warrior, Dan Millman<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the *BLEEP* Do We Know?</span>, 20th Century Fox<br /><br />Perhaps also:<br />Without Remorse, Tom Clancy<br />Faith of the Fallen, Terry Goodkind (you may want to read the preceding books first)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Trainspotting</span>, Miramax Home Entertainment<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Fight Club</span>, 20th Century Fox<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">300</span>, Warner Bros. Pictures<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Tao of Steve</span>, Sony Pictures</span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-75061903587357739012007-03-29T17:59:00.000-07:002007-03-30T16:58:26.973-07:00Star Trek to be 'Re-Imagined' for More Curb Appeal<span style=";font-family:Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:85%;" >I recently saw the IFC show "Dinner for Five" (normally hosted by Jon Favearu, this one by Kevin Smith) and J.J. Abrams was one of the great guests. Seeing him in this casual round table multi-interview, I really got to like him. He described how his connections and writing skills ended up creating a cascade effect for his career he would never had anticipated. This doesn't mean I take back my open questions from my <a href="http://benalpi.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html" target="_blank">earlier Star Trek XI</a> post, but I was glad to see that Mr. Abrams seems like a nice, humble guy. Unfortunately, the questions I had about Trek XI are becoming more apparent at the least, dire at the most. According to <a href="http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=45f02b0b951da" target="_blank">recent interviews</a>, it's apparent that this production is not doing what I prescribed (not that they would, I don't think they read my wee blog) and they are doing as I feared. For the creative team behind this film, they're gathering together a who's-worked-with-who-before line up of folks that have worked on previous Abrams projects. I'm not saying these people aren't talented or capable, but what do they know about Trek? Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were writers on two campy favorites of mine, "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and "Jack of All Trades," but no Trek, no sci fi. They did however write my favorite film in the world, <em>The Island</em> (please note my sarcasm). Scott Chambliss, production designer, no Trek, no sci fi. Jennifer Garner is now rumored to be Spock's love interest. Double huh?? I'm not saying that you have to fill the crew with Trek alums, but the closest they've come is a <a href="http://zicree.blogspot.com/2006/06/zicree-hangs-with-jj-abrams-carol.html">conversation</a> with the venerable Marc Zicree. There is such a wealth of amazing people who have contributed to Trek and to science fiction over the years, I just think it's simply nearsighted to hire all your buds. I totally understand that it's best to know who you're working with personally, but this Hollywood form of "cronyism" is probably the reason we have so few great studio films these days. Even with my relatively deep familiarity with Star Trek, I would <span style="font-style: italic;">at least</span> consult the people who know more than I. Not doing so would be like making a Spider-man movie without ever talking to Stan Lee-- simply unthinkable! I've never met Stan (although I'd love to), but that doesn't mean I'd be afraid to include him. And now the Orci/Kurtzman team have commented that ST:XI will not be a prequel to the Original Series, but a 're-imaging' of the mythos. They've been watching and reading Trek all their lives, they said. It makes perfect sense then that the first thing they want to do is change it.<br /><br />It seems to be the new buzz word in Hollywood--"re-imaging." This is what they did to James Bond in <em>Casino Royal</em>. <span style="font-style: italic;">Casino Royal </span>is a gritty updated-<span style="font-style: italic;">pre</span>-sequel (I'm coining that one) where it's set now-a-days, but Bond is as young and green as… okay, so in the film he's only young. The first film to do this in recent memory is <em>The Sum of All Fears</em> in which Ben Affleck plays a young-again Jack Ryan and the Tom Clancey Cold War story is brought to present day. The next was probably <em>Batman Begins</em> which tells a slightly more realistic and detailed story of Bruce Wayne's evolution into The Batman. That film also brought Bats, with an amazing cast lead by Christian Bale, up to the present day although there was still a timelessness of Gotham as a nior forward-backward Metropolis. The problem with <em>Casino</em> is that they took out everything that comprises a Bond flick (the mystique, the swagger, the ladies, the super-spy gadgets and the humor) which made the film generic. Truly, the only real resemblance to Bond was the name which makes me wish they had just started a new franchise and called the characters something else. This is what I don't want to happen to Trek. The writers talk about how they want to be "100 percent true to the fanbase," yet make the films more "accessible." That frightens me. They're talking about actively attempting to write the film to so it appeals to a wider audience. How narrow is the appeal? I personally don't know anyone who won't watch Trek, but watches other sci fi content. Usually, people either like sci fi or they don't. Trek or no Trek. Unlike space operas like <em>Star Wars</em>, these films are specifically intended to be explorations into the human condition through science fiction. <em>Star Wars</em> may appeal to a wider audience because it's not intended to be science fiction, but a fun and exciting serial with roots in myth and legend, just like early opera. To make Trek 'more appealing' would be like making Battlestar Galactica into a sex-driven soap opera about "who's baby is it?" <em>Huh? They already did that?</em> Okay, it would be like making The Doctor in "Doctor Who" twenty years old, giving him a hot blonde companion and a libido… <em>What's that? They have? Oh dear lord, is nothing sacred?!</em> I think you get the picture folks. There is no way to force Star Trek to appeal to everyone and it still be Trek. All you can do is spend some time and money and write a truly stellar script that speaks to the human (or Vulcan) in all of us. Then, have a strong advertising campaign that gets the word out that no matter who you are, this is a movie to see. Then, maybe they won't mind that it's not <span style="font-style: italic;">Armageddon</span>. Like I've said before, a deep, dramatic, star blazing adventure about Kirk getting his wings with Spock by his side will appeal to a lot of non-Trekkies/ers regardless. Buddy films put butts in seats, too (<span style="font-style: italic;">Shawshank Redemption</span>). But, if getting more Trek on the big screen means dumbing it down, adding soapy love interests and visceral violence, you can just count me out.<br /><br />If you'll allow me to digress, I have to wonder if this is the trend to succeed remake mania. Not only remake films and adapt old TV shows, but rewrite the essence of whole franchises so maybe they will appeal to more people or another, larger segment of the population. Do they think by changing it all around will make it seem more like an original film and somehow have more credibility? "Sure it's another remake, but we changed it all around this time, see?" It feels like they're buying the license to a character or franchise just so they can make a knock-off and not get sued.<br /><br />Of course, studios questioning the size of the sci fi viewership is nothing new. It's probably the reason we haven't seen many sci fi or space films/shows in a while. It's the same old rhetoric that potential audience is too small to make sci fi. Just like there supposedly isn't enough money in the school budget for music or art. At least internationally, history shows that most all sci fi makes it's money back and some even make gobs of cash. But that's not really the point, what I really mean is, so what? Should we ONLY make films to sell tickets on opening weekend? And since when did they think it would be smart to alienate the locked-in fanbase? If you make an excellent Trek film (and by "Trek film" I mean one that fits the established mythos, characterizations and vision), you may not make number one on the first weekend, but if it's released at a fitting time and it really IS good, it will rise to it's true value. Even if that didn't happen, it would quickly reach "cult status" and become a blockbuster video release (<em>Donnie Darko</em>). It's just that in my opinion, no film should be made simply to appeal to the most people possible. That's just pissing on the creator's grave (i.e. It's disrespectful). Comedies are very successful and most have a very wide potential audience. Should we make "CSI" or "24" into comedies in an effort to expand their appeal? Should we remake <em>Citizen Kane</em> or <em>Gone With the Wind</em>, but as comedies? ‘Will Ferrell is Charles Foster Kane! In this re-imagined epic laugh fest you won't know what to do with your rosebud or where to put your Xanadu! <em>Citizen Kane</em>, coming this Christmas.' What do you hold sacred? Would you like it bastardized? Reprocessed to sell, sell, sell? Would you like it if William Petersen(Grissom), Marg Helgenberger(Catherine), Gary Dourdan(Warrick) and the rest of the cast of CSI were suddenly replaced with more widely known faces? ‘Yeah, they may not fit the parts, but we've gone seven seasons so, I think our fans will give Tom Delay, Paris Hilton and La Toya Jackson a chance.' That's what it feels like to me when people mess with Trek.<br /><br />Okay, that's all from me… for now! Thank YOU for reading and PLEASE share your thoughts. And be ready because next month I'm going to rewrite this post, but with more sex, more explosions, gory accounts of torture, shorter words and I'll name it the same dang thing. Oh heck yeah, stay glued!<br /></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-74926469097228898262007-03-10T09:59:00.000-08:002007-03-26T21:36:10.327-07:00Cinéma Vérité: Distraction!<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Okay so, I’m a director and as such I have styles I like.<span style=""> </span>I like traditional camera moves with some modern innovation mixed in (a mounted camera, smooth pans plus, rack focus and dollies.)<span style=""> </span>So, when it comes to hand held, steadcam shots and zoom lens pushes, I widely reserve them for action, if someone/thing is watching from afar and if I’m trying to imitate a mechanical/remote camera respectively.<span style=""> </span>You guessed it, Enter: Cinéma Vérité.<span style=""> </span>Or, as I like to call what it’s turned into, the Tourettes Style.<span style=""><br /></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:85%;">The style, which featured long takes and handheld shots, was popularized by <span style="font-style: italic;">Hill Street Blues</span> as a way to add realism to the show; sorta as if the characters were always being observed by a documentary camera crew.<span style=""> </span>The style has been widely adopted by many cop shows from <span style="font-style: italic;">NYPD Blue</span> to <span style="font-style: italic;">24 </span>as well as sci fi shows like <span style="font-style: italic;">X-Files</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Battlestar Galactica</span>.<span style=""> </span>The thing I dislike is what the style has turned into which is a constantly moving, jiggling, jostling, swish panning camera with quick zooms. It completely distracts me from the story and pulls my attention to the camera itself.<span style=""> </span>Case in point, in 24 Jack Bauer watches helplessly as a nuclear explosion (effects by Zoic) erupts in the distance.<span style=""> </span>He couldn’t get there in time!<span style=""> </span>He’s uhhh…crushed… I think, wait… I can’t seem to tell… the camera’s moving all over, can’t see Kiefer’s face… the shot is now an extreme close-up of Kiefer’s nostril… no his eye… GAH!<span style=""> </span>I could not keep myself in the moment because the camera operator keeps messing with the shot!<span style=""> </span>Not only is the shot moving around enough to make me sea sick, it keeps zooming-in in mechanical little increments; the kind of tweaking you might see while a camera operator sets up a shot.<span style=""> </span>It ends up looking like the camera has Tourettes Syndrome.<span style=""> </span>I don’t understand how this is supposed to make anything more realistic or more dramatic.<span style=""> </span>I mean, it’s like they’re trying to use the camera to produce tension, which really isn’t possible per se.<span style=""> </span>I mean, you can heighten the drama of a scene by using the correct camera angle or move, but it can’t inherently produce tension.<span style=""> </span>For that you need story, acting, light, sound and editing as well.<span style=""> </span>The whole point of film making is to draw you in and make you forget that you’re watching a projected image; a two dimensional flipping of images that fools the eye into thinking it’s motion.<span style=""> </span>Instead, this style completely draws my attention to the camera instead of where it’s supposed to be, in the moment and watching the actors.<span style=""> </span>I have nothing against a unique or beautiful shot although some may say such shots put too much emphasis on the image rather than the characters.<span style=""> </span>But today’s cinéma vérité is a constant distraction with takes that are entirely too long.<span style=""> </span>With takes this long, only a heck of an actor can hold the moment.<span style=""> </span>Unfortunately, and this really isn’t anything against them, most actors on television can’t do it.<span style=""> </span>If <span style="font-style: italic;">24</span> was made more conventionally, I think I’d love it.<span style=""> </span>But with the crazy cameras and, what ends up being, mediocre acting (and the silly who’s-going-to-backstab-who-next writing) I just can’t.<span style=""> </span>The same goes for <span style="font-style: italic;">Battlestar Galactica</span>, but that show has a <st1:place st="on">LOT</st1:place> further to go to bring me back.<span style=""> </span>I love the cast (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0234928/">Aaron Douglas</a> is the man) but the fact that it’s written as a by-the-book soap opera will never work for me.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:85%;">So please, to all you camera operators, DP’s and directors out there, please reconsider if you want to use the cinéma vérité style.<span style=""> </span>Make it more subtle and bring the focus back to the image, not its creation.<span style=""> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Thanks for reading!<span style=""> </span>What do you guys think?</span></p>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-11825217637093472172007-02-02T10:27:00.000-08:002007-02-26T17:53:02.134-08:00Which Flavor of Vista?<span style="font-family: georgia;font-size:85%;" >I was peering at Windows Vista at Amazon.com and found there are like 10 different versions. There's uhh Blue, Green, Light Green, Baby Blue and Blue-Green I think... I'm not sure, but you may have to buy all of them to get a complete OS. I wouldn't count on it though.<br /><br />Others seem to agree with this sentiment...<br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/915.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/915.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog</span></span></span></em><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><em>. Here are the comments as posted:</em></span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial;">Posted by </span><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial;" href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=51216039"><b>Eric</b></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial;"> on Friday, February 02, 2007 at 2:06 PM </span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial;">The boys at Penny Arcade had a </span><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial;" href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/02" target="_self">similar riff,</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial;"> too. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: arial;">Posted by </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: arial;" href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=4081597"><b>Naughty by N8ture</b></a><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: arial;"> on Friday, February 02, 2007 at 2:52 PM</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: arial;">Haha... Ain't it the truth! ;)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0); font-family: arial;">Posted by </span><a style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0); font-family: arial;" href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=36581672"><b>james</b></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0); font-family: arial;"> on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 4:27 AM </span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0); font-family: arial;">Brillant! And yes aint that the truth!!LOL</span></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-68300557055655312952007-01-17T05:23:00.001-08:002008-11-21T17:14:59.614-08:00Microsoft to Kill Industry with Copy Protection<span style=";font-family:Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:85%;" >Microsoft is set to constrict and disable parts of your computer if you install Vista. I'm NOT kidding. <a href="http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Epgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html" target="_blank">Extensive research</a> has been done by Peter Gutmann digging into the developer's guidelines and what he has found is nothing short of amazing. Or, amazingly bad. Perhaps even silly and certainly overboard. His article is over 30 pages long and is largely written for tech persons. What I'll try to do here is boil it down not point for point, but down to more "what it means to you." I think everyone needs to know about this. I've verified his findings with other sources although none of them go into this much detail. I still recommend reading it for yourself and looking into more sources (just Google "Vista copy protection" and you'll get lots).<br /><br />Microsoft Vista intends to protect any and all "premium content" on your computer from piracy. It is attempting to force manufacturers to conform to an extreme set of standards that will ultimately make using a Vista PC a slow, limited, costly and low quality experience. What is "premium content?" It's hard to say right now because some older technology (like Super Audio Discs) seem to be included, but certainly included will be HD video discs.<br /><br />In the new age of High Definition TV and discs like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, it's understandable that the creators of shows and movies are concerned about having such a high quality version of their work in customer's hands. I would be! With an HD copy of a film, counterfeiters would have a field day selling pristine bootlegs which could kill the industry and then, no more shows or movies. What will happen when you pop in a HD-DVD movie into your Vista PC? Well, Vista will first recognize it, then it will go through and disable everything on your computer that could possibly be used to copy information. This is set to include any cables you may have sending a signal out to a TV or stereo receiver. That means if you have your computer set up like a DVD player (like one you may have built with with Windows XP Media Center) with a digital optical audio cable piping Dolby Digital Surround Sound to your reciever and one of many cables piping out video to your TV, those ports will be disabled and will not work. Why? Because there is the slightest of chances that maybe you've figured out a way to copy the picture or sound. 'Well, if it's disabling all these ports, what about my monitor?' Perhaps most interestingly, the "premium" picture and sound will be displayed on your monitor and out your speakers, but will actually be purposely filtered to be "slightly fuzzy". 'That's crazy! Vista is going to DECREASE the quality of the picture and sound?'Yes. All in the name of copy protection.<br /><br />If you think that's enough to tempt you to moving to a Mac, there's more. The other thing this will likely effect for Windows customers is their wallets. You may have heard that you will likely have to upgrade your computer just to run Vista at it's minimum requirements. Pretty much anything over a year old will need to be upgraded. I had my 98/NT/Win2000/XP PC for 6 years before upgrading recently and it wasn't even close to to top of the line when I bought it. Now, I'll have to upgrade my 6 MONTH old computer in order to run Vista well. You may have also heard that Vista will require internet access so it can "call home" regularly to authenticate itself and upload hardware information about your computer (and we all know net access will be required to make Vista work correctly with umpteen "critical updates"). This includes businesses as well as consumers and some corporations are already refusing to adopt Vista until the "call home" function is removed. What you may not have heard however is that Windows is "asking" hardware makers to change how they make their computer parts in order to conform to Microsoft's copy protection requirements. One big sector that will be affected are video cards, which are "add-on" cards that many of us use to get better graphics in games and will be required to run Vista. Video cards have graphics processors which computes all video-related information on your computer. This greatly speeds all your graphics and reduces the strain on you're computer's central processor. Currently, most video cards have processors made by either NVIDIA or ATI and the circuit boards that are sold with the processors attached are made by someone else. Popular 3rd party board makers include XFX, EVGA, ASUS and BFG. To run a video card (and any piece of hardware) you need to install "driver." A driver is a little software application that "plugs" the device into the operating system and coordinates the two so they can work together. Right now, if you buy an NVIDIA or ATI-based video card, you can download a single universal NVIDIA or ATI driver that will make all cards with those processors work properly. This covers hundreds of cards from the last 4 years at least. How BFG or EVGA make video cards now, as noted in the article, is similar to a car. They make a universal body for a car to go around the engine with all the nice options and then remove options to decrease the price. "Options" are often extra functionality provided by an added chip. When the chip is taken away, it leaves a little <a href="http://images.infoteldistributors.com/itemDetails/C261-3053/C261-3053-out3-hl.jpg" target="_blank">empty conduit</a> on the board. This void, so Microsoft says, is a security risk. So, instead of making a one-size-fits-all board with options-or-no, Microsoft is "asking" board makers to make custom boards for every price-level of a card. Furthermore, they're requiring that every graphics processor and every version of that processor (right now, NVIDIA has 12 in their popular GeForce 7 Series alone) must have its own driver. What this all translates to is more money for manufacture and that means either less choice for the consumer or a higher price, perhaps both. It also means that makers will have to create all new drivers for existing cards in order for them to work with Vista and from now on, make custom per-card drivers. (Many GeForce 8 Series users have complained about there being no Vista Drivers yet. I guess now we know why.) Not only does that mean that we'll have to dig through a ton of drivers to find the one that matches our video card, it means additional costs for makers and higher costs for us. And it means that there are thousands older of cards out there that manufacturers won't be willing to write new drivers for. I have a machine that runs on a 4 year old NVIDIA 5200. If I upgrade to Vista, it won't work anymore (and would be deemed a security risk, of course). There are thousands of businesses that have cards even older than mine in computers running Windows XP and simple programs like word processors just fine. If upgraded to Vista, it would mean possibly thousands upon thousands of "out moded" computers. The film Robots comes to mind. Every little variation of every device out there will have to have custom drivers and this includes every universal piece manufacturers have thoughtfully built-in over the years. Think of this as well, this could mean that my motherboard may not work either because that also has drivers and unused little spots on it-- your motherboard is the mama of your whole computer. Without her, you have no computer! Your DVD drive and your hard drives also have drivers. Will they be effected?<br /><br />I also have to mention that Vista will only allow you to make a limited number of hardware changes to your computer before it must check your software license online. That means you'll have to be hooked up to the net and the new hardware will have to be approved by Microsoft in order to work. In not, your new hardware will be disabled. If you're a gamer and upgrade your video card often, Vista may soon require you to re-authenticate your copy of Vista or you won't be able to use the new device. In addition, if you're computer happens to have too many data hiccups or little electrical oops's from power fluctuations, outages or just plain who-knows-what, that will also trigger Vista's watchdog program and require you to connect to them online to show them your papers. This also means more info than ever before will be sent to Microsoft. The book 1984 comes to mind.<br /><br />Wait, there's more! I mentioned Vista would slow your computer (nope, I don't just mean installing hardware). Mainly, it'll slow things down with its new copy protection system called Hardware Functionality Scan. This is yet another one of those "background services" that slow your computer although this one us supposed to be even worse. See, the HFS process is dynamic, meaning that it adapts to changes in your computer in real time. So, if you're playing "premium" music, the detection "fades" in and out when the music fades in and out. So, no only will the song be "fuzzy with less detail" because it's being purposely degraded, but your computer will be enabling and disabling components between every song! A Christmas tree comes to mind. All this activity will slow your computer and there's no way to turn off this "service."<br /><br />I have no idea what all this will do to software and hardware makers. ATI has already stated that it's spent more in the last 6 months in legal fees related to this than it ever has before. These requirements promise to make software makers lives more difficult because they must conform to a very narrow and strict (and sometimes extremely vague!) set of guidelines. If you're a software maker of copy protection for films, it looks like you'll have to get your software approved by experts in the field, Hollywood studios. These changes are already making producers of open-source software wonder. As far as content producers like artists and musicians, instead of this being a simple and rewarding upgrade, there are thousands of hardware issues to consider. It also raises a lot of questions like, if you're like me and you create HD content, will it be degraded because it's HD? Heck, will we be able to watch HD trailers with Quicktime at full resolution? Will Quicktime even work on Vista? And who actually decides what is "premium content?" Will all your software and drivers have to pass a Microsoft approval process? Also, will Vista run on Macintosh computers with Bootcamp if we so chose?<br /><br />What this all boils down to is a long list of limitations that borders on fanaticism that will ultimately degrade your computing experience. And Microsoft isn't asking anyone's permission. It's simply suggesting that businesses fall in line or else they'll be failing their customers (because we'll make your content look like crap). Personally, I haven't seen any copy protection that's ever worked. If things don't change, you will be paying for this copy protection no matter what because of all the dollars that manufacturers will have to spend to achieve the glory of a 'Microsoft Approved' certificate. From what I'm reading it will take a lot of hoop jumping and rigid, difficult programming. I think it's absolutely incredible that Microsoft would do this especially since the industry has been moving more towards open source (open source meaning anyone can create and contribute to software like Mozilla FireFox). It will likely encourage some people to make the leap to Apple, which isn't much of a leap being Vista largely imitates Apple's current operating system OSX. This effort by Microsoft is more strict and limiting than anything ever in computing and woe to anyone who simply goes along with it. It restricts your rights and violates your privacy no matter how your slice it. "Non identifiable information" just means they haven't put the pieces together yet. Years ago, there was a HUGE outcry when Intel put a "call home" capability into their Pentium III chips that sent them info about your computer. This is far worse than that.<br /><br />I encourage everyone to look harder and deeper than I have and get the facts. And then make them and your opinion known. Don't just send your findings and feelings to tech mags and websites either, send them to national news outlets and to your congressperson. Our daily living should be about freedom and choice, not about artificial limitations supposedly in the name of security. And no business should be able to gathering information on us personally. If we want to build computers without having to study computer science, use them without being slowed down because of superfluous background services, if we want to enjoy high quality content without degradation, if we want to use it as our media center and if we don't want to have to pay premiums on top of premiums for these things we must get the word out. Consumers and business both must make their opinions known about this.<br /><br />Thanks for reading. Hopefully your curiosity is piqued. Please do let me know what you've found out and what you think. I think I'm going to browse for my new <a href="http://apple.com/" target="_blank">Mac</a> with a nice HD monitor.<em><br /><br />This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog. Here are the comments as posted:</em></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><em></em></span><em><br /></em><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" >Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=4081597"><strong>Naughty by N8ture</strong></a> on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 11:12 AM<br />All I can say is I hope Apple is prepared for all the new business they'll be racking up from this one!</span><span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=51216039"><strong>Eric</strong></a> on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 3:33 PM<br />I've maintained for a while that Vista is, in many ways, MS putting the barrel of the biggest gun it can find right into it's gaping, voracious mouth.<br /><br />An analyst on NPR a few weeks ago ran some numbers -- for corporate/pro users, Vista would require, in order to function at maximum efficiency (and factoring in pro user software costs and the purchase of hardware that can actually RUN the damn thing), somwhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.00USD.<br /><br />PER COPY.<br /><br />It obviously won't cost that much to home users, but it'll still be pricy.<br /><br />This could actually, once and for all, cost them a significant number of corporate/business users, because it's no longer cost effective in any reasonable way. Home users were always the bastard stepchild of the MS market (we're essentially the biggest, free software testing bed in the universe), but business users are the company's bread and butter.<br /><br />It'll be interesting, to say the least.<br /><br />-E</span></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-73440053498931906552007-01-04T20:35:00.000-08:002007-02-26T17:37:26.013-08:00Pres. Bush Iraq Policy Search: Agree to Agree?<span style="font-family:Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;font-size:85%;"><em>Disclaimer: This blog contains approximations and feelings, not referenced facts. </em><br /><br />Okay, now for quite a while President Bush has maintained that he would change his strategy in Iraq, even decrease troop levels, if his commanders told him he needed to. Back in December, as he was asking TV networks for airtime to deliver his promised speech about what his "course correction" would be (if it needed to be corrected, of course) he was continuing meetings with his generals and commanders (active and retired) and others for their advice on what to do. Well, all the interviews I saw, no I didn't view any on FOX News, these fellows, including commanders on-the-ground in Iraq, all said that a "troop surge" of some 15,000-30,000 troops to secure Baghdad was a bad idea. Even behind closed doors, Pentagon officials told reporters that a troop surge to confront a civil war would only result in a quagmire. Then something changed. Gloria Borger of CBS News (who I really can't stand) said the oddest thing. Although I can't find a transcript, I did rewind and re-watch what she said the night of. She said something to the effect of '...the President hasn't gotten the answers he's looking for yet...' (from his commanders) so, he's going to postpone his announcment. Soon after that, commanders in Iraq were quoted as saying a troop surge would work and the Pentagon was expected to recommend a troop surge. Now, top commanders in Iraq are "retiring". WHAT THE?!<br /><br />I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this is just a little too weird not to point out. At first glance, Borger's reporting might seem normal, but if you look at it again, I think it contains an interesting idea. Could it really be that the President, instead of seeking the advice of his top people, just wanted someone to agree with him? And, when he heard all this "cut and run" talk, he postponed his speech until he could find people to agree with him? I'm sorry, but from the outside this sure looks like 'I've already made up my mind. Agree with me... or I'll find someone who will.' Of course, that would be followed by 'Ya fie-yud.'<br /><br />Did anyone else out there notice the change of opinion of the Pentagon and commanders in Iraq? Anyone else find it somewhat odd?</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><em><span style="font-family:Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;">This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog</span></em><span style="font-family:Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><em>. Here are the comments as posted:</em></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;color:#000099;">Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=66607347"><strong>B</strong></a> on Friday, January 05, 2007 at10:25 AM<br />I agree completely Ben ... but don't get me started on this administration. It's not good for my health.<br /><br /> ... 726 days remaining ...</span><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;"><br /><br /> Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=30890193"><strong>Ben'jamin</strong></a> on Sunday, January 14, 2007 at 1:54 PM<br />Haha. I hear ya, bud. Now he's addressed the nation and told us exactly what we thought he'd tell us a month ago. So, if he had already made up his mind, why did he consult with anyone? "If ya got a better idear, let's hear it."Uhh, well, I guess THAT depends on a.) Listening. and b.) Who is saying what is "better." I think he's already displayed his lack of "A" and he's the guy who has control over "B" so... I guess we're just going to do whatever he wants regardless.(If not even a bi-partisan study group of learned individuals can't sway him... Hey, wasn't Secretary of Defense Gates part of that group? Hmm... I guess the President must be pretty persuasive...). In the end, I guess I'd just like to know how much $$ it took to NOT listen to all those people he "consulted" with and how much it cost for the TV time to tell us what we already knew. Silliness!</span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-89062889168311533172006-11-15T11:06:00.000-08:002007-02-26T17:27:36.860-08:00Voice Actors are Important!<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">I happened to be meandering around the internet and found the site to an interesting indie film named </span><a style="font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.gamers-themovie.com/" target="_blank">Gamers</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">. If you'll take a look at their site, you'll soon notice they've cast a slew of iconic, though unexpected actors. (Reminds me of </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Comic Book: The Movie</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> in that way). If you were a kid in the 70's-80's like I was, you recall fondly Kelly LeBrock (</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Lady in Red, Weird Science</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">), Beverly D'Angelo (</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >National Lampoon's European Vacation</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">), and William Katt (</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Greatest American Hero</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">) as well as John Heard who's just great. One name you may not recognize in the credits is actor-turned-voice actor Michael Bell. He did voices in </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Superfriends, G.I. Joe, Transformers, Smurfs</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> and a whole lot more and narrates </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Gamers</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. He's really the reason why I'm writing this see, I have a huge respect for voice actors since I grew up on radio stories (on cassette, that is) and cartoons and thoroughly enjoyed the truly talented VOICE actors. The amazing depth and life they gave the character had a huge impact on me. Over the last 10 or more years though, voice actors have been widely traded for celebrities and cheap labor. In a </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.gamers-themovie.com/bellinter.htm" target="_blank">little interview snippet</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> on the </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Gamers </span><span style="font-family:georgia;">site, Mr. Bell had this interview question to answer...</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"> GAMERS: Your industry credentials are extensive, to say the least. What would you say are some of the biggest changes in film and audio recording since you started your acting career?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"> MICHAEL BELL: Stars, friends of the producers, real gangsters and sock puppets are being cast in jobs I used to do... although I still do a mean sock puppet.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"> Here here! Now, Mr. Bell is certainly not hurting for work, but I've watched more and more animated features turn to celebrity instead of quality and more TV shows go from quality to people off the street (I suppose). The voice is something that used to be very important in animation and live action alike. And I don't understand why the art of speaking-- enunciation, projection, tone, emotion-- has become so unimportant to so many content producers. Although </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Comic Book: The Movie</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> had its slow parts, I loved the inclusion of so many voice actors. Mark Hamill, the star and director of the film, has become an amazing voice actor. (Side Note: Mr. Hamill was a stage actor before he was in film and watching some DVD extras of the animated series </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Justice League,</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> the cast talked about how stage actors seem to make the leap to voice acting a little more gracefully since when on stage, their voice has to reach the furthest ear and be understood). I think when there is so much care put into the writing a piece for stage, video game, TV or film, the creators owe it to the writer and the audience to make those words sound as beautiful as they're written. There is such a beauty to the spoken word. Check out an old radio drama, cartoon, TV show or movie and you'll see what an amazing effect well delivered lines can have. It may not always be "realistic," but it's always entertaining.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"> To all the aspiring and professional entertainment creators out there, please take note of the enriching qualities of casting a great voice. And don't be afraid to cast a great actor who fits your role even if he or she isn't a big name. Maybe with your help they'll get to be one, you as well. And for anyone making the next great cartoon or video game, make your producer or backers spend the extra money on great voices. They're often the funniest and easiest people to work with and they may even help increase sales. And no matter what, when you look back at what you've created, you'll always feel rewarded because you cast the right people for the parts. Kudos to the creators of </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Gamers</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: 85%;"><em>This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog. </em></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-66385107892531658662006-10-08T15:35:00.000-07:002007-02-26T17:28:07.204-08:00Pre-Original Trek on the Big Screen?<span style=";font-family:Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:85%;" >There have been some murmurs and now some hype about a 2008 Star Trek film possibly featuring a young Kirk and Spock as cadets back in the good old days of Star Trek. <a href="http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/10/05/star_trek_xi/" target="_blank">Here's a great article</a> that collects the various tid-bits and clues floating around the world.<br /><br />Personally, I don't know if JJ Abrams can do a Trek film justice. I feel it must be pointed out that in addition to shows like Alias and Lost, Abrams also created Felicity. Although I liked some of Alias, I find many of the storylines in Abram's shows to be simply preposterous; much like the film Armageddon (which he also wrote). When talking The Original Series (TOS) Trek we're talking about pulpy sci fi hits hard-science science fiction-- that's a difficult balance. Kirk has to get the ladies, but that can't be the whole show. The film has to make a profound point about society and the human condition; which to me is the guiding light of science fiction and is something the original series did well on many occasions. With Abrams at the con, this could quickly descend into NCC-90201. I like Abrams more than Michael Bay, but the two seem to have certain similar sensibilities about (not) developing realistic and compelling characters and storylines. I don't want to apply guilt by association, but other people who have worked along side Abrams also helped create Bay's horrible The Island and will soon crush the hopes of millions of Transformers fans when that disaster of a film is finally released (in which the similarities of the film to the original franchise pretty much end at the Autobot symbol). Is this really the guy we want? Should it matter that he's associated with (potential) franchise-killers? Well, I have to say that there are so many better creators out there who are being ignored. Wouldn't it be better to dig a little deeper and build a creative team of people who have been dreaming of creating Trek for a little longer or a little more? Abrams may call himself an Uber-Trekkie, but I can't see someone creating <em>Felicity </em>when he really wants to make Trek. Overall, Paramount has done a lot to lose the trust of Trek fans. Now that they own the franchise, CBS has only continued the erosion by announcing that in their <a href="http://www.animationmagazine.net/article.php?article_id=5844" target="_blank">forthcoming HD re-release</a> of Star Trek: TOS they will be replacing many of the original special effects with new CG effects. Not only does that sound, well, really dumb and an extreme waste of time, to some, it's even sacrilegious. (Heck, as a visual effects artist, I think it's at the least dishonoring our visual effects heritage. One can only hope that, like the DVD releases of Doctor Who, you can turn off the replacement effects. And those original effects were REALLY... underfunded). If they're going to win back the trust of Trek fans, they have to show reverence for what has come before and make up for the poor choices they've made since The Next Generation. Not bringing Berman and Braga back might be a step in the right direction, but it won't heal the wounds.<br /><br />Is the future-past story concept is a good one? Well, it may provide some fun situations and give the creators a chance to explore the characters and the Trek Universe in a different way. It may also free them from trying to continually stretch the TNG storyline as Berman/Braga did, which may be a boon. It may also be a chance to make up for the TNG mold they forced <em>Enterprise </em>into. The thing that this storyline would definitely have going for it is something that none of the later series had: the strong bond between Kirk, Spock and Bones (well, Data and Geordi, Paris and Kim were probably closest). I'm not saying that the others should have had that, but if you're going to use these characters, you have to include the genesis of that close friendship. As far as the look and feel of a film like this, clearly, CBS/Paramount et al are indicating that the old gold and blue colors will make a comeback, but I don't think you can make a feature film today that simply uses the same exact designs as the 60's show. Doing so would imply a certain tongue-in-cheek attitude that might not work if you want the audience to judge the film on its laurels and not as just some homage or parody. You need more detail in the designs or they'd end up looking cartoonish. Perhaps you have to start at the beginning, look through the prism of TOS and say "Okay, if the original series had money and things like laptops and cell phones had already existed, what might the series have looked like?" I think some of the costume and production designs for the TOS-crew films were brilliant, but much of it didn't really reflect The Original Series. The inspiration has to be there if fans are to enjoy it. And lastly, cast people who fit the roles, not just pretty faces. Say what you will about Shatner's acting, I think it takes a solid actor with the right attitude and even the right voice to pull off a character in sci fi. And that goes for crew as well. Don't hire someone to direct your film simply because he has some hit series and is a hot commodity in Hollywood. For both actors and crew, I think Hollywood is trapping itself inside ever-contracting bubble sort of like Washington D.C. Instead of actually looking for the right people to fill roles, Hollywood is limited by its rolodex. If so-and-so isn't in the rolodex, they don't exist. And we wonder why box office numbers are falling? Every community needs fresh blood in its gene pool or it will corrupt and die out. And fresh blood pumps in the veins as much in older individuals as younger. New people mean more risk, but the lack of risk-taking is probably the other biggest thing killing Hollywood. (Heck, if you wanted to choose a proven commodity, why not ask Joss Whedon, creator of the <em>Buffy the Vampire</em> and <em>Firefly </em>series? Now that could be cool!)<br /><br />In the end, a good <em>Star Trek</em> story is much larger, much deeper and much more fun than any soap opera drama or action show set in contemporary times. Because of that, this film may be beyond JJ Abrams and many, many others, but if he can look beyond the immediate and finds the right people, young and old, Hollywood and not, he can make a truly amazing film. And, he can use his clout and popularity for good and make that big corporate conglomerate care about what they're making. Unfortunately, to do any less will mean the end of the franchise. (At least we'll still have <a href="http://startreknewvoyages.com/" target="_blank">New Voyages</a>!)<br /><br />That's only my jaw flappin' though. What do you think?<br /><br /><br /><em></em></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: 85%;"><em>This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog</em></span><span style=";font-family:Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:85%;" ><em>. Here are the comments as posted:</em><br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" >Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=47945985"><strong>Tantra</strong></a> on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:21 PM<br />I can appreciate your sentiments on this subject. Do you work with New Voyages? If so, I look forward to meeting you sometime. I'm with Farragut.<br /><br />Holly</span><span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br />Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=30890193"><strong>Ben'jamin</strong></a> on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:54 PM<br />Thanks Holly! I guess you could say I'm a little passionate about Trek and other great sci fi. I do work with New Voyages and I don't think I could forget who you are, Lt. Commander. Fair wind and calm seas to the cast and crew of Starship Farragut! </span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8975446085706346789.post-33498383708885272772006-06-25T10:15:00.000-07:002007-02-26T17:30:06.272-08:00Why Do We Have Fewer Friends?<span style=";font-family:Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:85%;" >On the CBS Evening News on Friday, there was a report entitled <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/23/health/webmd/main1748477.shtml" target="_blank">"Is Your Circle of Friends Shrinking?"</a> In short, a study shows that on average, Americans have one less true friend as we might have had 20 years ago. The report suggested that perhaps it's the internet, all our techno-gadgets and our over-worked lifestyles that are keeping us from meaningful friendships. So, what do you think? Are these the causes? Let's look at the first two...<br /><br />So are cell phones, email, iPods, PDA's, text messengers and the internet "causing" us to have fewer friends? I think there's no doubt that they are having an effect on society, but I don't think they're to blame. In reality, I say they're a symptom, not a cause. The popularity of long-distance, anywhere social communication is growing because of societal changes, not the other way around. We want to keep people at a distance. We don't want the possible problems and embarrassment of talking to someone while looking them in the eye. And why the heck might that be? In a word, fear.<br /><br />What about our work schedules? John and Jane have two hour commutes and five-jobs-in-one, how can they find and keep friends? Hey, that's totally true. To keep our jobs these days we have to work longer hours than ever and many of us have to take lower wages. Lower wages means we either have to move to another company or stick it out. Either way, we're commuting farther than ever. It's tough to hang out on a Friday night when you don't get home until 8pm and can't think straight enough to make dinner let alone call up your buds. I'd love it if we could somehow stand up to these employers and say "Hey, we can't keep killing ourselves like this. Please hire some more people," but what can you do? You've got to eat, pay bills and pay down your debt, right? I guess we have to find ways to make time for friends though. It's that important to our mental, emotional (and thusly physical) well being to be able to talk and relate to people in the flesh that we have to choose to do something about it. One good friend I made was a coworker and we didn't have much time to hang out so, we often car pooled. Of course, you can't force it, but you do need to put yourself in a place, at a point when you feel you can, where you might find a like-minded person (parties, user groups, coffee houses, etc). So, I think our work schedule is far closer to causing our lack of good friends than gadgetry, but it can still be surmounted with some solid time management. If that's the case, then perhaps it's a symptom as well? Some of us work more so we don't have to think about what we're not doing. Perhaps this also stems from fear? What is this whole fear thing anyhow?<br /><br />Perhaps from one side, we now have access to a world of information and are constantly bombarded with bad news. That makes it easy to get overwhelmed by the negative. Meanwhile, from the other side perhaps there was a lack of guidance in our formative years which has led to gaps in our knowledge and preparedness for processing all this information especially when it comes to relationships. Our knowledge of and interest in emotional, moral, physical and social boundaries is severely lacking. Borne out of this bombardment from one side and lack of guidance from the other is apathy-- indifferent people who act like they own the place, wherever they are. They talk loudly on cell phones anywhere; walk, stand and sit in the way of cars, bikes and other people without a care; they cut you off in a car without looking and cut you off in a conversation without thinking. They feel they have the right to do whatever they care to so, nothing is their fault or responsibility. (Although, no one else is allowed to make a mistake). Much of the time they spend with friends is spent on the phone instead. And when they say they're going to call their friends, they don't. People disrespect, lie to, hide true feelings from and purposely hurt themselves! Add cheating, stealing and USING and that's how they treat their 'friends.' Who in their right mind would want to be friends with someone like that? This is not everyone (thankfully!), but this kind of behavior is not rare. I thought it was bad when our society was all about the next quick high, but now it looks as though it's all about just doing... whatever. Complete obliviousness. Phrases of our fathers like "think before you act" and "look before you leap" seem to have never been said. The words of our mothers like "mind your P's and Q's" seem to have been skipped. Children command their parents. Expectation has replaced etiquette. It's not "what can I do for you?" it's "what can you do for me?" The somewhat subtle differences in tone between "how can I help you" and "what do you want" are lost. There is no doubt that our lifestyle is increasing the distance between us, but the greater cause is the fear of being treated like crap! Funny thing is, a generation ago, this wasn't the case.<br /><br />Have you known many of your parent's or grandparent's good friends? You would think that these WWII or Vietnam era folks fought on the front lines together the way they look out for each other. Of course, sometimes they did! But I tell you, you can feel the respect and concern even without words. Grandma can call her friend and ask for help and the next thing you know, the friend is knocking on the door. Probably the most amazing thing to me though, is that respect. No one pushes, no one pulls. No one pries or digs for dirt... not about each other anyhow. They just love and cherish each other and are comfortable in one and other's presence... even if they argue to create a little drama. Now that's friendship.<br /><br />I think we need to bring this back. Sure it's a global economy and there's all crazy ways to get word out, but that's no reason why we can't connect on a personal level. Without friends we'll stop learning about ourselves and about each other. Without love and intimacy, we'll wilt and die. Words on a computer screen are the result of a temporary gathering of electrons. That can never be anything more than superficial. No matter how deep down in the heart those pixels are supposed to be from, they are nothing until they're backed up in person. So get out there and be friendly! Be neighborly! Wave and smile at strangers. Learn your bus driver's name. A very wise person taught me that there is no limit to the love inside all of us and that you have to start by loving yourself. Sounds hokey perhaps, but I've found it to be true. We can turn this thing around! So say I, what say ye?<br /><br />Thanks to all my friends out there! I know I'm guilty of acting like a jerk at times so, thanks for your patience. </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: 85%;"><em>This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog. </em></span><em><span style=";font-family:Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:85%;" >Here are the comments as posted:</span><br /></em><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" >Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=66607347"><strong>B</strong></a> on Saturday, July 01, 2006 at 12:34 PM<br />Well put Ben. I completely agree. Nothing can take the place of the human aspect. Not the internet, or any other future advance form of technology. I just felt that technology cannot simply be labeled as the culprit that led to the fewer friends in the first place. And I sense you are in agreement with me on that one.<br /><br />So, lets leave it with a different analogy. Not a Symptom, Not a Cause, and Not a Cure. Perhaps we can call it a form of Life Support. Keeping the friendship alive and breathing when the passage of time and great distance prevents the ever so important human presence from occurring. Sound good?</span><span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br />Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=30890193"><strong>Ben'jamin</strong></a> on Sunday, July 02, 2006 at 12:40 PM<br />Thanks B, I cant totally agree, but I do see what you mean. I think that there is a possibility that technology and our work schedules are in part a symptom of fear and our lack of confidants, although I agree that its not the case for everyone. But, the ROOT question here isnt just about that, its the question as to whether we really DO have fewer confidants. And if so, why and how do we fix it (because at least you and I agree that fixing it is necessary). How about the other points in my original entry not directly involving an escape into technology? Are we degrading into a do before you think society? If we do have fewer confidants is it because were afraid we'll be treated like crap?<span family="" serif=""><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=66607347"><strong>B</strong></a> on Thursday, July 06, 2006 at 4:39 PM<br />There are a lot of different ways I could go with this, and to be honest I am not even sure where to start. In fact, I feel limited by the keyboard in front of me from really responding here. Perhaps a good example of what you were referring to earlier. Anyway, I did read over everything from the beginning, and for the most part, I am in complete agreement with you. I'll mention the points that ring most true for me, and then maybe a little bit of where I differ (you know i gotta play devil's advocate).<br /></span></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" ><span weight="" bold="" style="" italic="">"The Do before you think society"</span><br /><br /> Unfortunately I agree. It's pretty sad too. Like you said above: Nothing is their fault or responsibility ... Expectation replacing Etiquette ... and No One thinking before they act. I see this all around me, and it makes me sick. And you are right about past generations being nothing like this. But how do we remedy this or is it too late?<br /><br /> The only place where I disagree is that i don't blame the internet, cellphones, or whatever new ipod is on the market. I blame the parents. Children are a product of their home environment, and if you got lazy ass parents who don't give a damn ... well you got a whole generation of kids doing the same. But that's a whole different discussion all together.<br /><br /> <span weight="" bold="" style="" italic="">"The Crazy Work Schedule"<span style="" italic=""><span weight="" bold=""><br /><br /> </span></span></span>Yup, nothing like a good 9-5 routine to really tear at a friendship. I too have made friends at the office, but what about those that came before the job. I used to be in really good contact with my buds from college but each year the communication gets less and less and I think that the fact of us all having different jobs with different schedules has a lot to do with it. But what can be done about this? We got bills to pay right? And although e-mail is keeping our friendship on "life support" ... its only a matter of time till the plug gets pulled if you know what I mean.<br /><br /> <span weight="" bold="" style="" italic="">"FEAR"<br /><br /> </span>This is what I'm not so sure about. Afraid to make friends? or Afraid to keep em? or Afraid of something else? I am not quite following you completely on this, and perhaps I could use a little further explanation on your part before I give my opinion. Because i got one cookin on the burner, but I just want to make sure I'm in the right kitchen.<br /><br /> So to finish up. I agree. We do have fewer friends. And all I need to do is look in the mirror for an example of that. Whether it be the combination of today's society or work schedules ... well ... I think that varies with each person. Everybody has their own issues or reasons. But the fact remains, the circle is shrinking, and its up to the individual to decide if they are comfortable with those diminishing numbers.</span><span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;" >Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=30890193"><strong>Ben'jamin</strong></a> on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 11:43 AM<br />Thanks B. Ah-ha, but we DO agree! I don't think technology is the cause either, I just think its rise in POPULARITY is evidence that we're not trying as hard to make and keep close friends. Listening to tunes on the bus is nothing new, heck I did it when I was in college. The thing is, I was the only one doing it. Now, there are many more people tuning in to devices and not mixing with the folks around them. Uncomfortable chit-chat that might just make your day... you know, like finding out that lady beside you is actually a dude... is lost. Chatting online with strangers more than you talk to your friends is also something that has gained popularity. Overall, technology does have an effect on society but, like you're saying, if the quality of parenting was there, it could not have an ill effect. Since the parenting is indeed poor, technology has become a distraction and an excuse. Everything in Moderation is becoming Everything in Excess.<br /><br />Can we pull out of this dive to doomsville? Hmm. First step in problem solving, identify the problem. What was the situation that led to today's poor parents? I think the latter half of the Baby Boomer Generation marks the decline. Civil rights, the anti war movement and women's lib were huge societal changes. My parents were of the first half of the Boomers, the "Hippies," who railed against any establishment, but still tried to teach their children solid values. However, the second half of their generation represents a conservative backlash which became the "Yuppies." This is where everything gets interesting. After a time of relative piece following Vietnam, it was like all of a sudden we had freedom AND money. I'd have to research it to say for sure, but I think this was the real birth of Corporate America and we entered what became known as the Excessive 80's. Yuppies were all about being everything to everyone and wanted to attain an extravagant lifestyle by any means necessary. With the supposed rules for women rightfully dashed, they also left the home and pursued the high life. With parents so busy with work and parties, they left the parenting to schools, nannies and TV. With the Yuppies came increases in divorce, binge drinking, alcoholism, violent crime, domestic violence, teen pregnancy, abortion, pornography, cocaine and crack use, credit cards, bank loans, inflation and the national debt. WOW! It's sure is something to line all that up (and I'm sure I'm missing a lot). So, like you said B, they were lazy/absent parents and their children grew up to repeat the process (described at length above). Can we fix it? I'm thinking so. How? I have no idea! Robert Frost might say one way is to be a good neighbor. These days it's like we're all keeping an eye out for pedophiles and terrorists. We're all closed up and suspicious; focused on the negative possibilities (and don't realize that being open and confident scares off many kinds of criminals). Personally, I've learned to combat this pervasive dark mood with a smile and a wave. I learned it from an elderly couple on their morning stroll who I used to pass every day on the way to work (they wave at every car and why not?).<br /><br />Now, since you asked if there is anything we can do, I'm going to go out on a limb here and share one of the problems I think exists and partial remedy I believe in. Focusing on the negative isn't something new, but I think it's more popular especially since 9-11. Right now we're bombarded with bad news about war, scandal, disease and obesity and most of the shows on TV are serious cop shows and courtroom dramas about heinous crimes with gross imagery. The movie theater has been packed with serious dramas and it seems the fun films haven't been able to break the trend like Star Wars did in the 70's. Even comic books over the last 10-15 years have been darker. Cartoons on TV for girls like "Bratts" are showing girls unhealthy habits. More video games go farther into senseless violence and deviant behavior. Much of the popular music today is all about ME and no longer about US. I'm not saying that any of these things should stop or that they are the cause of the general degradation of society, but I do think they affect us at least in little ways. The Toltecs tell us that words have power. If you repeatedly call yourself stupid, you're apt to believe it. We're exposed to more information than ever and I think filling our day with harsh news and unhealthy habits is having an effect on all of us an especially on those who are not equipped to deal with it. Why should we keep submitting ourselves to all these negative vibes? I think the news is important, but we have to be able to process it. Cop shows on TV and hard hitting dramas on the big screen are fine, but why not invest in more fun shows and movies? Great Scott! Wedding Crashers did AMAZINGLY at the box office last summer! Isn't that telling us something? And I guess that somewhere in the fun we fit in the healthy little lessons that we have been missing, we put in a little inspiration and we cultivate a little optimism. I mean, when I was a kid, the shows and films blew my mind. Star Trek, Doctor Who, MacGyver, Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future-- those are like candy to the overactive imagination! What have kids had lately? 2 Fast 2 Furious? Law and Order SVU? I'm certainly not saying there's no fun content out there, there's Stargate SG-1, Num3ers, Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, Superman to name a few, but we need MORE. Dramatic content is most definitely necessary and there is some great stuff out there. I just think a little more focusing on the good side of humanity might help us out. Too much drama and I think people start emulating it-- even soap opera drama. So, what I'm saying is if we can avoid being overwhelmed by negativity, it may allow us to open up and find the solutions to our problems/issues. Terry Goodkind repeats the lesson in his novels that in order to solve a problem you ultimately have to focus on solving it or you'll dwell on the problem itself and get overwhelmed. An unfortunate and wide spread example is beating yourself up because you're overweight. Heck, I've done it! But, beating yourself up is only going to make matters worse. We have to look beyond our perception and see the reality. Reality is what you make it and it's important that you alone control it. Media, corporations, businesses, governments and all the people you associate with have the power to influence your perception and that's why it's so important that you find yourself, you find your own reality and then you can identify and filter these attempts to influence you. So, I say it MAY help if we stop surrounding ourselves with negativity and emphasize a little more on the positive. Suddenly I feel like an old Disney movie. If we all spend less time cultivating the dark seeds of doom and creating drama with our loved ones, then think of all the time we'll free up for enjoying life instead!<br /><br />Almost forgot this part... "Fear"<br />By fear I mean afraid to stick your neck out for fear of it getting chopped off. Fear of going out to make new friends and sabotaging the relationships we have. In a chat room or IM, you can release as little or as much information as you wish anonymously and without any risk. And to someone who us afraid of groups, intimacy, the unknown etc, that's very attractive. At times, I've had friends who spent more time talking online than with their friends. They also eventually stopped of their own volition telling me that it's kind of an addiction. I'd venture that what they sort of get addicted' to is simply the thrill you get when meeting new people and when you think someone is listening and understanding. Real communication is a thrilling thing. One reason why the beginning of any kind of relationship is so thrilling is probably because you're communicating with a new person (and all your old jokes are new again!). But OH NO when they turn around and kick you in the shins! Online, it can certainly sting when something goes arwy, but even so, in real life it's always worse. I think most of us have been cheated on, dumped on an excuse, blamed for things we have no control over, we didn't do or didn't know we did/for not being omniscient as well as used, ditched, ignored, blamed for not keeping in touch and stabbed in the back. And it's only natural when you're treated like this (and/or hear horror stories) to be afraid of it happening again. Because of poor parenting, more than ever personal borders are all messed up and emotional issues abound. And a lot of people take it out on their friends and lovers. We repeat our unidentified mistakes, lay booby-traps and stealthily sabotage our relationships and then conveniently blame it on others in an unhealthy cycle. Sometimes I guess we're more afraid of a relationship actually working out than it failing. Or, perhaps instead of simply ending a relationship we don't believe is for the best, we feel the need to twist it and make it the other's fault and end it in a horrible train wreck of emotions (READ: Drama). I can't say I blame anyone for being afraid of that and turning to alternate methods to try and get some companionship, but it's simply SO important that we do connect with others on a personal level. We have to stick our necks out so, hopefully we can realize that we humans are in this together.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Posted by <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=19654523"><strong>Kevin</strong></a> on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 at 1:23 PM<br />Robert Putnam wrote a book about this phenomenon a few years ago called Bowling Alone. He describes how this decline in social capital is problematic not only at an individual level, but is a troubling factor in the way that it can weaken a democracy as well.</span><br /></span>Ben Alpihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349155228789121570noreply@blogger.com0