Godzilla 2014: Why Everyone Should Be Excited

Last week, my dreams came true. That which I had waited so long for finally happened:

I got to see the first teaser for the newest Godzilla movie.

The film, slated for a May 2014 release, has been steadily building hype since its announcement. Having (hopefully) learned from the giant shit-storm that was Roland Emmerich's 1998 film of the same name, Legendary Pictures went about recruiting an amazing cast and crew. We have some serious acting talent on board with this project, not the least of which is Bryan Cranston, best known for his flawless performance in the excellent television show Breaking Bad.

But what really has me excited is the director, Gareth Edwards. Edwards is best known for his 2009 ultra-low budget sci-fi film Monsters. With this film, Edwards demonstrated several qualities that make him an ideal for Godzilla. He clearly has a deep love for the kaiju genre, as well as an ability to portray a giant monster story in a believable and emotionally impacting way. But most importantly, he showed an affinity for character-driven stories, something that has been sorely missing from the genre for quite some time.

Then there's the trailer. The 90 second teaser was not an official release, and was removed within a few days. In those few days, I probably watched the teaser fifty times.

It looks amazing.

The tone is appropriately grim, with the addition of Oppenheimer's words regarding the creation of the atomic bomb striking the tone. The trailer shows some serious destruction: Buildings with holes torn through them, a cityscape in ruins, a flattened train with what look like dead bodies strewn about. Maybe most importantly, it also shows the body of some giant, multi-armed creature, that Godzilla has presumably fought and destroyed. And when Oppenheimer says the famous words "I have become death, destroyer of worlds," Godzilla emerges from the dust and roars. And when he roars, it's the roar. Even more exciting, the design for this new Godzilla, while certainly updated, looks more or less true to the original design.

Here's what we've learned from this trailer>: For one, it looks like Edwards is definitely not shying away from death, destruction, and darkness. Furthermore, we can see that Godzilla will be fighting another monster at some point in the film. We also see a potential for the continued exploration of Godzilla as a metaphor for atomic war, as seen in the inclusion of the Oppenheimer quote. And, of course, we see that the Godzilla of the film will be recognizable as true to the original concept and design.

Now, I know that a great teaser does not a great film make. For example, I remember being blown away by the Man of Steel trailer, but ended up feeling only so-so about the film. But, based on everything that we've heard from the people working on the film, and based on the track record of those people, I think it's safe to have some pretty high expectations.

-Michael Weiss

Kidnapped Whales And Conundrums

This is gonna be a long one, guys.

Recently, the Georgia Aquarium applied for a permit to import 18 wild-caught beluga whales from Russia to their facility. The permit was denied by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) on the grounds that the Georgia Aquarium failed to show that the capture of these whales would "not have an adverse effect on the species or stock," that the permit would not result in the taking of the marine mammals "beyond those authorized by permit," and that none of the whales were of an age that they were still dependent on their mother. The Georgia Aquarium is currently going to court to contest NOAA's denial of their request.

During the public comment period, there was a huge public outcry from animal rights groups, urging NOAA to deny the permit. The reasons were varied, but most fell into three categories:
1. Concern for the physical welfare of the animals involved.
2. Concern for the mental welfare of the animals involved.
3. Concern for the population of whales as a whole.
4. Moral problems with keeping whales in captivity.

NOAA itself expressed and acted on concern for the population as a whole. So instead, I will examine the other three points.

The Georgia Aquarium responded with a lengthy rebuttal to nearly all the comments, or at least all of the arguments presented in the comments. Their counterpoints are worthy of some analysis.
To the first concern: The Georgia Aquarium, unlike Sea World and other marine parks, has an excellent record of marine mammal care in regards to physical health. While there have been two deaths of adult whales at the aquarium, these were both animals with compromised health. Furthermore, belugas, unlike killer whales, seem to be fairly physically resilient to captivity. While there are, of course, still health concerns, these are not the greatest issues.

The second concern is more serious. The mental health of the animals is maybe the greatest concern in marine parks and aquariums. Evidence is stacking up that, at least for killer whales, captivity causes stress to the point of possible psychosis. This stems from the psychological trauma of capture and subsequent confined spaces where they lack the strong social group that they would experience in the wild. The Georgia Aquarium correctly asserts that belugas, unlike orcas, live in fluid social groups, rather than tight family units. However, they incorrectly assume that this naturally fluid social structure therefore means that social groups forced upon them by captivity are perfectly sufficient substitutes. We understand very little about what principles underlie the formation of beluga pods. Just because they are not static does not mean that they are arbitrarily constructed. Furthermore, while space is undoubtedly less of an issue for belugas than for orcas, it is still an issue that must be considered, and is never fully addressed by the aquarium. Belugas are slower and smaller than orcas, but they still travel in the wild.

There is also the fact that whales and dolphins exhibit neurotic, repetitive behavior in captivity, which is evidence of mental problems and stress. The Georgia Aquarium claims that this is no longer an issue in aquariums, but cites no evidence to support this claim. From personal experience with marine parks and aquariums, I can say that I have observed beluga whales neurotically swimming in the same path repeatedly for long durations in both the Shedd Aquarium and Sea World Orlando.

We must also consider the trauma of the capture itself. While supposedly not physically harmful, we can't discount the possible psychological trauma of the capture.

These pictures are from the permit request from the Georgia Aquarium, and depict the actual capture of the belugas. While I see no sign of lasting physical trauma, the act of immobilizing and man-handling an animal for a prolonged duration of time is potentially quite traumatizing to an animal with the emotional and memory capacities of whales. While its true that the aquarium itself did not capture the whales, by purchasing the whales from the Russian entity that did they would be implicitly condoning their actions, and by issuing the permit the government would as well.

Then there's the issue of the moral problems with keeping whales and dolphins in captivity. Keep in mind that this permit would not only have brought 18 more whales into captivity in the United States, but was also for the expressed purpose of increasing the breeding population in captivity, therefore prolonging the existence of a captive population of beluga whales. It is true that the Georgia Aquarium is not a for-profit organization, and has also been involved with a great deal of research into marine mammals. Unlike with Sea World, I do not necessarily see Georgia Aquarium's treatment of whales and dolphins as pure exploitation. They argue for the necessity of research and education in captivity, and seem sincere. I have doubts about the impact that captive education has on people, especially compared to field education, as well as doubts about the validity of studies done on possibly traumatized captive animals, but I do not see any attempt to mislead us in these claims. I do, however, see a distinct lack of regard for the intelligence, self-awareness, and emotional capabilities of these whales. While the emotional capabilities of belugas are not as well studied as those of orcas, the presence of spindle cells and a part of the brain responsible for empathy would imply some emotional depth to their existence. I see no reason why belugas should not be given some degree of the same moral consideration that I have argued we give to orcas in previous posts, making it morally unacceptable to keep them against their will in an unnatural environment.

Even if we limit our moral protection to the highest functioning species of marine mammal (which I'm not suggesting we do), this exchange is still unacceptable. The reason is a little snippet of information in the original Russian permit for the capture of these whales.

The same capture permit that allowed the taking of 25 beluga whales also allowed the capture of two killer whales, animals that I have and will continue to argue should be given the same moral standing as human beings, given their extreme degree of intellectual, social, and emotional development. As I have stated previously, to buy animals from this entity is to condone its actions, and for the government to allow that purchase when they could have prevented it is tantamount to the same.

I don't think the Georgia Aquarium is a fundamentally bad organization. I believe they genuinely think that having whales in captivity is necessary for education and research that will help the whales long term. I simply disagree with the notion that the possible benefit to the species over time will balance out with the moral cost of keeping whales in captivity, where they are potentially put in a mentally unhealthy situation. I am also generally repulsed by the taking of cetaceans from the wild.

I also recognize that the government's legal reasons for denying the permit are different from the reasons I give for why the whales should not be imported.

The tank that the captured belugas are currently being housed in.

However there is still a difficult question here: What happens to the belugas if they are not sold to the Georgia Aquarium? They are currently held in a tank that is much too small to be humane, and all evidence points to this in no way being a permanent condition. Some fear that they will (or already have been) sold to marine parks in China. Surely they would be better off at Georgia Aquarium than in China. But at the same time we must consider the ultimate moral goal, which is the elimination of captive programs for cetaceans, a goal which their import would set back. So what do you do when there is a valid argument to be made either way? There are no perfect solutions. A petition is currently underway to try to get the whales released as soon as possible, but only time will tell if it can be effective. In a perfect world, the Georgia Aquarium would have bought the whales with the expressed purpose of rehabilitation and release. However, in the world we live in, we're left with this:

18 kidnapped whales and no easy answers.

Blackfish, Sea World, and Moral Duty

I grew up an avid lover of sea life. I also grew up in central Florida. That meant one thing, of course: Sea World. It was a tradition. Every month or so my grandparents would take me and my siblings to Orlando, where we would watch sharks and feed dolphins and have a generally great time. But the high point of the day, of course, was the orca show. It's hard to deny the urge to cheer as you watch a 20 foot long, six thousand pound animal leap from the water, returning to its surface with a splash that leaves the first ten rows of the stadium soaked. These trips were the first time I met Tilikum, the 12,000 lbs subject of the new documentary, Blackfish.

Blackfish takes a hard, often painful look at the business of entertainment killer whales. I highly suggest seeing the film for yourself, as it is an extremely well crafted, informative documentary that manages to also serve as a tense thriller, but I am going to talk more about the ideas presented than the film's cinematic aspects. Through analysis of years of evidence and expert testimony, the film draws the general conclusion that keeping orcas in captivity for the purpose of entertainment is not only dangerous, but inhumane, and ultimately unacceptable.

I grew up a Sea World kid. My love for whales kept me coming back month after month after month. That same love has driven me to work with whales in some capacity for almost my entire life, and I plan on keeping it that way. Unfortunately, the more you learn about orcas, the more you begin to understand the severity of the cruelty on display at Sea World and marine parks like it.

As most people know, orcas and other dolphins are highly intelligent animals. Their problem solving skills are incredible, and new studies suggest that orcas in particular have the highest brain to body mass ratio of any animal other than humans. Beyond simple intelligence, orcas  also appear to have the most complex, deeply engrained social structure of any animal, typically living in highly stable, close family groups. This amazing degree of social organization is bolstered by a communication system that shows all the signs of being a form of language, with separate communities having completely different vocabularies, and the pods within those communities having their own dialects. What's more, orcas' neuroanatomy allows for extremely deep emotional lives, with not only a part of the brain assosciated with empathy, but also an extra emotional center that humans do not even possess. These facts have led me, and many others in the field, to suggest that dolphins in general, and orcas in particular, are more accurately thought of as "non-human persons," with the same moral standing that we would give a human being.

Orcas are not made for captivity. They are very large, very social animals that can travel over a hundred miles in a day over an extremely wide range. Their reliance on tight family with the same vocabulary probably leads to difficulty communicating in captivity, where the whales are all from different communities all around the world. There is strongly believed to be an increase in violent "bullying" behavior among captive killer whales, as the less dominant animals have nowhere to retreat to when violence does break out. This is in addition to the known stress related health problems and reduced lifespans of captive orcas.

It is not possible to keep orcas in captivity in a humane way; not only because there is no tank in the world large enough to be humane, not just because there is no way for us to create a satisfactory social unit out of the mismatch of whales currently being held in captivity. The very act of keeping orcas in captivity is, in and of itself, inhumane.

The most popular defense of marine parks is what I call the education argument. This argument states, that while keeping orcas in captivity may not serve the captive animal's best interests, it's worth it to educate people and get them interested in protecting orcas in the wild. The general idea of this argument is very utilitarian: while it's bad for the few, it's ultimately good for the many.

There are serious doubts in the scientific community as to whether or not visiting zoos and aquariums actually effects a visitors attitude towards the environment, and, as Blackfish shows, the information given out at Sea World is often very far from the truth. But beyond that, the moral basis of thi argument itself is objectionable. The idea that it is acceptable to imprison and mistreat an extremely self aware, intelligent, empathetic, and sentient creature because someone watching them might decide they want to help their wild counterparts is ludicrous and insulting. Put into human terms, it is the equivolent of saying the mistreatment and permanent imprisonment of a member of a human demographic for public exhibition is morally acceptable because it might inspire someone, somewhere, to try and make a difference.

The other defense that is often used is that of scientific inquiry. Again, there are those who doubt the validity of behavioral studies done on captive orcas, considering that it is tantamount to doing human behavioral studies in a psych ward for deeply disturbed individuals and hoping to see the norm of human behavior. Beyond that, however, there lies another moral argument. Again, if put into human terms, which I'm suggesting is necessary when discussing killer whales, is it morally justifiable to imprison and mistreat a person without cause or consent if their suffering could lead to scientific progress?

Like I said, I grew up a Sea World kid. I already loved whales before visiting the park, but I'm sure going to Sea World had some impact on my decisions to continue to pursue a career with whales and dolphins. Do I think that this is the experience of the majority of Sea World attendees? Absolutely not.
Would I give up my life-long passion for whales and dolphins if it meant that the orcas that are currently imprisoned were given a chance at a better life, outside of a concrete fishbowl?

In a heartbeat.

If you are a parent, and want to get your kids excited about marine life, I urge you to take them somewhere like the San Juan Islands, where they can watch orcas and other whales how they were meant to be seen: in the open water, with their families, and most importantly, free.

-Michael Weiss  

Light Painting

With some lengthy exposure, a variety of flashlights, and a collection particularly enthusiastic creatives, we managed to produce some glowing results. Et voila!

We got the idea to do a "ghost effect." This consisted of two parts: a solid looking "dead body," and a transparent ghost image. It took some trial and error.

We didn't think these two had a solid enough "body" portion.

We finally got it down, with some heavy duty light on the "body" and a blueish flashlight on the "ghost."

Three Mikes is really more than any of us could handle.

Alien abduction, or divine experience?

#ArmorLock

Thoughts (and hopes) on the Blackmagic pocket cinema camera. By: JosephBarrett

Hey guys! I wanted to talk about Blackmagic Designs newest addition to its family of cameras. "The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera". First, lets go over some technical specs... The camera uses a mirrorless super 16 sensor to shoot Lossless Cinema RAW and Apple ProRes 42 High def video at an effective definition of 1920 x 1080p (which is absolutely amazing for a camera that fits in your palm) and with 13 stops of dynamic range.  As far as glass, It has an active MFT (Micro four thirds) mount. Micro four thirds aren't exactly a common consumer lens to my knowledge, but there are plenty adapters so you can use your own glass on the mount if you own something like Canon or Nikon lenses . It has an integrated microphone, although it is recommended you use a high quality external microphone (As early reports suggest the internal microphones quality isn't amazing...

The first thing you might ask about this camera is. What does RAW mean? Unlike ucompressed video, Raw footage is the pure data out of the image sensor which, until run through a program like "RedCine-X" or "Adobe Camera Raw" wont look like anything, whereas most cameras process this into a usable image for you. You'll get high quality files but they wont look right at first. The white balance will look odd and there wont be set color temperature at which point you can bring your footage into a program like Blackmagics Davinci Resolve and color correct to get beautiful, full detail, cinematic looking footage as seen in the images below from Blackmagic designs website.

Raw Wide dynamic range. 

Final Color graded shot.

As far as actual design goes, you would never guess this little thing could produce video like this. It looks like a little power shot or something at first glance. But the camera body is supposedly nice and rugged with a full metal shell, convenient removable battery, good array of ports (micro HDMI, Stereo audio input and output, LANC, and 12v  direct power) and standard tripod mount.

I can only speak from what I've read but; The convenience of this camera is just beautiful. It would be perfect for a documentarian. Its active mount means autofocus capabilities and you being able to adapt to whats going on quickly. At first I was a bit dismayed to see it had a mount I had never heard of but with a little research I found MFT lenses can be obtained at some very reasonable price ranges.  I was also very pleased to hear that this thing records right to a standard SD card. I heard that the compatibility is limited though so check the Blackmagic website to see if your cards are compatible. (SanDisk Extreme or ExtremePro recomended)

Overall first thoughts; I REALLY want to pick one of these cameras up. In a price range of $1000, its really quite attainable for someone who wants to up the quality of their footage from a standard DSLR or basic camcorder. The progression in technology for these cameras over the past few years has been incredible to watch and this is just the latest in a line that im sure will keep progressing and improving. And Im exited for it. Boom. First entry. Yours truly -Joseph Barrett.

*UPDATE*

This is a little blurb about MFT lenses from 

my friend; Remsen Allard:

*Just some background on micro four thirds lenses, they were pretty much the standard lens for old 16mm film cameras back in the day. So although they aren't around as much anymore, they used to be the creme of the crop. (Some professional film cameras use them.)

Does "Free Willy" Hold Up?

"Does it Hold Up?": A review series where Michael Weiss rewatches the most nostalgic movies of yesteryear and reports back to you, answering the age old question: Is it still any good?

There are few films that defined my childhood as much as the classic tale of a boy and the whale who loved him Free Willy. This story of a troubled youth that forms a bond with an imprisoned orca captured my little boy heart, and left a definite impact on pop culture, with its climax spawning its fair share of parodies and homages. But the question is this: Through that haze of nostalgia and warm fuzzies, is there a good movie? I recently rewatched it to find out.

These posters would be great to have around a locker room.

The film opens with about five minutes of what can only be described as nature cinematography porn, as we are witness to what may be the longest set of establishing shots in history. This sequence only advances the plot to the point of "there are whales, they are in the ocean," but it's beautiful to look at. We then finally see Willy captured by a couple of fishing boats. The animatronic whale looks convincing in this scene, and continues to look pretty indistinguishable from the real thing throughout the film.

We then cut to our protagonist, Jesse, as he wanders the streets ripping people off and stealing their food, and then goes on to have some painfully forced dialogue with a bunch of child actors. Oh, the child actors. There's one hilarious moment as Jesse and his friends run from the cops where Jesse flippantly yells "See ya!" and one of the girls responds "All right, bye!" in the most not-at-all-like-you're-being-chased-by-the-cops voice imaginable. Of course, once Jesse has escaped the police, he stops to graffiti up the place he's holed up in, which just so happens to be the observation room for Willy's tank. He's caught by the cops shortly thereafter.

We are soon introduced to Jesse's new foster parents, Annie and Glen, who are really just there for most of the movie so Jesse can bitch at them every few minutes to remind the audience that he is, in fact, a troubled youth. The entire family drama side of the movie seems tacked on, as if its really just there to give the movie an emotional center beyond the relationship between the titular creature and our main character.

Anyways, Jesse begins his probation cleaning up his graffiti, which seems like it would really only take a couple of days at the most, but whatever. Moving on.

I mean, how bad is it, really?

At this job, Jesse meets Randolph and Rae, who are both too stiffly acted and under characterized for us to care about, but they do give Jesse someone to talk to who's not a marine mammal. Of course, we all know the next part of the story. Jesse learns that Willy is a problem child, just like him. Naturally, he and Jesse form a deep bond. This relationship remains endearing to me. The symmetry between Jesse and Willy is done in a way that isn't too in your face but is still easily picked up on. Their interactions are somehow believable, but so impossible that it just makes you smile. I still grin like an idiot when Willy starts following Jesse around the pool.

If you don't think this is adorable then you are some kind of soulless hellbeast.

Jesse becomes Willy's trainer, giving us one of the best movie training montages this side of the Rocky franchise. Watching Willy, played by the late Keiko, in action is enjoyable regardless of plot, and its hard to deny the whale's raw charisma. There's also the occasional random exclamation from Jesse ("Haha, yeah, alright!") that serves to remind you that you are, in fact, watching a kid's movie from the '90s.

This all leads up to an ultimately failed public show, in which Willy comes down with a serious case of stage frighten-the-children. This scene is still legitamately heartbreaking, especially after the amazing montage that leads up to it. Of course, the emotional effect is undermined slightly by Jesse throwing yet another tantrum, eliciting more annoyance than actual sympathy.

Naturally, one bad show is enough for the evil capitalist park owner to decide they better kill the whale to collect the insurance money. Now, I'm not saying that Free Willy is anti-capitalist propoganda. I'm just saying that it would make really good anti-capitalist propoganda if someone wanted to interpret it that way. Which I do. Anyways, the park owner starts draining the whale tank, so Jesse and Randolph decide to (drumroll)... FREE WILLY. I had somehow forgotten that the line "Let's free Willy!" was actually said in this movie, and I really couldn't help laughing just a little bit.

The quest to free the whale definitely has its triumphant moments, along with some genuine humor. The park owner disbelievingly saying that, of course, they don't have theft insurance on the whale, is pretty fantastic. Later, Glen asks about his stolen truck (and why couldn't they have just asked to borrow it in the first place?) and the gas station attendant asks "Is the whale yours too?", and the group leaves a car wash with the whale, greeted by a casual "Nice whale!" from a passer-by. This is all great. Then there's the satisfying moment when Glen punches the park manager in the face, just like we've all wanted to the whole movie.

This all leads up to that most iconic of scenes, that gold standard for family movie emotional heights, the rock jump. There's a tense set up, an emotional center, and some suspenseful chanting for good measure. Just to make sure you know that what you're about to see is special, Rae makes the comment that Willy has never jumped that high before. This is the moment that I first remember being genuinely excited by a movie. Willy jumps. And guys. Guys. Guys.

It.

Looks.

Terrible.

No.

The CGI as Willy leaves the water is awful, but at least its from a distance. Then Willy passes over Jesse's head, and it looks like the whale is floating, perfectly horizontal, at about 2 mph, as Jesse exclaims "Yeah!"

NO

And then the landing is the same bad CGI as before, but now its closer, and into a splash that clearly has no assosciation with the "whale" that's landing in the water.

NOOO

Look, I know it was 1993. Jurassic Park had just been released a month earlier, and had been the first movie to really show that CGI could be used effectively to represent living things. And, of course, Jurassic Park had a larger budget and a much more visionary group of visual effects artists working on it. I don't expect Free Willy to be Jurassic Park.

But, I mean.

Come on.

The CGI's not the only thing that's dated. There's a very deliberate reference to a computer that now looks like a fossil, a consistently dopey soundtrack, and a forced and oblique anti-drug message all wrapped up in this neat little package.

LOOK WITH YOUR EYES

But here's the thing: When it comes right down to it, I can forgive all these flaws. I can forgive a somewhat flawed script being played by stiff actors. I can forgive some wonky special effects. I can even forgive the sometimes annoying protagonist. I can do this because Free Willy is a remnant of a time when the "Family Drama" was still a genre. It is from a time when Pixar wasn't the only company making decent films for children and adults. A time when family films didn't have to be either fantasy or comedy. A time when a kids story could be just that: a story, with no  awful slapstick humor or flashy colors. And really, when you get right down to it, Free Willy is enjoyable, heartwarming, and fun, and I had a blast rewatching it.

So, does it hold up?

Despite a myriad of flaws assosciated with being a family film from the '90s, yeah, it really does.

Just don't watch the sequels.

How did the animatronic whale actually look better in 1993?

-Michael Weiss