My friend Jonathan and I thought it would be a good idea to somehow "brand" our projects that we put on YouTube. To do this, we thought that coming up with a pseudo-production company would be a good idea. After writing a list of adjectives and nouns, we came up with Amish Waffle Productions.
As of yesterday, all things related to my film endeavors will be posted on the Amish Waffle blog, the link to which can be found on the right of this very blog. On it, you can find links to all of our videos as well as updated information about what we're doing.
The reason we started this is because Tom Cherones, director of Seinfeld, suggested that we post our test scenes on YouTube because that's where studios are starting to look. So what we are going to try to do is generate a lot of buzz about us and our projects and hope it reaches someone important that would want to make our film. If you get a chance, check it out and tell everyone you know about it. You can help us get our film made.
Thank you so much for all the support you have given me and Jonathan in trying to achieve our dream of making it big in Hollywood.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Movie Review: Cloverfield
As most of you know, I am a huge fan of movies. I have to know what's going on with them all the time. So you can imagine how frustrated I was when I saw the trailer for this film at the end of the past summer. The very first teaser trailer for the film contained only a few scenes from the first few minutes of the film, which hinted towards some disaster that occurs in New York City. Then came a black screen that read "1-18-08", mentioned it was produced by J.J. Abrams, and that was it.So, of course the trailer looked awesome to me. When I got home, I immediately went to IMDb.com to look up the title for the film. I learned that it was called Untitled J.J. Abrams Project. I was furious. I had to know more. I started looking at some forums and looking up stuff about it. All sorts of rumors were going around about it, but no one knew any more than me.
The marketing for this film was outstanding. NO ONE knew what it was about. There were websites that the film company put up that supposedly had clues to what the film was about. Over time, people began to correctly assume that it was a monster film. The question though was what kind. Many had theories that it was a Godzilla remake based on some of the clues, but still, no one could confirm it. Finally, the film company released a new trailer under the title Cloverfield.
Finally, the film has been released, as it is 1-18-08. I wanted to see this movie first thing so I wouldn't know what it was about. I wanted to be surprised. Well, I was.
If you've seen 28 Days Later, then you know how that film revolutionized zombie or apocalyptic films. What it did for that genre, Cloverfield has done for monster films. I don't want to give anything away, but I will say that I thought it was awesome. You never really see the monster clearly until later, but the way they did the film was great. It's made to be a homemade video shot with a DV camcorder, and the story is told from the perspective of a small group of friends.
If you like monster, apocalyptic, or suspense films, you won't be disappointed by this. I saw I Am Legend, and I liked this much, much better. I definitely say check it out.
My Rating: 8.5 out of 10
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Steroid Debate: MLB vs. NFL
Of course the big story right now in regards to steroids is Roger Clemens and the Mitchell Report. Well, I'm going to shy away from that and talk about something else. As I ate lunch today in Bryant Hall, one of the TV was on ESPN and playing at the time was The Best of Mike and Mike in the Morning. They were talking about how the whole Mitchell Report has really kid of overshadowed the fact that steroids is a big problem in sports in general, not just baseball.
I began to wonder, why is this true? How come when anybody mentions just the word "steroids" everyone immediately thinks of baseball? Why is it that so much attention has been put on steroid use in baseball and no other sport, with maybe the exception of cycling? It almost seems like to the public that steroids are a non-issue in other sports.
Mike Golic brought up something that I didn't realize until he said it today. Shawne Merriman, the amazing outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers, was suspended for four games at the beginning of this season after violating the NFL's steroid policy. I don't know why I wasn't aware of this. Maybe it's something I overlooked, or maybe it's because I don't follow the Chargers at all. Also, star defensive back Rodney Harrison of the Patriots received the same penalty for violating the NFL's performance-enhancing drug policy.
My question is this: being a big fan of football in general and following it moreso than any average person, why was I not aware of either of these infractions until today? As I said before, it seems the reason is because simply not as much attention is put on football players that use steroids or HGH as it is on baseball players.
Why?
Golic believes that this is because increased performance from a football player is not as noticeable as it is with a baseball player. As he put it (this is not a direct quote, just what I remember), "Uh-oh! So-and-so hit 50 home runs this year? He could be using steroids!" I guess I can see that point somewhat, but here's another question: why is that only with baseball players? Why is it when Barry Bonds, who is probably a bad example for this, starts hitting a lot of home runs people get suspicious, but when Tom Brady throws 50 TD in a season, or Randy Moss has 23 TD receptions, or LT gets 1,400 yards rushing, or Patrick Willis gets 170 tackles not a single person bats an eye?
You here it all the time when a player starts doing well in baseball, "He's probably using steroids". Why do you not hear this about football?
Here's what I think: the NFL is more strict about it. It isn't a non-issue with football, but I think the reason is because the NFL is tougher about it. Merriman and Harrison missed four games. Four games. That's one-fourth of the games they play in a season. That's equivalent to a baseball player missing 41 games. Until last year, the stiffest punishment a baseball player ever got for violation of a substance abuse policy was 10 games.
They have given 4 50 game suspensions and one 80 game suspension to Neifi Perez, his third positive test. At the start of the 2005 season, the MLB stated that they would allow three positive tests, suspending the players for 50 games, 100 games, and then lifetime banishment. They haven't lived up to what they said they would do.
I'd love for anyone who reads this to chime in on this issue. Just tell me, why do you think the steroid spotlight is only on baseball?
I began to wonder, why is this true? How come when anybody mentions just the word "steroids" everyone immediately thinks of baseball? Why is it that so much attention has been put on steroid use in baseball and no other sport, with maybe the exception of cycling? It almost seems like to the public that steroids are a non-issue in other sports.
Mike Golic brought up something that I didn't realize until he said it today. Shawne Merriman, the amazing outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers, was suspended for four games at the beginning of this season after violating the NFL's steroid policy. I don't know why I wasn't aware of this. Maybe it's something I overlooked, or maybe it's because I don't follow the Chargers at all. Also, star defensive back Rodney Harrison of the Patriots received the same penalty for violating the NFL's performance-enhancing drug policy.
My question is this: being a big fan of football in general and following it moreso than any average person, why was I not aware of either of these infractions until today? As I said before, it seems the reason is because simply not as much attention is put on football players that use steroids or HGH as it is on baseball players.
Why?
Golic believes that this is because increased performance from a football player is not as noticeable as it is with a baseball player. As he put it (this is not a direct quote, just what I remember), "Uh-oh! So-and-so hit 50 home runs this year? He could be using steroids!" I guess I can see that point somewhat, but here's another question: why is that only with baseball players? Why is it when Barry Bonds, who is probably a bad example for this, starts hitting a lot of home runs people get suspicious, but when Tom Brady throws 50 TD in a season, or Randy Moss has 23 TD receptions, or LT gets 1,400 yards rushing, or Patrick Willis gets 170 tackles not a single person bats an eye?
You here it all the time when a player starts doing well in baseball, "He's probably using steroids". Why do you not hear this about football?
Here's what I think: the NFL is more strict about it. It isn't a non-issue with football, but I think the reason is because the NFL is tougher about it. Merriman and Harrison missed four games. Four games. That's one-fourth of the games they play in a season. That's equivalent to a baseball player missing 41 games. Until last year, the stiffest punishment a baseball player ever got for violation of a substance abuse policy was 10 games.
They have given 4 50 game suspensions and one 80 game suspension to Neifi Perez, his third positive test. At the start of the 2005 season, the MLB stated that they would allow three positive tests, suspending the players for 50 games, 100 games, and then lifetime banishment. They haven't lived up to what they said they would do.
I'd love for anyone who reads this to chime in on this issue. Just tell me, why do you think the steroid spotlight is only on baseball?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Softball or Baseball... Which is harder to hit?
I'm a big fan of shows like Mythbusters on Discovery, where they take common "myths" and put them to the test. I was informed of this clip by my roommate. It's from the show Sports Science on FSN, which seems to be the sports version of Mythbusters. In this episode, they try to settle the old debate between men and women's claims: Is it harder to hit a softball or a baseball. Before I make my opinion known, watch the following clip and form your own opinion.
After watching this, I have a few comments of my own to make.
One, the equipment is totally different. For one, a softball is BIGGER than a baseball. Basic physics and common sense would tell you that you have a better chance of making any form of contact with a larger object. A regulation size softball is around 11-12 inches in circumference, depending on the level of play, while a baseball is 9. Also, the bats. MLB uses a standard solid wood bat to hit while softball uses a bat made out of composite alloys. The simple truth is that it's more difficult to just swing a standard 36-ounce major league bat.
Two, the greater the force, the harder to hit? Are you kidding me? That simply isn't true. If that were the case then no one would ever have trouble shellacking a change-up into the upper deck. Of course Finch's pitch broke the glass. It's a larger object at closer range travelling at a high speed. That's a recipe for destruction.
Three, and my biggest point, the competition was neither fair or comparable. On baseball's side, there is a college pitcher and a Diamondbacks prospect. Then, for softball, there's world class softball pitcher Jennie Finch. Are you kidding me? A 95 mph fastball in baseball is pretty common. A 70 mph fastball in softball is rare. She is one of the absolute best in the world. To have to amateurs representing baseball is not fair. How come they don't have a great softball hitter going against Jake Peavy? To compare the two highest levels of softball and baseball (Olympic and MLB) you must have them both represented.
Somebody on the comments for this video on YouTube made the comment that some softball pitcher struck out Reggie Jackson 3 times. Good for them. So did about 500 other pitchers nearly 2,600 times. He is the all time leader in strikeouts. And, of course the baseball guy couldn't hit the ball. He's not used to the release point. It would be the same story for any hitter for a matter of time. Give them a little while, and I'm positive they could hit it.
In conclusion, I do not think their answer is necessarily correct. It would be difficult to prove either to be more difficult, because they both are. The tests they did were not very fair and just seemed to want to allow Finch's claim to be proven correct since she was on the show. In my opinion, a baseball is more difficult to hit. As I said, I don't think they did enough conclusive tests.
Nonetheless, it is an interesting discussion topic. I'd love for you to chime in on this in the comments.
After watching this, I have a few comments of my own to make.
One, the equipment is totally different. For one, a softball is BIGGER than a baseball. Basic physics and common sense would tell you that you have a better chance of making any form of contact with a larger object. A regulation size softball is around 11-12 inches in circumference, depending on the level of play, while a baseball is 9. Also, the bats. MLB uses a standard solid wood bat to hit while softball uses a bat made out of composite alloys. The simple truth is that it's more difficult to just swing a standard 36-ounce major league bat.
Two, the greater the force, the harder to hit? Are you kidding me? That simply isn't true. If that were the case then no one would ever have trouble shellacking a change-up into the upper deck. Of course Finch's pitch broke the glass. It's a larger object at closer range travelling at a high speed. That's a recipe for destruction.
Three, and my biggest point, the competition was neither fair or comparable. On baseball's side, there is a college pitcher and a Diamondbacks prospect. Then, for softball, there's world class softball pitcher Jennie Finch. Are you kidding me? A 95 mph fastball in baseball is pretty common. A 70 mph fastball in softball is rare. She is one of the absolute best in the world. To have to amateurs representing baseball is not fair. How come they don't have a great softball hitter going against Jake Peavy? To compare the two highest levels of softball and baseball (Olympic and MLB) you must have them both represented.
Somebody on the comments for this video on YouTube made the comment that some softball pitcher struck out Reggie Jackson 3 times. Good for them. So did about 500 other pitchers nearly 2,600 times. He is the all time leader in strikeouts. And, of course the baseball guy couldn't hit the ball. He's not used to the release point. It would be the same story for any hitter for a matter of time. Give them a little while, and I'm positive they could hit it.
In conclusion, I do not think their answer is necessarily correct. It would be difficult to prove either to be more difficult, because they both are. The tests they did were not very fair and just seemed to want to allow Finch's claim to be proven correct since she was on the show. In my opinion, a baseball is more difficult to hit. As I said, I don't think they did enough conclusive tests.
Nonetheless, it is an interesting discussion topic. I'd love for you to chime in on this in the comments.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
NFL Playoffs: Round 2
I'm psyched about this year's NFL playoffs. The main reason being that my Packers got a first round bye this year. I thought I'd share my picks and opinions about the 2nd round coming up this weekend since I am now back at school and I got my computer up and running again. Let's start it up with the Powerhouse AFC:
Jaguars at Colts: Jaguars did what many expected and that was to beat the Steelers. They play a very physical game and that was evident in last week's game. It's two completely different teams playing each other. The Jags are a very hard-nosed team. They run the ball well and are physical on defense. The Colts are the opposite. They are very much finesse on offense and rely on their passing game a lot. If the Colts can stop the combo of Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew, they will win.
My Pick: Colts by 10
Chargers at Patriots: This is a pretty interesting game. Chargers have been on fire as of late and everyone knows about the Patriots. This is the time that the Patriots have to show that they deserve to be in talk amongst the great teams in history. The Chargers have a few good things going for them. Rivers has played well lately and LT is the NFL's rushing leader. The Chargers defense isn't too bad either. However, the Patriots are vastly talented. The Chargers would have to play out of their minds to win.
My Pick: Patriots by 14
Now for the NFC:
Giants at Cowboys: If there is one team that has been on a huge slide lately, it's the Cowboys. I'm not blaming Jessica though. Every team is bound to have a few bad games here and there. Unfortunately for Dallas, it was the last two of the season. Still, Romo is a great quarterback, even though many thought last year could have been a fluke. He's got a pretty good recieving core as well, in TO and Terry Glenn may be back for this game. They also have an exceptional run defense. Eli has been playing well as of late, but it's easier to predict weather patterns than Eli Manning. At their best, the Giants could possibly get to the Super Bowl, but they are too inconsistant. With that said, I would not be too surprised to see the Giants win in Dallas. It's hard to beat the same team three times in one season.
My Pick: Cowboys by 4
Seahawks at Packers: Yes, the Seahawks defense looked good against the Redskins.... the Redskins. The 15th ranked offense in the NFL. Let's see how they do against the 2nd ranked offense. The Seahawks are a pretty well balanced team. Good offensive line, good rushing game with Alexander, and a solid passing attack with Hasselbeck. But the Packers are better. The Packer OL has allowed only 19 sacks on the season, the third fewest in the NFL (bested only by the Bengals and the Saints). Seattle: 36. Favre hasn't statistically played this well since the 96-97 era when the Pack went to the Super Bowl two years in a row. He has the best pass completion percentage in his career. He has, arguably, the best recieving core in the NFL, led by Donald Driver, the most underrated WR in the league. Ryan Grant started 10 games this season and played in 12 and has nearly 1,000 yards rushing, more than Alexander (716) and Morris (628) and they both played more games than him. He averages more yards per carry (5.1) and has as many touchdowns as the two combined (8). The Packers defense is 100 times better than last year. Aaron Kampman might be The Terminator, the linebackers are strong with Barnett and Hawk, and the DBs led by Al Harris and Charles Woodson are great. Oh, and God is a Packers/Brett Favre fan. So, there's my case, Jason Bybee. It'll still be a good game.
My Pick: Packers by 10.
As you can see, home field is a big deal in the playoffs as I have all 4 home teams winning. As I said, the one upset that wouldn't surprise me: Giants over Dallas. If my picks hold up, it should be two interesting championship games.
Jaguars at Colts: Jaguars did what many expected and that was to beat the Steelers. They play a very physical game and that was evident in last week's game. It's two completely different teams playing each other. The Jags are a very hard-nosed team. They run the ball well and are physical on defense. The Colts are the opposite. They are very much finesse on offense and rely on their passing game a lot. If the Colts can stop the combo of Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew, they will win.
My Pick: Colts by 10
Chargers at Patriots: This is a pretty interesting game. Chargers have been on fire as of late and everyone knows about the Patriots. This is the time that the Patriots have to show that they deserve to be in talk amongst the great teams in history. The Chargers have a few good things going for them. Rivers has played well lately and LT is the NFL's rushing leader. The Chargers defense isn't too bad either. However, the Patriots are vastly talented. The Chargers would have to play out of their minds to win.
My Pick: Patriots by 14
Now for the NFC:
Giants at Cowboys: If there is one team that has been on a huge slide lately, it's the Cowboys. I'm not blaming Jessica though. Every team is bound to have a few bad games here and there. Unfortunately for Dallas, it was the last two of the season. Still, Romo is a great quarterback, even though many thought last year could have been a fluke. He's got a pretty good recieving core as well, in TO and Terry Glenn may be back for this game. They also have an exceptional run defense. Eli has been playing well as of late, but it's easier to predict weather patterns than Eli Manning. At their best, the Giants could possibly get to the Super Bowl, but they are too inconsistant. With that said, I would not be too surprised to see the Giants win in Dallas. It's hard to beat the same team three times in one season.
My Pick: Cowboys by 4
Seahawks at Packers: Yes, the Seahawks defense looked good against the Redskins.... the Redskins. The 15th ranked offense in the NFL. Let's see how they do against the 2nd ranked offense. The Seahawks are a pretty well balanced team. Good offensive line, good rushing game with Alexander, and a solid passing attack with Hasselbeck. But the Packers are better. The Packer OL has allowed only 19 sacks on the season, the third fewest in the NFL (bested only by the Bengals and the Saints). Seattle: 36. Favre hasn't statistically played this well since the 96-97 era when the Pack went to the Super Bowl two years in a row. He has the best pass completion percentage in his career. He has, arguably, the best recieving core in the NFL, led by Donald Driver, the most underrated WR in the league. Ryan Grant started 10 games this season and played in 12 and has nearly 1,000 yards rushing, more than Alexander (716) and Morris (628) and they both played more games than him. He averages more yards per carry (5.1) and has as many touchdowns as the two combined (8). The Packers defense is 100 times better than last year. Aaron Kampman might be The Terminator, the linebackers are strong with Barnett and Hawk, and the DBs led by Al Harris and Charles Woodson are great. Oh, and God is a Packers/Brett Favre fan. So, there's my case, Jason Bybee. It'll still be a good game.
My Pick: Packers by 10.
As you can see, home field is a big deal in the playoffs as I have all 4 home teams winning. As I said, the one upset that wouldn't surprise me: Giants over Dallas. If my picks hold up, it should be two interesting championship games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
