Everybod needs to watch All.I.Can

PeteyG

PeteyG

Active member
Just finished it. Wow. I honestly think it beats Art of Flight because it's purpose of raising environmental awareness is much more valuable than showing the world Trice is a machine, and the riding was gnarly.
Incredible cinematography, I was surprised to see they used cineflex, but then going back and looking at their sponsors, looks like they had a big budget. Their trips were unreal too, i wont even spoil it for you guys by telling you where they went.
P.S. Kye Petersen blew me away
 
their camps had nothing on the one at the hotsprings in AOLN though. and "inb4" someone derides the environmental message... if you watch the film and listen to the words, consider the shots they use, context... actually pay attention to what's being shown and said, they acknowledge the environmental impact of the trips they go on. the speaker clearly explains the wave of influence they're trying to build.
i don't know about better than AOF, but it's definitely one of the most well-thought ski movies i've ever seen. solid riding, solid message, incredibly well presented.
 
It was a great movie. The shots were... incredible. Kind of like mountain biking's "Life Cycles" . However...unfortunately the environmental message is super hypocritical. You simply cannot make an environmentally friendly ski movie.
 
Thanks for pointing that out.

The trailer itself is ridiculous. Filming wind turbines, then doing a timelapse from a helicopter :D Don't get me wrong - great skiing movie, but carries a message as deep as the constant babbling about "life" "flying" and "spirit" in Level1 or PBP movies.
 
that's awesome! good for them. In my humble opinion carbon offset is a joke, but hey, atleast they are doing something.
 
I understand the message and I fully agree that the world

needs to change. However, is it realistic to think a ski movie could accomplish

any of this? I would argue no. There are no easy answers regarding how the

world must make this major transition, these are very complex political and

economic issues. In that sense the movie seems a little short sighted in my humble

opinion.

Apart from the environmental stuff - The skiing and cinematography

in All.I.Can were about as good as it gets. Really enjoyed the focus on

backcountry lifestyle, getting out and touring with friends in the mountains,

taking the time to do it right. It that sense the movie is my favorite of the

year. I will probably buy it for these things.
 
Sorry....They're not saying anything groundbreaking at all. We all know that paying to go up in a heli has an impact on the environment. We know that ski resorts (majority of them) aren't seen to be 100% environmentally friendly.

We know all of this already.

If they wanted to make an impact they wouldn't have gone skiing in remote places. That whole Morocco segment was utterly pointless. There were like three seconds of below-par condition skiing... So you have to ask yourself; how can they be seen as credible when they go and do that? How are they credible when they say ok to going heliskiing (all in the name of spreading the message right? hah)? Want to do an environmental ski movie? Pick an alpine range and do a touring movie there. Anything else will always be hypocritical. Want to make an impact? Change your lightbulbs, be more energy efficient at home, use more environmental products, actually plant trees yourself (in an effective manner), don't make thousands of plastic DVD copies which use copious amount of oil and then transport them all across the world to show how you used even more environmentally-harmful methods and products to enjoy some pow.

This would have been such a great movie if they had just cut the environmental bullshit out. The first ten minutes were fucking dreadful.
 
You need to realize that anyone who is trying to raise public awareness is going to be of some environmental harm. Books use paper which involves cutting down trees, seminars involve travel which involves planes, i guess you could use the internet, but an article on a screen has no substantial value to it.
Yes, it is self referentially absurd to raise environmental protection awareness, but to a market such as our ski community that is very rarely exposed to the dangers our current environment could lead to, there is no better way.
Invest in the long term, not the short
 
Whilst what you've said is valid, it doesn't negate the fact that they travelled to Morocco for no real reason, chose to go heliskiing, when there are many numerous and more innovative ways to have raised awareness without being so hypocritical.

I loved the skiing and cinematography, just not the message and intro.
 
Actually the environmental message wasn't bullshit. The Sherpas used a green market mechanism (GMM) to offset their carbon emissions from the movie.
 
They spent roughly $600 on that, and carbon offsetting is still debated whether its actually helped or not. It's too early to see if it actually helps or not. It's just trendy at the moment.

And what for a message is "it's ok if our actions were detrimental for the environment because we donated to environmental projects to reduce greenhouse gases, but all of you guys.. you need to seriously stop... but we can still go heliskiing."
 
qft!

Haha, btw, do you really use "trendy"? :D That's hilarious, I always thought this was a false friend for German speakers thinking it was English. ^^
 
there was a whole article in the globe and mail about All.I.Can.

i was pretty stoked that skiing was in the newspaper, but i still probably won't buy it.

i don't really care how good it is, big mtn/pow/backcountry stuff just isn't fun to watch for me. the more park/urban the better.
 
I first watched it at a premier in seattle. The skiing was great, but it needed to decided weather it wanted to be a ski film, about skiing, or an inconvenient truth round two. Switching off between the two interrupted the flow of the movie. Honestly it just got me pissed off at the climate change people. That said, the skiing parts of the movie were some of the best portraits of skiing and skiers I have seen. If they cut out the climate change crap it would have been one of the best ski films of all time.

I went home and bought it on itunes. After watching it through, I went back and scrubbed through the whole thing, since I thought something was missing. IT WAS. They axed the whole Treadway sled segment. Which was an awesome segment. I guess it made the movie too hypocritical.

Yes, everyone go watch this movie. But scrub through the climate change bullshit. It was overdone, untrue, and unnecessary.

The skiing is top notch, creative, and incredibly fun to watch. I was either blown away by the skiing, or had a smile on my face the whole time (minus the climate change bitching, which just made me want them to get back to the skiing).
 
I agree and disagree.

I thought the Moroccan segment was great. It really showed why a lot of people ski, and was more then just ski porn.

I agree that the whole movie was pretty darn hypocritical. I also agree that the crap they were saying about the environment is nothing new. It was just overdone.
 
I didn't even notice this.. wow. It was definitely in the movie at the Whistler premier, but definitely not in the version I bought from itunes. Interesting.
 
Climate is cyclical but we have definitely expedited change in an unprecedented way that no other species has done before us. Look at the IPCC findings. We've already surpassed worst case projections for 2010.
 
in the 1970s people thought it was goin to be the new ice age. yeah we need to find alternative sources of energy but wind turbines that are installed do not sustain the energy that they create and even some areas that have wind turbines and you know what those areas have no wind. right there is a waste of time, shit loads of money, oh and they need trucks and cranes to install the fuckers. then the people with the plug in vehicles think they jsut plug their car in and go but where does the power from the outlet come from.................coal........burning......powerplants.......then the prius. the process of making a battery for a hybrid/electric car like the prius is more pollutive than the running life of a hummer.
 
I'm not sure how you can say Al Gore is wrong and global warming is a hoax, some of his data might be wrong but how can you deny "global warming" when things like the Larsen A & B ice shelves have detached and are disintegrating? Or how arctic ice levels are at their lowest recorded and are continuing to melt at an unprecedented rate? Polar bears are actually drowning because the distance between ice flows is now too far for them to swim. Desertification is happening all over the world, storms are more virulent and more frequent than ever. Tornados are occurring in places they have never been witnessed. Pine beetles have infested most of our forest here in BC because we aren't getting regular consecutive nights of -40 required to kill them off in the winter. We're having some of the worst flooding and droughts all over world from SE Asia to the horn of Africa. You can't ignore these things, which are fact.
 
So you're saying we should keep burning coal and watch the world go up in flames instead of trying to find alternative means of producing power where it is effective? Certainly solar and wind power are definitely effective in areas of high solar radiation or wind. Obviously putting up solar panels somewhere like Vancouver would be silly but they are highly effective elsewhere like climates that do receive consistent sun. Some areas also receive constant wind, like the canyon en route to Colorado (on route 6 I believe) from Utah. These turbines are always going full bore when I drive past.

Problem is people are so short sighted and nobody thinks long term. Everything will have up upstart/installation cost, but over the long haul will it be more beneficial than using up finite resources that have a detrimental effect on the climate and air quality?
 
You seam a little uneducated with what you said here. Claiming that to spread awareness of climate and resources results in environmental harm is completely ridiculous.

Yes, books use paper, and yes, we currently use trees to make the majority of our paper. That does not mean that the logging industry can't be a sustainable one. The way we are currently running things, no, it is not sustainable, but it very, very well could be. I won't go too deep into it, but you should look into hemp. The history, modern laws, and the capabilities of the plant are all very interesting. One thing you could do is demand your local logging companies (or state politicians) to start reforesting what you cut down. We've been doing it in Canada for well over 50 years very successfully, we even do the odd contract down in Washington and Idaho, but the amount of planting south of the boarder is pathetic really.

Why does travel need to involve planes? Why couldn't you do a road trip, only using a plane to cross the ocean? Seams like a simple concept to me.

Lastly (I didn't quote it, but whatever), your whole thing about the internet not being a worth while medium for information - dude, do you have any idea what power the internet has? Look at NS! It's bigger and better than any media in the entire ski industry. The whole fad right now with digital books, digital movies, digital music, smart phones, tablets, etc.

You seriously need to rethink how things can and should be done.
 
no im sayin people rub in all this shit of how others should drive hybrids/ electric vehicles yet they dont know the source of the electricity or how the vehicles are made. if the ice cap levels are decreasing then they will increase eventually. people cannot control the earth as meaning the cycles of life.
 
I don't think so no. They ski film has a very obvious and blatant environmental slant and this segment just undermines it, and thereby the film. Whilst the segment on its own might be good, and enjoyable to watch.. it takes away from the movie as a whole. This is ignoring the whole.. TGR has already done this segment before and did a better job thing..
 
The arctic ice levels actually aren't at their lowest ever - NASA is doing a big project right now called "Ice Bridge" studying the ice in Antarctica, Greenland and the Arctic Ocean. They have found that since the last ice age the sea ice of the Arctic Ocean almost completely melted in the summer months and completely rebounded to what we today would call "normal". So the melting we have been seeing the past decade or so has happened before in the past 10 000 years, way worse than today, and has successfully rebounded. (I tried finding a source quickly but couldn't - I can find a source if you really want me to)

Part of the whole reason NASA is going through with Ice Bridge is because we truly don't know what is happening with the ice caps and shelves. As soon as "we" think we have an idea, something random happens that totally ruins "our" theories. All we really know is that the ice is melting in most parts of the world, and if enough ice from Antarctica and Greenland enter the oceans, water levels will rise. Sure, we MAY be speeding the process up a bit, but the odds of us actually causing it in the first place is probably really, really low.

I was watching a BBC documentary the other day entitled "First Life", it was interesting enough. What I thought was really interesting, was that some time before 650 million years ago the entire planet got covered with ice. The biggest ice age ever - with ice covering all dry land, and every bit of ocean frozen over. Eventually, volcanic activity spiked, warming the planet enough to melt the ice. All I could think of was that if humans were around during that time, we would probably be vain enough to credit ourselves for that raising of temperatures.

My point is - we don't know shit about the true nature of the climate. I have stated before "FUCK CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING" We should ignore the "side effects" of burning fossil fuels, and concentrate on the fact that fossil fuels are not a sustainable resource. That we DO know. Let's not worry about what the planet is doing, lets worry about ourselves - the planet can take care of itself.

The pine beetle is an issue more so because we took bad care of our forests than winters not getting cold enough. The polar bear is dying because it is too sensitive to survive. Same goes for the caribou and the panda bear. Don't even get me started on the damn panda bears.
 
If you read what I had said I made mention of them being at their lowest RECORDED level (since human records have existed) Not hypothetical or unobserved. Obviously they have been lower during other climate cycles and swings. There are also patterns that these pendulum swings take that cycle between ice ages and hotter extremes. We have definitely expedited this process. On a geological time frame it's supposed to happen gradually.

20111102_Figure3.png


From: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Also: http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Pine beetles from NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/beetles-fire.html

Mountain pine beetles are native to western forests, and they have

evolved with the trees they infest, such as lodgepole pine and whitebark

pine trees. However, in the last decade, warmer temperatures have

caused pine beetle numbers to skyrocket. Huge areas of red, dying forest

now span from British Columbia through Colorado, and there's no sign

the outbreak is slowing in many areas.

About Pine beetles: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/faq.htm#2

  • Cold weather kills the mountain pine beetle. Mountain pine beetle

    eggs, pupae and young larvae are the most susceptible to freezing

    temperatures.
  • In the winter, temperatures must consistently be below -35 Celsius

    or -40 Celsius for several straight days to kill off large portions of

    mountain pine beetle populations.
  • In the early fall or late spring, sustained temperatures of -25 Celsius can freeze mountain pine beetle populations to death.
  • A sudden cold snap is more lethal in the fall, before the mountain

    pine beetles are able to build up their natural anti-freeze (glycerol)

    levels.
  • Cold weather is also more effective before it snows. A deep layer of

    snow on the ground can help insulate mountain pine beetles in the lower

    part of the tree against outside temperatures.
  • Wind chill affects mountain pine beetles, but is usually not sustained long enough to significantly increase winter mortality.

Is the mountain pine beetle

new to British Columbia?



No. Lodgepole pine and the

mountain pine beetle have always co-existed as a natural part of the

ecosystem in British Columbia’s interior forests.



Why is British Columbia in

the midst of a mountain pine beetle epidemic?



Forests of mature lodgepole pine

are prime habitat for the mountain pine beetle. The beetle also thrives

under warm weather conditions. The interior of British Columbia has an

abundance of mature lodgepole pine, and has experienced several

consecutive mild winters and drought-like summers. Beetle populations in

many parts of interior B.C. have increased to epidemic levels as a

result.





Is the mountain pine beetle a

threat to other provinces?



Scientists believe the mountain pine beetle is a tangible threat

to other provinces as jackpine, found across the prairies and

eastern Canada, is a potential host species for the beetle if

predicted climate change expands the range of the beetle.

You can't say that global warming and increased temperatures have nothing to do with pine beetle infestation, it simply isn't true.





 
I'm sure you can find more material regarding the pine beetle and it's spreading caused by weather, I'm not going to deny that. I'd be an idiot to do such a thing. I am very confident when I say that the success and speed of the spread of the pine beetle has more to do with our shitty management of the forest than it does with the temperature.

You see, back in the 70's when reforestation really took off in BC, we did a silly thing of planting a monoculture forest of pine trees. Until very recently (talking past 5 years, give or take), that was the norm. That left an entire forest of pine that would mature around the same time in the same spot, slowly shifting as they log. Oh yeah, and the trees that are being planted reach maturity quicker than a natural pine would, by quite a few decades. We set up the perfect scenario for them to spread quicker than we could control it. Finally, add the warm winters and you have yourself an unstoppable outbreak.

While working up around the heard of the beetle kill zone (100 Mile to Mackenzie) I had many talks with the foresters about the issue. We would be standing in a clear cut, looking across the valley at a square of dead trees planted sometime in the 80's or so. Their mentality back then was "oh, we'll solve the problem before these trees reach maturity", and when I ask why we are STILL planting 85% pine, his response: "oh, we hope to have solved the problem by then". Yet, when asked what their plan is to solve the problem... no real answer is available. Up until two years ago or so, we weren't even cutting them down - which led to the massive forest fire outbreak throughout the entire Fraser Plateau in the summer of 2010.

The pine beetle is one thing that I think humans should take credit for, and not blame on nature.
 
sled segment is on the dvd.
the point wasn't to be groundbreaking, i'm pretty sure.
a quick google will get you this review: http://skistarmovies.com/review/all-i-can pretty spot on, i'd say. nothing ground breaking, but the message is fairly positive. we need to change, and to do so effectively we need to do more work more creatively. as far as skiing, i don't think i've ever seen that much skinning and skin-accessed skiing in any one movie. the first 10 minutes has maybe 2 shots skiing down, and 50 hiking and skinning. not many of you are getting the point, i'm afraid. that review makes reference to Koyanisqaatsi... that's what i was thinking about a lot of the time.
seems kind of funny to me that everyone is getting hung up on some details, not the message, and the only one getting it is a sponsored snowmobiler.
name another movie that's done any better, or even made an effort to.
 
Honestly don't see why Art of Flight was the greatest thing ever. Yeah they had awesome shots of pretty exotic places but nothing made me say holy shit this is the best movie ever. I like to have fun when I watch these movies, during the Art of Flight I was impressed I guess, but I didn't have fun persay.
 
another funny thing is i assume we're all fans of park jumps here... a 100 cat-hour jump takes a whole lot more gas to build than driving a sled to the backcountry...
 
All.I.Can was easily my favourite ski film shot this season. The skiing and cinematography was absolutely incredible.

But I tend to find the whole environmental slant very unnecessary. I think it's great that they were trying to be environmentally conscious in making the film, but the way they kept talking it up made it seem like they were pandering to the viewers to sell more movies. It's like me donating to a charity then going and telling everybody I meet about it - the initial impulse may have been positive, but the following actions make it seem like I did it for my own benefit as much as anybody else's.

It doesn't help that the theme isn't a new one, even to ski movies. I honestly thought it was presented more tastefully in Plehouse's Save a couple years back, which lacked the crazy travels around the world and heli budget.
 
Definitely my favorite ski flick this year....one of my favorite ever. JP's urban seg was next level.

Maybe it didn't have THE best riding filmed this year, but the cinematography, editing, etc. were by far the best. Excellent movie, and it's appeal extends beyond just ski fans.
 
No, you can't.

But you can do the best you can, when you can. That is an important message. That is the message of the movie, and it is too bad more people seem to miss it.

Most of the people who complain about the movie(not putting you in this category) are modestly educated fools. They don't make an effort anyway, and they don't like to be told what to do. The folks who made this movie are much better representations of humanity than most people. When they have a choice, spending a bit more money and doing something more environmentally friendly, or just going with what costs the least, they will take choice one. Most idiots won't.

I don't have the option of never using a car. I can, however, recycle, mix drinks to save plastic, and reduce my plastic bag use by 95%. I will guarantee you that most of the people who complain about this movie are not doing that.

 
Carbon offset is GENERALLY a joke, but it does not have to be. It needs to be a more regulated industry. It could be a real benefit to society.

The best idea to to not pollute, but if you have to pollute, offsets would a good thing...If the industry were better regulated. Let's hope that comes in the future.

Most(but not all) of the people who complain about offsets don't actually care about helping the environment. They are only complaining because they don't want to be asked to spend extra cash. They don't tend to be very bright people.

What hopefully WILL come, and soon, is a carbon cap. What this does, is cap pollution. Companies then spend money on carbon shares. This makes pollution costly, and gives corporations an incentive to reduce pollution.
 
That's not the message.

The message is to try and do the best you can, where you can. Did you miss that, or just choose to ignore it?

The question is, will these people have kids. Having kids is the WORST thing you can do for the environment, FAR worse than heliskiing.
 
You're wrong on several counts here. Burning fossil fuels has other consequences besides global warming. Go hang out in Mexico City if you doubt that.

The idea that the planet can take care of itself is very short sighted and simple minded. We should do as much as we possibly can. If a few Americans can't quite afford their lifestyle.....So what, not my problem.

What is your IQ? You can estimate it here.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx

It would be nice to at least know where people in this thread stack up. Most of the non-global warming types tend to be in the 50-90th percentile range, and often lower. But maybe you will be the exception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top