Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Varied / Hobbyist Dakota Wiegand24/Male/United States Group :iconcollege-sport-photos: College-Sport-Photos
I Believe That We Will Win~!
Recent Activity
Deviant for 4 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 772 Deviations 1,382 Comments 13,270 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Random Favourites



Keeping my thoughts with those in Paris tonight. Just know that there are people out here that are here for you at this time.

Hey, guys! So Halloween is right around the corner and you may be wondering what to watch this scare season? Now, if you know me, I am not a big fan of horror films, but I am a believer in ghosts and the super natural and have had a few personal experiences. So naturally, I am drawn to some Ghost investigation shows. There’s a couple out there which are pure crap and should not even be taken into consideration, like Discovery Channel’s Ghost Lab. Seriously… don’t watch that one. So, to help you out find the best evidence out there and give yourself a good fright, I am going to give you a few ghost shows that are really worth watching! So let’s dive in.

One question you may be asking yourself is why is there such a huge draw to these kind of investigation shows. Let me try to answer that: It’s such a controversial issue and the fact that proof is so hard to come by. Plus it answers our primal fear of life after death. Will we live on after we die? What happens? Now, I won’t go into religion because that is a whole separate can of worms.

Now some of you are skeptics and don’t see the difference between one show to the next. However, there are some differences between each in terms of style, direction, and credibility. I’ll break down each one of these shows and let you know which ones you should check out!

To start, let’s look after the classic Ghost Hunters. Airing in October of 2004 on Sci-Fi Network, Ghost Hunters follows main investigators Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson through several paranormal areas. Usually the show follows a format of where the two plus their investigators meeting with the property owner/client for a walk through and basic history of the site. The investigations take place at night using night vision cameras and digital recording devices, kind of the standard for these shows. After the initial lockdown is done, the crew returns together to review all the evidence that they collected and then present their findings to the clients. This show sets the standard for most paranormal investigation shows when it comes to this format.

Now the show is a good place to start at because, like I have said, it’s the standard for this genre. Now is it the best show? No. The investigators are professional to the point where they aren’t even phased by anything that happens. They are also very quick to dismiss evidence as outside contamination or just not allowing to admit that it was paranormal. This happens a frustrating amount of times to where they investigate a haunted house, a ghost practically says, “I’m haunting this house!” and the investigation team goes, “eh. It might be something we can’t explain.” Another flaw with this show is that it has a huge production team following them around. You can tell several cameramen are on site to record everything, which make the show look good, but it just feels cluttered and you feel like you miss a lot. Do these things mean I hate the show? Not at all. It is still fun to watch and is provocative with the evidence that the do claim as paranormal.

Show rating: B

Next, I would like to recommend the show Paranormal State. This show premiered in December of 2007 on A&E and ran for 5 seasons until May of 2011. The show follows Ryan Buell, the lead paranormal investigator, and his hand selected team of investigators as they look into hauntings or homes and public areas. On several locations, they bring in demonologists and mediums to help in their investigation and help bring a solution to the paranormal activity.

I liked this show a lot. It was the first show that really went into a location, investigated in depths, and then presented their findings in a very well delivered manner. But the best part was the show gave the clients solutions to the problems. They help prevent and evict spirits out of the homes and areas and take measures to make sure activity would be lessened. However, there are some cases where they were like, “They’re not dangerous and are here to just be noticed.” Where they don’t take action. I like that because it shows that not all ghosts are dangerous and aren’t going to try to kill you, unlike what most people believe in horror movies. Now the biggest flaw with the show is the obvious production value. Some situations that they are in you don’t believe because of the way the cameras are set up. This show doesn’t have the most evidence presented to the audience because they go on their sense at the location and not as heavy on EVPs (electric voice phenomena’s) and video evidence. Now the show kind of ended abruptly because the lead investigator, Ryan, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. I would have liked the show to continue on further but, I guess everything has to end.

Show rating: B+

Next, we have The Dead Files. Premiering on Travel Channel in September of 2011, The Dead Files follows a unique way of investigation that’s not like any other show. The show has two main detectives, ex-NYPD Homicide detective, Steve DiSchiavi, and psychic medium, Amy Allan. Both of them will investigate a location separately without communicating with each other. Detective Stever DiSciavi will investigate the property and the history of the location through local historical societies and old newspaper articles and goes indepth with what he finds. Meanwhile, Amy Allan will do a walkthrough of the location without knowing anything of what is going on and uses her psychic abilities to feel the environment and come up with what is going on. At the end of the investigation, with will meet and come up with their findings to the client.

The freaky part is 9 times out of 10; both Steve and Amy come up with the same information. However, there are those moments where they find stuff that neither has picked up on which leaves a lot of question marks with the clients. Either way, Amy would make a suggestion to the clients of how to move forward with the activity. There are a few negatives to the show, like you can tell that the producers wanted a New York cop with a stereotypical accent. I’m from New York, we don’t all talk like that. Another thing is the production value. Amy’s walk through is just supposed to be her and one other guy, but where did all the other camera angels come from and who is filming the guy holding the camera? Yeah, not a small one person film team. However, the show is a lot of fun, especially when it comes to the revealing the results of the investigation.

Show rating: B

Now this show has changed from when it started to where it is now. That show is Ghost Adventures. This show premiered on Travel Channel in October of 2008 and is currently on season 11. The show follows investigators Zak Bagans, Nick Groff, and Aaron Goodwin through several different haunted areas that has a lot of dark history and known paranormal activity. They use modern ghost hunting technology to capture and present their findings. This show also has the luxury of having a very small production team, where each investigator is filming their investigation.

Now this show started off with the Ghost Adventures film documentary that was released in 2005 where they captured some of the most compelling evidence to ghost activity (That movie gets an A, so check it out).Once getting their own TV show, they continue to present some interesting evidence that’s really provocative and thought provoking. Now I mentioned that this show has changed dramatically from season one to now. If Ghost Hunters is too professional, Ghost Adventures started off the complete opposite. They were loud and over the top when they heard things and they were out of control. However, at some point, someone may have come to them and told them that if they want to be taken seriously, they have to stop being idiots. Recently, they have been much more mature, but not huge stiffs. Now the show definitely provides a lot of evidence that is hard to argue with and is by far the most believable when it comes evidence presentation. They don’t do edits during their investigations, unlike the other shows above. The biggest down fall of the show is that the investigators can be immature still and are purely out to exploit the paranormal and not provide any sort of solutions to the hauntings.

Show rating: A

Now, I mentioned this show at the start of my review, Ghost Lab, and I’ll tell you why this show is a hoax in comparison to everything else. Ghost Lab premiered on Discovery Channel in October 2009 and ran for 2 seasons until January of 2011. The show follows investigating brothers Barry and Brad Klinge through haunted locations. So the show follows Ghost Hunters to a T.

But why does this show blow? To start, why is it called Ghost Lab? There is no lab! They review their “evidence” in the same place as their investigation. Next, it has a huge production team behind it. When the investigators are moving through a house and are noticeably prohibited by a cameraman, sound tech, and producer, there is a problem. Next, having them walk through a house and say things strictly for commercial use is dumb. Plus, some of the evidence was way too convenient. During a “reveal” to a client in restaurant, a camera was placed on a table well out of the way focused on a glass with a fork balanced across it. The fork just happens to flip off the glass and onto the floor. The brothers stop the reveal run over and start doing their best Ghost Adventures routine by shouting and going “It’s in the room! It’s in the room!” Yeah, fucking dumbasses. Lastly, the actual evidence presented in the show is too little and not always believable. Some evidence can be debunked as something else, which the other shows are quick to do, and with the production team, there’s a good chance of contamination from them. Thankfully, viewers thought Discovery Channel was full of crap and pulled the show after two seasons.

Show rating: F

Now there are other paranormal investigation shows out there, but I feel this is a solid list for you to explore this Halloween! I know I will be showing my girlfriend the Ghost Adventures documentary this weekend and expecting her to jump. If you have some suggestions for me, please leave it in the comments below!

Happy Halloween!


Hey, guys! So the other night I was taking a break from my cartoon marathon, mainly because I’ve been watching two new batman shows and Miyazaki films and wanted to be a Spirtited Away Batman, and decided to hang out with my friend Tim. Now, I did a video review of the Spider-Man TAS with Tim as well as help him out with a few movies, like my story Spirit of the Lake, and his Geek and Nerd podcast, Anything Goes! I was over his house to help him with his script for a “The Question” short movie as well as to watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Now, I was a Spider-Man fan before I was a Batman fan, and I will always be a little kid at heart when it comes to Spider-Man. However, I am not afraid to say when some things are crap in the world of Spider-Man, like I did in my review, but when the Amazing Spider-Man movie series came out, I felt like I was one of the few people that truly enjoyed the movies! And after watching The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I still hold firm to that they are probably better than most of the Toby Maguire movies. Now before you break out the pitchforks and the torches and storm my house, let me explain myself.

                  For those who have read my reviews before, they know I am not against defending movies or TV shows that are deemed bad, like Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but let me quickly break down the ranking of the 5 Spider-Man movies that came out in the 2000’s:

    1.     Spider-Man 2 (2004)

    2.     The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

    3.     The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

    4.     Spider-Man (2002)

    5.     Spider-Man 3 (2007)

    Now, notice that I am not against the Toby Maguire Spider-Man movies, I just favor the Andrew Garfield movies more. However, the fan base or non-geek movie goers did prefer the Maguire movies so much more than the Garfield ones that it gets awkward bringing up the series to other fans, because they try to make you feel like an idiot and act like you don’t  know what you are talking about. Listen, I love Spider-Man and I have watched and read some horrible Spider-Man, so this is my rebuttal to you! So SHHH!

    Let’s look at the facts though. When Sony released the Spider-Man movies, they essentially started the idea that Super hero movies can be cool and can survive as the Summer Blockbuster movies that we know. Most movies, as we know, are judged on the Opening Weekend draw worldwide, so below I have put those numbers up so you can see what happened!

    1.     Spider-Man (2002): $821.7 million

    2.     Spider-Man 2 (2004): $783.8 million

    3.     Spider-Man 3 (2007): $890.9 million

    4.     The Amazing Spider-Man (2012): $757.9 million

    5.     The Amazinging Spider-Man 2 (2014): $709 million

    As you can see, the two Garfield movies were the weakest at the box office, which is a no brainer as to partially why Sony pulled the plug on the series that could have easily made a 3rd movie with the characters that they introduced in Amazing 2. But at this point, you are probably going, “where’s the point of this?” So, lets break down why I think the Garfield movies are better than the Maguire movies.

    To start, let’s look at the main character: Spider-Man/Peter Parker. The Amazing Spider-Man movies brought in Andrew Garfield. Garfield was raised in the UK, and became an aspiring actor at the age of 19. He started off small time in a bunch of minor TV and movie roles. The first time I saw him was in season 3 of Doctor Who, when he played a New Yorker during the Great Depression who was kidnapped by Daleks. He didn’t get his big movie break until he made bigger roles in The Social Network and Never Let Me Go. So when he was casted as Peter Park/Spider-Man, he was essentially some unknown “kid.” Now, I’m not going to lie, I was not thrilled when I heard that some British actor was going to play Spider-Man, but, as you can tell, I got over that. And I say “Kid” because I honestly thought Garfield was much younger than what he is. He was 28 years old when he stared in Amazing and was 30 in Amazing 2. The guy looks like he was acting out of high school, so great casting on that part! His American/New York accent in the movies was actually greatly accurate as well. You can truly believe that he grew up in Queens and has that same attitude much New Yorkers, like myself, embrace where we talk fast and just want to get things done.

                  I was really happy to make Peter Parker as the closet scientist or under achieving genius. If you were a kid that was being raised by your aunt and uncle and you have no idea what happened to your parents. Also, he was weird and was being picked on and was just so overlooked by everyone that you would expect him to cop an attitude and be a little self-destructive. In my conversations with Tim, we both agreed that this Peter Parker is our generation of boy genius. Not to say that Maguire’s Peter Parker is bad, but he was pulling the Stan Lee’s genius of the 70’s. Plus, Maguire was post college outcast because he’s nerdy and to himself. Not that I say that this is bad, but it’s very Spider-Man TAS, minus the constant inner-monologue. However, I think that’s why people rejected the Garfield Peter Parker, because most of the lose or convenient fans remember Spider-Man TAS having a much older Peter Parker and the similarities between that and Maguire’s Peter Parker is just easier to make. Audiences didn’t realize that the early 2000’s had a comic reboot where it focused around a Garfield like Peter Parker which worked very well. Then again, I don’t think anyone wanted to see an underage super hero tap and underage romantic interest which brings us to the next part: Gwen Stacey vs Mary jane Watson!

                  Now most people don’t know this, but Mary Jane Watson wasn’t brought into the Spider-Man Universe until much later! It was always Gwen Stacey! With making the Amazing series, going with Gwen Stacey was definitely the better choice and making her a stronger character than Mary Jane was a must. Now about my comment above about the underage thing, in the first Amazing movie had them in High School, so 17 and under, aka Emma Stone was being Jailbait! Emma Stone, possibly the hottest Girl-Next-Door next to Zoey Deschanel. So when Stone died her signature red hair blonde and was going to play a 17 or younger year old girl, guys weren’t as inclined to think what they wanted to do with her later on. Or, the image of her later on. However, if you are familiar with Emma Stone’s movies, she has never played a weak female character. She brings attitude and intelligence to all her roles, even in silly movies. So, playing the tough police chief’s daughter that is also a brainiac and won’t take anything sitting down, makes the casting perfect for her. She defends herself against the super villains in both movies, she doesn’t let Peter’s strengths or skills over power her, she has a commanding force over him as in the way that she makes her help him and also conducting their relationship. She’s funny, cute, intelligent also known as the perfect girl!

                  Now, you can argue that Spider-Man 3 had Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) in it as well, but more as a prop for Spider-Man to save and make Mary Jane jealous. So, despite that Gwen Stacey being hot as well, especially as her role as Claire in Jurassic World, she’s  just the stereo typical damsel in distress. Speaking of which!

                  Mary Jane Watson was the definition of a damsel in distress! Played by Kristen Dunst in Spider-Man 1-3, Mary Jane was essentially a plot device that made Spider-Man do what he did. Though I wouldn’t say this is Kristen Dunst’s fault, but bad writing. Dunst actually was going to quit the Spider-Man series because she was tired of being known as the hot red-head that just screams. Though, she was really hot, especially in that Kimono dress in the first movie (hubba-hubba). That being said, she was kind of a bitch when she wasn’t screaming. She was very vain and just made her looks go down when she was in bitch mode. Once again, not Dunst’s fault.

                  Now an essential part to any starring couple is the chemistry. When Garfield and Stone started getting googley-eyed at each other and making out, you believed they liked each other. This is especially evident in the serious dialogue between them. You can tell that they care for each other even though they are either angry or upset at each other. When you saw Dunst and Maguire interact in the same way, you knew they were acting. Not like obvious acting, but in a way that when the cameras aren’t rolling, they aren’t acting in the same way towards each other. Hell, apparently Garfield and Stone are dating each other after the Amazing movies! If I’m worng about that fact, I will blame Tim for that incorrect fact. But still, you felt there was a genuine connection between the two of them that you didn’t get from the other pairing.

                  Now the villains help make any good story. This is where Spider-Man 1-3 had hits and misses. Green Goblin, played by William Dafoe, was great because you saw how crazy he was. His origin wasn’t that far-fetched either! Maybe he was a little too acentric, but he did just take some serious mental changing drugs so I will let that pass. Now, Doc Ock, played by Alfred Molina, was great. You believed his struggle and his pain as well as the idea of revenge. Though his mind was altered as well through the a freak accident, he was great to watch. Now, Venom/Eddie Brock played by Topher Grace and Sandman played by Thomas Hayden Church… well, they weren’t up to par. Granted the director of Spider-Man 3, Sam Raimi, hated the idea of Venom and was forced to use him by Sony. So he hacked it and squeezed him in without fully understanding the weight of that character to the series. Also, the fact that there was multiple villains in one movie, Sandman, Venom, and the symbiont suit, got a little too hectic and forced certain things to be rushed. However, the Amazing series didn’t avoid that mistake in their movies. Amazing 2 sported Electro, the corrupt heads of Oscorp, Rhino, and Hob Goblin. That being said, I do feel they handled this better. Sony was probably feeling a 3rd movie coming up, which allowed for them to add these characters into the movie to have them payoff in the 3rd movie, like Rhino and Hob Goblin. However, they did leave the end with a gaping hole for a 3rd movie and they pulled the plug on it. Not cool. The first Amazing movie had Doctor Connors aka The Lizard. I loved this character and was waiting for them to bring the character to the big screen. He’s not a bad person and had to experiment on himself, in much the same was as William Dafoe did in the first Spider-Man.

                  I would say that the stories would be a huge factor in the movies, but they essentially revolve around the villains in all 5 movies so if the movie carried the villain correctly, the better the story was. However, the story also had to have Peter and his love interest interact and the conflict between Spider-Man and Peter Parker. Here, I just feel the Garfield movies were just handled much better when it comes to all of these things.

                  All of these factors make the movies either excel and fail in their own accord, but I do believe one other reason why the Amazing movies weren’t given a fair share. The key is marketing. When Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 came out, the ads were everywhere and everyone was talking about Spider-Man. Sony did the same treatment with ­Spider-Man 3 and for the most part, brought out a huge amount of fans, though they played up the angle of Venom being in the movie. However, the movie suffered from its confusing and boring plot and lack of use of the Venom character. This made Sony gun-shy about the Amazing series. You didn’t see as many ads out and even after being successful, the second movies was advertised even less. And after the opening weekend turnout, they pulled a Disney and yanked all ads and just let the movie coast.

                  Another factor that I believed made the Amazing series not do so well is the fact that both movies have a very heavy story and dialogue driven movie. Unfortunately, when you go to a super hero movie, you expect lots of fights and super hero stuff. They took a more intellectual approach to the series and made it more for the true fans of the series instead of the passive fans. This was also weakened by the fact that Captain America: Winter Soldier came out 2-3 weeks before Amazing 2. The expectations were set higher and the dialogue driven movie dropped the ball for most movie goers.

                  So, do I think the Amazing movies weren’t given their do? Yes, I believe they are the superior franchise of Spider-Man movies out there. When talking to Tim, he compared Garfield’s Spider-Man to Timothy Dalton’s James Bond. In both series, the darker and story driven movies were looked as negatives to the series and both were casted aside after two movies. Now, do I think that the Maguire movies are that much worst? Not at all! The second movie is still my favorite and the first one is a classic in my opinion. The third movie was a letdown, even though I saw that three times in theaters.

                  If I was going to give advice to the new reboot of Spider-Man, I would say this: Use both movies to your advantage. The Story and the chemistry of the Garfield movies definitely made them great, but the true comic book attitude of the Maguire movies are great, too. I would definitely look into hiring JK Simmons as JJ Jameson again! He honestly was the living characterization of the character! Give him an Oscar for that role, right now!

Thanks for staying with me on this one! Please look out for the next reviews coming soon: Miyazaki’s moves, Beware the Batman, and The Batman. Also, check out the podcast Anything Goes through the link below! 

We have begun Shooting our movie today! Well, last night we did a lot of filming, but the main stuff starts today! I will post stills later today to let you know how things are going! I am very excited that this is happening! Cant wait to see it all done!
  • Mood: Excited
  • Watching: My story be turned into a movie!!!
  • Drinking: Coca-Cola


DwDrawings's Profile Picture
Dakota Wiegand
Artist | Hobbyist | Varied
United States
Current Residence: Long Island
deviantWEAR sizing preference: XL
Print preference: Comic Sans
Favourite style of art: Depends on the day
Operating System: Windows 7
MP3 player of choice: iPod
Favourite cartoon character: Nicholas D. Wolfwood

AdCast - Ads from the Community




Add a Comment:
12LE5 Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Student Artist
Thank you kindly for the fav!
pinkythepink Featured By Owner Sep 10, 2015  Professional Artisan Crafter
:love: Thank you for the favorites, it really means ever so much to me that you enjoy my artwork! I invite you to add me to your watch so that you can see all the future beaded and stitched pieces I have planned! :blowkiss: Just think of the sparkles... :squee:
AshFan Featured By Owner May 27, 2015
Happy Birthday, buddy!
DwDrawings Featured By Owner May 28, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks you!
MethusulaComics Featured By Owner May 27, 2015
DwDrawings Featured By Owner May 28, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Thank you!!!
MethusulaComics Featured By Owner May 28, 2015
welcome :)
Kenga-As Featured By Owner May 25, 2015
Thank You for the llama badge!!
Milee-Design Featured By Owner May 21, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you so much for adding artwork to your fav! +fav Hug 

Legend of Zelda by Milee-Design
DwDrawings Featured By Owner May 21, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
No problem! Glad I can add your work to my collection!
Add a Comment: