Bret Gilliam Interviews Howard Hall

Following is a 2001 interview of Howard conducted by Bret Gilliam, which appeared in the October 2001 issue of Fathoms Magazine.

Howard Hall ©Michele Hall

 Bret: You started out in San Diego as an instructor and dive store employee. How has the area changed since l969 from a diving perspective?

Howard: I came to San Diego in 1969, got a job teaching scuba diving and enrolled at San Diego State University. Dive instruction financed my college education and I have been diving in San Diego waters ever since. How has the diving changed? For the most part there is simply less of everything. There are less lobsters, abalone, moray eels, schooling fish, blue sharks, mako sharks, and just about everything that swims, floats, or crawls on the bottom. There are some major exceptions. A moratorium on killing giant sea bass seems to have worked wonders. Now we often see giant sea bass where we almost never saw them thirty years ago. Harbor seals and sea lions seem more plentiful since people began expressing displeasure with fishermen for shooting their heads off every time they took a fish off a line. But for the most part, wildlife populations are in steep decline. Everywhere. Water quality is also in decline. Visibility averages much less here than it did a few decades ago.

Perhaps as disturbing as wilderness decline is the reduced access to our beaches. Today getting a parking place on a weekday is a major achievement. Forget about it on the weekend. Traffic congestion getting to the beach is so bad it's often more fun to stay home and watch a Sea Hunt rerun. Almost all beach parking is now metered. In the summer you have to walk over the bodies of sun bathers to get to the water. With all your diving gear on you crush a few in process, but it doesn't matter much because there are so many no one really notices.

Bret: What is the most serious environmental problem threatening San Diego waters?

Howard: Almost any winter day within a week of the most recent rainstorm you can find "Polluted waters. No swimming" signs posted on numerous California beaches. The list of environmental problems and their severity becomes larger every day. Pollution, beach erosion, over-fishing, introduced alien species, all impact diving here as they do in virtually all ocean environments. Anyone who has been diving longer than ten years can attest to the fact that ocean wilderness is in decline. In general, all environmental problems are related to one single factor. Population. As long as global human population continues to increase, all other efforts to save our environment is just pissing against the wind. Ironically, population would be the easiest environmental problem for governments to solve. With tax incentives, social pressure, and education, governments could affect population reduction. But no one dares talk about that very much. Religion is a wonderful thing, often corrupted by greed and stupidity. Many people questioned whether the planet could handle 6 billion people when we reached that level a few years ago. When the Earth didn't implode immediately as population passed 6 billion, conservatives said, "See, no problem." But when you get a terminal disease you don't necessarily die immediately. Sometimes years may pass before you feel symptoms. I believe Earth cannot support our present population, let alone continued population growth. Imagine today's rate of deforestation, global warming, decline in natural resources, loss of biodiversity, environmental pollution. Then look ahead 500 years and try to imagine half a millennium of today's rate of environmental impact. That certainly produces a horrible mental image! Sure, everyone says, "Well, something will happen to solve these problems by then." Well, certainly they're right. Something will happen, but I doubt anyone will like the solution when Mother Nature decides to dish it out. The stupidity of ignoring population growth as the number one most critical environmental problem amazes me. It's unequivocal proof that there is no intelligent life on this planet. Well, except for you and me, people who agree with me and, of course, the dolphins and whales.

Bret: How has California diving changed from a business perspective?

Howard: I'm not really tuned into the sport diving business today. But I sense that there is a decline in the spirit of adventure that seemed to inspire my generation. I think young people stay at home watching TV and playing video games and explore their natural world much less then our generation was compelled to do. Certainly, there is less exploration left to be done. Hell, now they're leading tours for the blind to the top of Everest! That's great for blind people, but it does take some of the romance out of mountain climbing for young people. As for diving in San Diego; there seem to be fewer dive boats, dive shops, and beach divers. But maybe I just haven't been looking. I can't get a parking place at the beach.

Bret: Do you still like southern California life style or do you long for a 4000 acre ranch in Montana or to live on an island in Maine?

Howard: I occasionally fantasize about "going Giddings." Al has a fabulous ranch hidden away in Montana somewhere. I understand you have a ranch out there too. Right? Anyway, I'd like that. But I also like being near the water. I like to dive locally and I surf several times a week. Southern California is great for both. When the crowds eventually threaten our sanity, Michele and I may move northeast. But for now life is still great in Del Mar.

Bret: After starting as still photographer, what led you to film?

Howard: Money. Back when I worked at the Diving Locker owner Chuck Nicklin could often be heard saying, "You can't make a full-time living as an underwater photographer." He would sell photos to dive magazines, general interest publications, occasionally National Geographic and it seemed true that this income only represented a nice supplement. But then he'd get these three-week gigs to go off filming something in 16mm making real money. The potential was obvious. So after developing a reputation as a still photographer and photo journalist, I began setting my sights on 16mm assignment work - where the money was. The trick was breaking into the tiny fraternity of underwater cameramen. Chuck provided me with the opportunity. He got me a position as "shark advisor" during the filming of Peter Benchley's The Deep. "Shark Advisor" was my credit in the film. But I didn't advise any sharks. I speared fish to attract them. And I did whatever else Al Giddings asked me to do. I earned $125 per day and made a total of $2,500. When I got back to San Diego I commissioned a machinist to build me an underwater 16mm camera fashioned after the old Cousteau torpedo cameras. It took a year to get the camera ready to go in the water. I had almost no money and couldn't justify just shooting tests in a pool. 16mm film was and is extraordinarily expensive to purchase, develop, and print. So, along with my friend Larry Cochrane, I went out and shot three rolls of blue sharks. That was 1977. The test was successful and I had about 30 minutes of shark footage in the can as a bonus. A few months later I was talking to Stan Waterman on the phone. Stan had been co-director of underwater cinematography on The Deep along with Giddings. He complained that he had been offered a contract to make a film about sharks but couldn't think of anything new to do. I asked if he had ever seen footage of blue sharks before. When he said he hadn't, I offered to send him my three rolls. "Oh, I didn't know you were a film cameraman," he said with surprise. "Oh, sure I am," I said, deciding that this was not technically a complete bald-faced lie. Anyway, the long and short of it is that the footage had some really new and exciting things on it - people hand feeding sharks (can you imagine people doing that?). Stan showed the footage to his clients in England and was awarded the contract. He hired me as second camera and never asked about my film experience. The film was shown on prime time and my film career was off and running.

Bret: Doing assignment camerawork is one thing, but producing and directing your own films is quite another. When did you start making your own films?

Howard: The best way to learn an art is to study someone else's work. If you want to learn underwater film work, just watch television. If you don't understand a specific technique, write it down and ask someone. But most of the answers are obvious by just watching other films. I used to do that all the time. I would watch animal behavior films made in Africa by Des and Jen Bartlett or by Alan Root and sit on the couch as say. "I could do that underwater." Or, "Why doesn't anyone do that underwater." Or, "I could make great behavioral films underwater." Blah, blah, blah. Michele finally got sick of it and one evening said, "Well, why don't you just shut-up and go do it?" So I wrote a one page letter to the executive producer at PBS, Nature suggesting I do a film about the kelp forests of California. I never expected to get a response, but figured that would get Michele off my back. As it turned out, I had recently been underwater cameraman on a very popular episode of Nature called The Coral Triangle. David Heely, then executive producer for Nature, decided I was worth taking a risk. His two page letter in response to mine said basically, "Ok." I almost went into shock. I spent two years making the film on a budget of $135,000 excluding post-production costs which I traded out for distribution rights with a company in England. The film, Seasons in the Sea, was the first true underwater animal behavior film. It won a Golden Panda award for best of show at the Wildscreen film festival which is, for natural history film producers, just like winning best picture at the Academy Awards. Winning that was like being given a credit card with no credit limit or obligation to pay the money back. My career went from pushing a load of bricks uphill in a wheel barrel to flying a jet.

Bret: Well, you obviously made a brilliant film.

Howard: Actually, let me tell you how that works. I came along with the right idea at the right time. I didn't evaluate business demand and say to myself, "the market is primed for a good underwater behavior film." I just happened to have a talent for capturing good behavioral stories on film. Just like a frog has a talent for catching flys with its tongue. No genius to it. I didn't know I would be any good at it until I saw the film's success. I also had a coincidental passion to make a behavioral film that had nothing whatsoever to do with market demand or timing. I just wanted to do it. It just turned out that I made my film at that single best moment in history when it was most in demand. No one was more amazed by its success than me. I can't compare myself to Bill Gates, but imagine if Bill were ten years younger and started his career ten years later. What do you think he would be doing for a living? Running Microsoft? I suspect he would be just another computer geek writing programs for someone else's operating system. He came along with the right idea at the right time. Seasons in the Sea was the right film to make at the right time to make it. I was very damn lucky!

Bret: Your wife, Michele, has obviously played a huge role in the success of your company. How do you keep work and play separate and who handles what duties in the business?

Howard: Well, that "shut up and just do it" comment certainly had something to do with kick-starting my film making career. Actually, our talents and strengths compliment each other almost perfectly. I do the creative work and she handles the business operation. She now produces the films we make and I direct them. I select a filming location, she constructs the logistical plan for getting there and handles all the details. I create and oversee the film budgets. She writes the checks and balances the books. I edit the films, she handles the incredibly complicated business of post-production. When we finally get out on the boat to start filming (which is the easiest part of the film making business) I do most of the camerawork and Michele shoots most of the production stills. You may notice that most if not all the images illustrating this story will be Michele's. She has now become a more prolific still photographer than I.

Bret: If she wears the pants in the business side of things, how do you look in a dress?

Howard: Actually, I am not forced to become that submissive. Well, not often anyway. We almost never question each other's decisions. We almost never argue. Even I find that incredible when you consider that we produce IMAX® films entirely in-house with multi-million dollar budgets and without any additional office help. It's just Michele and me. Most IMAX films are produced with a staff of twenty or more.

Bret: How has the nature film business changed in the last five years?

Howard: As I mentioned earlier, I got started in the natural history film production business at just the right time for an underwater animal behavioralist. If I went fishing with my proposal to do Seasons in the Sea today, no one would be biting. Pure animal behavior films, where you only see the natural wilderness and rarely see humans, are called (in the natural history business) blue chip natural history films. A few years ago, blue chip fell out of favor. Now, Crocodile Hunter is in. This change in audience demand is probably a result of over-production in blue chip natural history and the proliferation of animal channels. Just over ten years ago we only had the Nature series and National Geographic Specials. Now we have numerous channels dedicated to natural history. I guess people got tired of seeing lions catching zebras and eagles feeding their young. Like any other business, however, I think this one is cyclical. I think blue chip natural history will come back. I hope so because, like the frog and his tongue, I'm not sure I have any talent for doing anything else.

Bret: We're familiar with your incredible IMAX work but understand that you are shooting a lot now with the HD format. How do you like this and is it the wave of the future or simply the next fad?

Howard: I have about a quarter million dollars that says High Definition Video is more than a fad!

Bret: So you're invested in HD?

Howard: I'm invested up to my neck. The gear is phenomenally expensive. The camera is about $90,000. If you want a lens that's another $25,000. How about a battery? $800. And, gee, you want to look at what you shoot? Better get a monitor - $15,000. But don't worry. It won't take up much space. It's only fourteen inch monitor. You want a big monitor? Belly up! How about a tape deck? Don't even think about it! So yeah, I think HD is more than a fad.

Bret: Is that why you recently sold off all your old l6mm library?

Howard: Certainly, that is part of the reason. I believe that footage originated on 16mm won't measure up when HD goes mainstream. Michele and I didn't want to watch all our magnificent wildlife footage depreciate. So we sold it and are now starting over in a format with much higher resolution. We had also produced Secrets of the Ocean Realm largely from our library footage. Producing our own series was one of our reasons for building the library. Now that was done. We were offered a great price. And frankly, I now really look forward to revisiting all those locations and animals with my new camera. Between film contracts Michele and I will be running trips all over the oceans capturing sequences. We have trips planned to Cocos, Fiji, and the California Channel Islands. In many cases we'll be taking only a portion of the boat and the rest will be available for passengers. Details are on our website, howardhall.com.

Bret: Your team was one of the first to use rebreathers in filming. Are you still happy with your units (what are they)? Have you seen anything else out there that will advance your ability to work underwater?

Howard: We've been diving closed circuit rebreathers for more than ten years now. During that time technical diving has gone mainstream. Amazing changes. We're still diving Biomarine Mark 155s. However, there is almost nothing left of the original units. We have rebuilt and redesigned and customized most of it. All of the original electronics have been redesigned and replaced. The low and high pressure plumbing has been modified. The original unit was a real pain to dive. Our units are absolutely fantastic. Until recently, I would have said there is nothing out there I would consider diving besides our Mark 155s. But I've now dived with people using both the Cis-Lunar and the Buddy Inspiration. Both are excellent rebreathers. I'm really impressed with the Inspiration since they managed to build an inexpensive, functional, reliable piece of gear that worked well with its first iteration. Still, given the choice, I prefer our 155s.

Bret: Island of the Sharks got great reviews and everyone who saw it was impressed. Did IMAX do as good a job as you would have liked in promoting it and getting it in as many theaters as possible?

Howard: Ah, politics! The answer is no. It was probably a mistake selecting IMAX as a distributor. Especially at that time, a couple years ago. At that time IMAX stock was selling at over $30 and they were riding high on the promise of the IMAX format being accepted as the new Hollywood format for narrative films. Within a few short years, there were as many commercial IMAX theaters (usually in feature film megaplexes) as there were institutional theaters (like at natural history museums and aquariums). There was talk of major film directors making their next films in IMAX. IMAX preferentially promoted and distributed their Hollywood style films over their educational library. Island of the Sharks was not promoted and was even discouraged by IMAX. Today, IMAX stock is selling for about a buck and a half. Their Hollywood aspirations seemed to have failed. Many commercial theaters have closed claiming IMAX failed to produce acceptable films. Making narrative films is extraordinarily difficult even with mega-budgets. IMAX is a much more expensive production process than the typical Hollywood feature and, yet, to be profitable Imax films had to be made with a fraction the average Hollywood budget. It was like trying to win the Indianapolis 500 with bicycle! I admire IMAX's ambition, but they came to a gunfight with a pee-shooter. Earlier we were talking about "the right idea at the right time?" Well, I think IMAX simply had the wrong idea at the wrong time. Anyway, the upshot is that Island of the Sharks sat on the distributor's shelf. Actually, it's now beginning to play more widely and perhaps it will emerge as a sleeper. It's not a perfect film. The writing is poor and the story jumps backwards in some places. But it was reviewed very well and filled theaters where it was shown.

Bret: What happened? I didn't think the writing was that bad.

Howard: It wasn't good. Still you would think that if you spent five million dollars you would always be able to make a good film. You may wonder why so many Hollywood films are so bad. Well, it's perfectly clear to me. Money often creates more problems than it solves. When you have a budget of $5 million, you have lots of people involved in positions of influence. All of them think they are writers and directors. And they have rights of approval. I don't wonder how Hollywood films (or other IMAX films for that matter) get to be so badly made. I understand that completely. What I don't understand is how a large budget film ever manages to be good. That's a miracle and I don't have a clue how it happens. Few people do.

Bret: Tell us about your role in the IMAX Amazing Caves project. Did you enjoy working with Wes Skiles?

Howard: That's a funny story. Greg MacGillivray, producer of Journey Into Amazing Caves, wanted the best underwater crew he could get. He wanted Wes because he was the best at filming in caves. He wanted me because Wes had no experience with IMAX cameras and because I own the best IMAX camera housing for the job. When Wes learned that I was coming along as cameraman, I think he was worried. Maybe horrified is a better word. Because I was already a big-time IMAX director, he figured I might want to run the show. Because I had no experience in caves (hell, I'm not even cave certified), he figured my insisting on running the show would be a very bad idea. I think Wes also felt he needed to prove himself with the camera. He wanted to be "the cameraman." Wes and I had never worked together before, so his trepidations were justified. Anyway, I didn't run the show. I did just what I was told by the underwater director, Mr.. Wes Skiles. In the real world of major film production, the director has all the talent, makes all the decisions, composes the image, and outlines all the camera moves. The cameraman pushes the "on" button when the director says "roll camera," and pushes the "off" button when the director says "cut." Get the picture? When you see Amazing Caves, you're looking at Wes' work despite the fact that I held the camera.

Bret: So, did Wes settle into his roll as Director?

Howard: It took Wes a few days and I'm not sure he ever was happy not holding the camera. But it did work very well. Wes dove with an AGA mask and the rest of us used Buddy Phones to hear what he was saying. I had an OTS mouth mask I could use when I needed to ask Wes a question or tell him I had screwed up and we need to do a shot over. But most of the time Wes did all the talking. Sometimes he never stopped. During our 1/5 of a mile swims in and out of the Dos Ojos cave system, he would regal his mute crew with jokes and his philosophy on life. You could take your Buddy Phone off, but then you'd risk putting it back only to find Wes screaming, "Hey stupid, I'm talking to you."

Bret: Did Wes ever get to handle the camera?

Howard with IMAX Camera ©Michele Hall

Howard: Yeah, and that was a major point of irritation to me. After years of experience handling the IMAX system, I knew that it took a practiced talent to do good work with it. Then Wes insisted on doing a couple shots where there simply wasn't room for both him and me in the hole. Instead of botching the shots or being overwhelmed by the camera, he did the shots gracefully and perfectly the first time, completely validating his premise that my presence on the project was entirely unnecessary.

Bret: Is he really a relative of that guy from Deliverance or does he just sound that way?

Howard: Wes carries around a set of artificial teeth which he inserts when addressing his crew during less serious moments. The teeth and his associated manifestations make him seem like someone deprived of oxygen at birth and raised by the guy from Deliverance. It's both funny and terrifying. Without the teeth, he becomes a completely normal guy - for a backwoods hick from the Florida swamp.

Bret: So, how did you like cave diving?

Howard: Actually, I had no appetite for cave diving whatsoever until I saw a television film Wes had made showing how beautiful some of these caves are. If I hadn't seen that show, I might not have taken the job when Greg offered it to me. Anyway, I found cave diving disorienting at first, but then I began to become accustomed to the protocols and then it started to be fun. During my first day I began a cave dive class with Dan Lin. We never finished and I never got certified. Wes decided we all had more pressing obligations than teaching me enough to know what I was doing. While taking the class, I watched Dan put a line arrow on backwards. That scared the hell out of me. He caught the mistake a moment later, but I can see how easily cave diving can get spooky. After a few days, I was doing the long swims in and out of the cave unsupervised. I really enjoyed it.

Bret: And do you think cave divers are crazy?

Howard: Of course, they're completely nuts. But they're not stupid. And another thing. In that element, they are superior divers. In the ocean I almost never see someone with better buoyancy control than me. In Dos Ojos, all of the divers had better buoyancy control than me.

Bret: Tell us about your most recent project that took you across the Pacific including Fiji?

Howard: The film will be called Coral Reef Adventure. It's another IMAX film and is produced by MacGillivray Freeman films, producer of Amazing Caves. Michele and my roles in this film are a bit unusual for us. I directed the underwater sequences and Michele was the line producer. We will also appear in the film. In fact, the film is largely about us and how we make underwater IMAX films. Greg MacGillivray is the director and has the unenviable task of trying to make us look good on film. Despite the questionable on-camera talent, I think it's going to be a great film.

Bret: Yes, but will it be an "adventure?"

Howard: You know, "adventure" might be defined as an exquisite balance between the passion for exploring the unknown and the fear of it. In fact, this film was more an adventure than most of the films we've made. We wanted to justify the "Coral Reef Adventure" title by legitimately pushing our personal limitations and the limits of underwater film production. We did both. We pushed the envelop way out there.

Bret: For example?

Howard: A lot of our filming was done with air diluent below 200 feet. And we went deeper than that. Below 250 feet we went to trimix. And believe me, shooting IMAX below 300 feet is really out there.

Bret: What on Earth were you filming down there?

Howard: We did one sequence on gray reef sharks at the mouth of the Rangiroa pass. Those were all air dives to between 200 and 250. But our deepest dives were in Fiji filming Richard Pyle capturing undiscovered species of fish in what he's calls "the twilight zone."

Bret: Richard Pyle is the ichthyologist who dives a Cis-Lunar rebreather?

Howard: Right. Richard's logged over 50 dives deeper than 350 feet where he has discovered numerous new species. With us, he logged a few more. On one of his dives he descended below 400 feet

Bret: Did you follow him down to 400 feet?

Howard: No. I made several dives below 350 and my deepest was just over 370 feet. But keep in mind these were not simple technical dives (if trimix dives can ever be simple). Not only were we carrying trimix rebreathers and emergency bailout gas, but we were also carrying not one but two IMAX camera systems! One IMAX camera weighed over 100 pounds and the other was over 250 pounds. We also were equipped with special experimental OTS underwater communications, underwater lights, and all of Richard's capture gear. As you know, over-exertion can be a serious problem doing deep trimix dives. Well, try swimming around with a 250 pound camera system and a few bailout tanks along with an 80 pound rebreather! Try it in a current!

Bret: Who were the other divers?

Howard: I carried the larger IMAX camera with Mark Thurlow assisting. Bob Cranston carried the second camera with Dave Forsythe. And, of course, Richard was in front of the cameras. That makes five.

Bret: I didn't know your IMAX housing could go that deep.

Howard: Well, it can't! In fact, the other housing, the 100 pound system, was housed in a 1/16 inch thick aluminum splash housing. Both would have crushed like paper cups if we took them below 200 feet. The splash housing was only rated to 10 feet!

Bret: But you did take them down, didn't you?

Howard: Yeah, but we modified them first. We attached air tanks to the housings and pressurized them during descent. That's how we shot IMAX at 350 feet using a splash housing. The camera was always at ambient pressure.

Bret: Well, that seems like a simple enough solution. It seems to have worked?

Howard: Not without problems. These cameras were not designed to work surrounded by gas at more than ten atmospheres. That's pretty thick stuff. The smaller camera nearly always jammed below 300 feet. It just couldn't move the film through gas that dense. The larger camera failed to run 50% of the time, but the problem was electrical.

Bret: What was the problem?

Howard: We spent months trying to figure it out. The camera would simply not ramp up to speed when at depth. But then would run fine as we ascended to shallower water. After 21 trimix dives, we finally solved the problem before our last deep dive of the project. It turned out to be a small cork clutch that was compressing and causing the electrical switch failures. Ironically, on this last deep dive with the problem solved, the camera jammed anyway for an entirely unrelated reason.

Bret: That must have been massively frustrating?

Howard: Yes, but it was also great fun making the dives. Still, dedicating an entire day and obligating a crew of five deep divers to four hours of decompression only to have both cameras jam as soon as they were switched on, did cause some jaw clenching. Fortunately, for each dive the camera jammed, we made a dive where it ran flawlessly. We did get the footage we needed to make a great sequence. Certainly, that is the deepest divers have ever used IMAX cameras.

Bret: But did Richard catch any new species?

Howard: Actually, he did. He caught a beautiful new species of wrasse about six inches long. It was pink and yellow. And when he caught it the camera was running and it didn't jam. It makes a great sequence.

Bret: How did you like diving in the "twilight zone?"

Howard: I loved it. Funny, earlier we were talking about the lack of places to explore for young people. Well, below 200 feet almost every reef is unexplored. The potential is spectacular. And it is different down there. You see animals you've never seen before and many are undescribed. No one has ever seen them before.

Bret: What was the most exciting thing you saw on a deep dive?

Howard: Well, there were two spectacular encounters. We saw a thresher shark swim by twenty feet away at about 300 feet. The camera jammed on that one, for sure. And on one dive we saw an enormous school of hammerheads - more than 200 sharks. As far as I know, schooling hammerheads were not known to occur in Fiji. Well, they do below 300 feet! I was out of film for that one.

Bret: You chartered the Undersea Hunter, your support vessel from the Cocos film project. How did you convince Avi Klapfer to send it half way around the world and back?

Howard: Money. No, actually, Avi loves this kind of challenge. Given the choice, he would use the Undersea Hunter full-time for film production all around the world. Unfortunately, these mega-budget underwater documentaries are few and far between. I've been fortunate to be able to bring two to Avi. But it could be a long time before there is another project that can justify such expense. I'd love to do it again and will keep my eyes open for any opportunity. Working with Avi and the Undersea Hunter has been a superb experience. The boat is extremely well-run and well-maintained. Avi is also quick to make major modifications in order to accommodate IMAX equipment and even the ultralight aircraft we used for shooting aerials

Bret: Why not charter locally in each region?

Howard: Well, we did that too. We also used the Nai'a in Fiji. Rob Barrel and Cat Holloway were our guides and the Nai'a supported some of our crew on one of the expeditions. Nai'a is a beautiful vessel and a more comfortable boat than Undersea Hunter. But it is not configured well for IMAX production. Launching, recovering, and maintaining the IMAX system and all the other IMAX gear would have been difficult on Nai'a.

Bret: So, which boat do you like best?

Howard: I can't really choose between Nai'a and Undersea Hunter. Both are among the best liveaboard operations in the world. I would go back to either in a second. In fact, Michele and I plan trips to Fiji on Nai'a and to Cocos on Undersea Hunter next year.

Bret: What do think of all the recent shark hysteria?

Howard: Ouch! That's a loaded question. Personally, I think it's stupid and tragic. Professionally, as an underwater filmmaker, it's great for business. Certainly there have been a few spectacular attacks this year. Due to those unique cases, however, every shark encounter is now major news. The number of shark bites in Florida was no greater this year than last. But this year, get bit by a halibut on your big toe and you're on prime-time news! It's good for underwater photographers, but it's bad for the dive business and its bad for sharks. And don't you think there's something fishy about the story of the little boy who tragically lost his arm to a bull shark in Florida? Do you know any human being powerful enough to wrestle a healthy seven foot bull shark to shore barehanded? I don't. I sure couldn't do it. I suspect there is more to that story than we are being told.

Bret: Has the Discovery Channel's Shark Week series degenerated into a freak show of bad science in pursuit of a reality show audience?

Howard: No, definitely not. It has always been a freak show of bad science in pursuit of a reality show audience. This is largely due to the poor budgets most of the film producers have to work with. But Discovery doesn't always limit their production to low budget programming. Occasionally, there are some real gems on Discovery's Shark Week. The high budget shows made by talented professionals can be really well done. I watched several of the Shark Week shows and thought they were excellent. Unfortunately, you never know which you're going to see when you tune in. More unfortunately, the audience may not always be able to tell the difference.

Bret: What is our dream film project?

Howard: A dream project? Well, I'd like to get a film contract to make ten high definition films in the locations of my choice - California, Cocos, British Columbia, the Tropical Pacific. The budgets would be enormous allowing me to bring all my friends along on only the best boats. Of course, there would be room for you and the Fathoms gang. The contract would specify that I own all the footage rights for my library. I would have ten years to do the work and would not be obligated to deliver anything worth a damn.

Bret: What person or persons have been your greatest influence?

Howard: As an underwater cameraman, two individuals stand out. Stan Waterman and Jack McKenney. Stan taught me a lot about the business and professional attitude. Jack was the best technician I've ever seen. I fashioned my photographic style much after Jack's work. As a filmmaker, Des and Jen Bartlett, Alan Root, and Hugo van Lawick taught me much about capturing animal behavior sequences on film and making that into a compelling story.

Bret: You've been doing this a long time, what advice can you impart to the next generation of aspiring underwater film makers?

Howard: The best advice I can give may be not take any advice too seriously. Natural History film making is a passion. The odds of being successful at breaking in are enormously against you. Still, if the passion is overwhelming, the odds don't matter. Go with your heart and enjoy the process. It's the process that really matters. The true reward is finding justification for being out in the wilderness appreciating beauty purely for the sake of beauty itself, not in seeing your pictures in print or on television or in cashing a check.