Cryptic voice-over about nature and humankind? Check. Season-changing timelapse shots? Check. Birds-eye camera zoom through fall leaves? Check. Birds-eye camera moving away from the ground while rider passes on the edge of the frame? Check. Slow-mo trailbuilding shot? Check. Oh and the exact same title animation. Here we have a group of seemingly passionate individuals, who obviously saw the movie Life Cycles and felt inspired to create something themselves. Thats great. What I dont understand is the decision to stay so close to the original. Coming up with DIY solutions to be able to use a variety of camera moves is great, but it looks to me like the creativity stopped there. Why didnt you make the next step, creating your own "visual language" instead of trying to replicate whats already been perfectly executed? Im not trying to blame anyone here, basically "taking" a few of the shot ideas from life cycles will surely benefit your own project, but what I dont get is why you chose to use the voiceover and the title animation on top of that, so that it becomes so incredibly alike. Just wondering. Life Cycles was the work of two professional photographers who took three years to refine and shoot their dream movie, unless you have the same amount of know-how, gear and time, I wouldnt consider using the same vision for your own bike movie. But yeah Im curious about the full thing and Ill take the time to watch it when it comes out. I will never discourage anyone from following his passion, its just the decisions along the way that sometimes puzzle me.