Josh Bass Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Oh my God. . .Brad defended me. Oh well, I can't argue with you anymore then. I don't know. . .I guess I always assumed that some Christians WANTED us to believe they were a huge world force, when in fact they were an extreme minority. Oh well. Apparently not. P.S. I think the states comment was not for its own sake, but trying to say "how many states are there? That has to do with the Christian population in the U.S. alone, disregarding the rest of the world." Maybe I'm wrong again, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted June 1, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted June 1, 2006 Oh my God. . .Brad defended me. Oh well, I can't argue with you anymore then. Don't be so surprised Josh. Just because I disagree with you about one point doesn't mean I won't agree with you on another point. It's not like I'm out to prove you wrong or argue with you at every opportunity. I certainly didn't mean to convey that feeling in my previous posts. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the "how many states?" question. I thought he was just calling you stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Bass Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Ignorant I'll admit to, stupid's a different story, and more insulting. I still think he meant something about the states relating to number of Christians in the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Taylor Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 "....didn't play well together. Too much Steadicam." hmmmm. I wonder who that is aimed at? Sounds like somebody is still trying to rile a red-ass from a certain prickly steadicam operator who likes to yack and complain. To the point. Saw "Da Vinci Code" this Sat. and kept thinking, "I'd probably be enjoying this a lot more if I were at home watching it in HD." I thought this this time mainly about the movie. But I will add that I was likely the only one who had to get up 10 minutes into the movie to tell the "manager" to open the curtains so their crummy movie would fit on the screen. Idiots and medicority and destroying the industry and nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted June 1, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted June 1, 2006 hmmmm. I wonder who that is aimed at? Sounds like somebody is still trying to rile a red-ass from a certain prickly steadicam operator who likes to yack and complain. Is this comment aimed at me? How exactly is someone saying there is too much steadicam in a movie suppossed to be a shot at me? If you've got something to say, then say it. What do I "yack and complain" about? Your whole post is complaints, and adds nothing to the conversation at hand. Maybe you should step out of your glass house before you start throwing stones.... I offer my opinion freely on this forum, for better or worse. Sometimes people agree with me, and sometimes they don't, and vice versa. My recent exchanges with Josh are a perfect example of this. But I don't often worry if I'll offend someone. I'm not trying to offend, but I'm not going to hold back. I act the same way in person as I do on this forum. I say what I mean, and I have the decency to speak directly to people instead of making subtle personal jabs. I'm not trying to be sly and insulting and vague all at the same time. I have the balls to address someone directly. If you've got a problem with me then stop beating around the bush and say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lav Bodnaruk Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I thought adam said "too much steadicam" which is a vaild opinion... but exactly that, his opinion... I might not agree because i own n op stabilizer (glidecam) n love seeing it on screen... so yeah, i dont see how that is having a go at anyone other then adam's review,... im confused to see brad react?! Oh well my english isnt the best to follow this one through guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted June 2, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted June 2, 2006 I thought adam said "too much steadicam" which is a vaild opinion... but exactly that, his opinion... I might not agree because i own n op stabilizer (glidecam) n love seeing it on screen... so yeah, i dont see how that is having a go at anyone other then adam's review,... im confused to see brad react?! Oh well my english isnt the best to follow this one through guys... I'm not reacting to Adam's comment. He obviously wasn't making any reference to me. By the way, I think there are many films that use too much steadicam. I'm not sure I agree about Da Vinci Code, but there are certainly many that I would agree on. Heck, I've done the steadicam (and many time STANDicam) on some of them. It's Joe's attempt at using Adam's post to have a go at me himself that I'm reacting to. And I seriously doubt he'll respond to my post anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Vickers Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I'm an editor on documentaries and I'm always hammering the people I work with about the need to cut out exposition in stories. I see that blank look coming back a lot and it drives me crazy, because I know the person has no idea what I'm on about. That's why I'm forever grateful to Ron Howard for making this movie. He has saved me from having to explain what I mean. Now, when people ask me, "What's wrong with exposition?" I'm just going to tell them to go and watch this movie. Virtually the entire running time of the film is comprised of one tedious expositional sequence after another. Sleep-inducing. It didn't have to be this way. Oliver Stone had a similar expositional problem to overcome in JFK -- which is 1000 times the movie this is -- and he did it in fine style, with one major sequence, the Mr. X sequence with Donald Sutherland, tying all his expositional threads together in one riveting performance. JFK tells a story of a historical coverup. Da Vinci Code offers up a lecture of a historical coverup. See them back to back and see why one works and the other doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I liked the photography for the most part. There were some scenes with Tatou that looked very smooth and fined grain. I liked the filtration they used on her, but sometimes it seemed to be a little obvious. I liked the sharp, higher contrast look of the wrap-up scene with Hanks and Tatou at the church exterior near the end of the movie. I wonder if that was due to the DI, stock, or both. I think that was one of the scenes where the use of a 4K DI was visible. Very fine detail and an analogue smooth look without obvious pixelisation or sharpening. On the other hand there were lots of grainy and/or fuzzy shots as well, but no aliasing. Has anyone seen the 4K version on the Sony projector? Michel Hafner IMDb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 10, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted June 10, 2006 It's playing over at the AMC Century 15 (4K projection) but I haven't seen it yet. Due to the graininess of the photography, the diffusion, etc. in some ways it's a good test of the projector to see how it preserves that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arni Heimir Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 I just saw it. Very impressed by the lighting. But I felt that some insert shots were HD. When the jet is landing. Did anyone notice it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now