Anthony Hardwick

Alec, When you wrote, "Ahh, so that is how trickle down economics work!," I would just like to clarify that I was not actually referencing the economic theory or "system". If you read the post I made carefully, I wrote "a trickle down effect," not "the trickle down effect." You may not have meant that as a jab, but you know how posts are... it's difficult to discern the tone of the post sometimes. In any case, I'm no expert in economics, and as always, I am just voicing my own observations and opinions. Anthony

So by this logic, a company like Levi Strauss, which closed it's last one or two U.S. based factories within the last month or two, and will now be manufacturing all of their products in foreign lands primarily for the cheaper labor costs, qualifies in your opinion as "pouring cash back into the U.S. industry" because it's "financed, owned, and therefore providing profit to a U.S. company?" How about all of the laid off workers from those factories, and the secondary impact on the various businesses (restaurants, etc.) near those factories that have lost significant numbers of customers as a trickle down effect? Just look at Flint, Michigan before and after GM closed it's factory there years ago - the subject of Michael Moore's first documentary, "Roger and Me," to get a graphic example of what this does to whole communities. Yes, Phil, there is a reason your views are not regarded as "hopelessly obvious," but there's nothing strange at all about the reason why that is. I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got to go to work while I am VERY fortunate to still have a job in the U.S. film industry, on a film that is remarkably still being shot on location in the U.S. Being that it's a story that takes place in California, USA, I'm surprised that the producers didn't take this film to Romania too. ;)

Since you're so keen on correcting the grammar, syntax and punctuation of others, I thought you would appreciate having your own errors "corrected." "Genealogy" is not a synonym for "etymology." If you had studied your etymology, you might have known that. Cheers mate

At least three of the movies you listed were shot outside of the U.S., perhaps more, but three that I have seen and know about... and of those three, two are probably the highest budget projects on your list. Lord of the Rings (ALL THREE in the trilogy) - shot in New Zealand Lost in Translation - shot in Japan The Last Samurai - shot in New Zealand So how exactly do these films qualify as having "poured cash back into the U.S. Industry?" Good God mate, get your head out of your bloody arse for a change. Feeling fluffier Phil?

What's the going rate for belly button lint?

Phil Rhodes wrote: >"Hi, >I've never quite understood the Ultra idea. I mean, it weighs a ton, and that four stage >post is hardly a daily use item. I think you're going to end up carrying a lot of stuff around >you hardly ever use. >Phil" Well, it really depends on the operator and what he or she is capable of and comfortable with (weight wise and accessory wise). Not too long ago I was on a shoot with Larry McConkey, and his Ultra was loaded with quite a few accessories that he didn't use for the given shots. He had a cinetape mounted and an onboard recording deck for example that I'm fairly certain were not used for the shots he did. In any case, one might say that that is a bit of extra weight to be carrying for no reason, but it clearly was no problem for Larry. In the event that he needed to use either of those accessories, they were ready to go at a moment's notice since they were already mounted. Then again, I'm talking about Larry, who is one of few (I imagine) steadicam ops who has flown Imax cameras more than once (with the aid of the now famous Rubber Band arm mod)! As for features one would hardly use, Larry did use the motorized top stage to trim on the fly quite a bit, as well as the tilting and telescoping capabilities of his Ultra for various shots all on the same day. So I'd say that in that particular shoot's case, Larry found his Sled's various functions quite handy.

This reminds me of my early years of working in the biz. One of my first jobs was working for Peter Wallach Enterprises. Peter is the son of Eli Wallach and Anne Jackson, by the way. Anyway, he had a guy working with him who was an effects and animation wiz - Mike Sullivan. As this was an effects and animation company, we had quite a few Mitchell Standard rackover cameras. Mike started to make the most beautiful and faithful full scale reproductions of entire Mitchell cameras (Magazines, lenses, movements and working doors) all out of wood. They were truly works of art. At one point he had a gallery exhibit for several of his wooden cameras. Sadly, I just spent the last ten minutes ttrying to dig up any pics on the web, but I came up with zilch. Oh well... I can just imagine one of those beasts on top of my Ultimate!

If I'm not mistaken, this forum is not owned or even exactly affiliated with the SOA. I could be wrong about this, so don't jump down my back if I am. In any case, I believe that yuor SOA membership (user name/password) is totally separate from this board's registration. The SOA site simply links to this discussion board. So if you never visited this board before, that's why you were not recognized. Just trying to help....

Sure, that's why there are so many manufacturers just jumping into the wireless focus racket, right? There are basically three current manufacturers that seem to make up about 90% of the steadicam market as far as I can tell. Preston, Bartech, and Scorpio (yes yes, I know there are others, but these are the three that most seem to go with). Well, there are far more manufacturers of camera stabilizing systems (steadicams) than wireless focus devices! What makes you think that there's nothing special or difficult about the design of a reliable and accurate wireless focus system? Have you seen aand tested all three units? I would say that the prices for all three are not out of line. In fact, if you want to get right down to it, I think Jim could probably sell his sytem for more than he does. I'm not trying to suggest that you do this Jim ;) My point is that this is specialized gear with quite a bit of R&D time and money invested by the manufacturers, They deserve to be able to make a living off of their hard work for their good products.

Posted by Phil Rhodes: "Americans will not watch foreign films. Ancient fact." You really are a moron, aren't you? I don't have room to list the numerous foreign films that have been SMASH hits in the U.S. from a box office AND critical perspective. Furthermore, this statement is about as true as saying, "All Brits have fokked up teeth a la Mike Myers in Austen Powers. Ancient fact." For the record I don't think this... I'm making a point that will hopefully be understood by any morons who might not understand my initial paragraph response. Cheers mate.

Haven't seen it in years, but I seem to recall some very good work on DePalma's "The Untouchables." I can't recall if it was Ron Vidor or Larry McConkey, but I'm pretty sure it was one of the two. My apologies if I'm wrong altogether ;)

All I know about the film is that he made it while at (or right around the time) the School For Visual Arts in NYC (S.V.A.). I don't think he'd been doing steadicam work for too long when he made the film. I saw it years ago when I was at NYU (just a few years after Jimmy was at SVA), and was impressed. It was definitely an ambitious project for a student filmmaker (or recent student filmmaker) to undertake. It was good campy fun as I recall.

I was about to post those exact words, and then scrolled down to see you beat me to it Michael... He he... very funny :lol:

Chas, Count me in... I think... How much would one of them doohickeys cost?

Okay, this wasn't really a "worst movie" experience, but it ranks up there as one of the funniest (and most fun) ones. It has to be almost ten years ago that I A.C.'d for Jamie Silverstein for a couple of days on a Japanese movie being shot in NYC. I don't know the name of it, and I never saw the finished film, but here's the basic setup: Japanese cop travles to NYC to catch the bad guy & bring him back to Japan. Basically this is just like the opposite of "Black Rain" starring Michael Douglas, where a NYC cop goes to Japan. Anyway, on the days that we worked there were some stunts and LOTS of gun fire. The director was a very nice man who was quite animated when he gave direction to the lead actor. If you've seen "Lost In Translation," you'll have a good sense of what I'm talking about. Anyway we're having a bunch of fun shooting, and laughing a lot, and then we do this process trailer shot where the cop is riding a motorcycle and pursuing the bad guys. Well, as we're driving around the streets of Manhattan shooting the actor on the motorcycle (which is strapped onto the trailer), the director yells some direction to the actor, and the actor proceeds to take his right hand off the motorcycle's handlebars, and pulls his gun out of his shoulder holster, and starts to fire it as he rides the bike. So far so cool, but then the director yells a few more words of direction to the actor (in a very excited manner) and he starts to mime what he wants the actor to do. He's really getting into it now and getting into acting it all out. So then the actor pulls his left hand off the handlebars too and grips the pistol with both hands! He does this and keeps shooting two handed while we all just keep on rolling through the streets of Manhattan. I swear that it seems in my memory that the actor had his hands off the bike for at least a full minute as we negotiated several turns, no less! Well I just about split my gut on that one... tears were streaming down my face. I don't think I had laughed that hard since grade school.

Chas... I wasn't naming any names! I was just making the point that an electronic problem can happen to anyone's rig where there are wires and current present. I also don't want anyone to think that I was dissing any particular brands of rigs. PRO rigs are proven to be very reliable and great workhorses. Chas' rig has been very reliable for many, many years as just one example. In any case, I am a firm believer that it's the operator, not the rig that matters most (wacky LA producer's calls regarding equipment aside). Look at the great work that was done in the very early years with Model 1's and 2's. By the way, Chas, I'll say it again... the work you did on American History X is some of my favorite steadicam I've seen. Happy New Year... Maybe I'll see ya tomorrow atthe LA Auto show... I'm looking forward to having that guided tour from Erwin!

Jamie, "Do I miss my old front mounted vest? Not really. I just wish I had enough cash to buy another back mounted vest and use one as a back up and another a my primary, so that in the event that I had an accident I wouldn't have to borrow anyones front mounted vest again." That would be a luxury - specially when you consider that you can drive a very respectable new automobile for the price of 2 DSD vests! Erwin, I have one (I forget what #... I think it's #94 - I'm too lazy to go check). I've had it for almost a year now, and I like it a lot. It is the only vest I've owned, though I've tried a number of different front mounted vests dating back to the first workshop I did in '87 or so. I found it pretty easy to get used to. It's very comfortable, and seems to distribute the weight in a manner that makes it easier to bear for longer periods.

"No fancy electronics, or electric parts that could blow up, the monitor is the only unit with electronics. Just wires connected to batteries, without possibility of shorting out or false connecting of wires with isolated video and Power, idiot proof made to last forever it seams." Erwin, the only thing I would disagree with in that post is the part I quoted above. Anytime wires and electricity are involved, there exists the possibility of shorting out, etc. In fact, I witnessed a Pro rig go down due to just this sort of thing... twice on the same shoot to be exact. Come to think of it, in that incident, you came to lend the operator your rig while his was being serviced, so you know nothing's fool proof and anything can fail... especially in the world of electronics.. ;) I do agree with you in principle though... simpler circuitry has less that can fail... BUT... more complex circuitry that is of superior design and construction (i.e. proper guage wiring, etc.) and has been well field tested and then adjusted as necessary can be more reliable than a simple circuit of inferior execution and quality control. Basically I'm saying that I think Greg's XCS designs are very reliable, despite their electronic sophistication. I know you agree, and there's no argument here... :) By the way, Happy New year, man. Where are you right now? best,