Jump to content

fuzzynormal

Members
  • Content Count

    2,847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About fuzzynormal

  • Rank
    Long-time member

Recent Profile Visitors

7,062 profile views
  1. Of course, but the claim that art shouldn't be offensive...? Not sure about that. Certainly being offended is subjective. Personal anecdote from me, a kid raised Catholic: Monte Pythons' "The Meaning of Life" has, what I consider, a hilarious bit of satire mocking Catholics. I was shocked yet amused the first time I watched the "Every Sperm is Sacred" musical number followed by Gram Chapman's character ranting for 5 minutes about "bloody Catholics!" while 50 Catholic children exited a single household. My Mom, on the other hand wasn't amused at all. She was very offended.
  2. Being a devil's advocate here, do you really believe that's an accurate statement or is it a bit of hyperbole?
  3. What would be a good example of this? Is it? If you pay attention to the people that actually make decent stuff that'll endure, they'd necessarily be considered accomplished artists, wouldn't they? Those that aren't won't really deliver anything unto us that we'll be collectively celebrating 30 years from now.
  4. Certainly not denying any of that. You can watch films from 70-90 years ago and notice the same thing. "It's Wonderful Life" "Sullivan's Travels" "Modern Times" heck even "42nd Street." And those are the films that have endured. As I mentioned before, there were a lot of mediocre films from that era that never made it beyond the zeitgeist of their times. Nothing special that. On the other hand, the thing that's being challenged in these days by "woke" culture (which I'm not a big fan of, really, just observing) is less the championing of soft socialism, but the cultural entitlement o
  5. There's a certain context there. Personally, I definitely think the implication is "...[used to be free to] say whatever they wanted and be offensive." I suppose I could be wrong there, let me know if so. But, it seems to me, maybe some people are ticked-off that a certain traditional privilege/entitlement is now being challenged in a more inclusive society. And since being a rude self-centered person is being called-out more often it kind of makes those people upset? If so, I'd ask, is being held accountable to new standards wrong? Or is it only wrong when folks disagree wit
  6. Luckily, I've lined up a few gigs for the next quarter that'll keep me occupied and making a living. Not a lucrative one, mind, but a living nonetheless. Pay the bills at least. I tend to believe that when the slow finish of the pandemic is actually behind us, the pent up desire to get back to "normal" will be an over-compensation and we'll go through a period of inflated-spending in the market...so, might be good for folks like us. Imagine tourism will be bananas for awhile.
  7. Perhaps. Although if you watch some less remembered media products from the 1960's or before --I really think you're going to see the same ratio of mediocrity and sanitized stuff we're all still complaining about now.
  8. Also keep in mind that movies that endue the test of time are the ones that can ackshully endure the test of time! Small lot, that.
  9. You seem a little upset that other people are upset.
  10. Think it’s any different now than, say, 1961? Theres always been a big ratio between good and bad movies.
  11. Simply, I don't agree with the sentiment. It's equating the pandemic response to being unjustly subjugated. So, yeah, I don't see the response as being unjust like slavery. If there was supposed to be more nuance in the initial metaphor, I didn't read it.
  12. These two thoughts seems like an incongruity. Wouldn't every citizen not protecting themselves from a pandemic increase the general paranoia of getting the virus of said pandemic? Or maybe just ignoring it is literally what some would just rather do? --Because it's easier to do that if one has a certain POV, I guess? If so, what's the mental process to get to that attitude?
  13. I'll offer a very contrarian suggestion. Consider a refurbished EM10III. 4k with IBIS. Good battery life. It's only around $300. So maybe just supplement it with your current camera and go that route? I downgraded to the EM10III when I sold off my GH5. Lost a lot of higher-end features in the GH5 when I did that...but then found out I don't really need or want those features. Also shoot with manual Nikon primes, usually on a speed booster. Strange thing to say, but when one is trying to fill filming niches with this hybrid gear, sometimes simple and cheap is a decent bet. You
  14. True that. Which is yet another reason the significant releases are likely to diminish. For instance, I'm a guy that sold a GH5 and acquired an EM10III.
  15. I do worry the pace of such releases is going to be fewer and farther between.
×
×
  • Create New...