fuzzynormal

Make sure they didn't steal anything from the party. You can't trust documentarians. I joke. Some of my best friends are documentarians...just don't let them move into the neighborhood, right?

I've got no idea what will happen. But, if Donald decides to threaten tariffs to trade partners you can expect a fast retaliation. From there, who knows? When money stops flowing the markets get unhappy. You know that one guy from way back? He was a populist president, had a party that controlled all branches of the government, and then he restricted trade after elected, remember him? My uncle probably does. Of course, it would take someone like my uncle who's 95 years old to recall what Herbert Hoover did to the country. I do wonder what a 21st century Hooverville might look like. Endless dumpy RV's in abandoned Wall-Mart parking lots? Now, I ain't sayin'... I'm just sayin'... Maybe it's time Busby Berkeley musicals make a come back and "Remember My Forgotten Man," gets dusted off. Things could end up getting all Steinbeckian up in here. But hey, no big stakes, right?

Y'all have heard the sentiment that ideologies run in a circle, and when you go so far one direction you'll meet up with the other? Why not consider 2016 as the year where those lines, maybe, got just a little closer? Trump may be a goof ball and a POTUS disaster, he may not. (He probably will be, he's Trump and he's up against the GOP and the Dems) But he is where he is for what many voters feel are legitimate reasons. I didn't vote for him, but I suggest we all let go of our tribalism and work together to solve issues that affect people other than the 1%. Identity politics? Meh. Don't really care a lot about that. The fact that the Democratic candidate was on the campaign trail and not seriously pounding the drum for traditional Democratic notions outta tell you something very very serious. The fact that a GOP candidate was the one doing it (granted, it may all be lip service) blows my friggin' mind, but yet there it is. Cats and dogs are living together, mass hysteria.

I can say with certainty that's an impossibility if he keeps doing whatever it is he keeps doing. BTW, not a joke, serious question, what happens when the dude doesn't have time to hop into the tanning booth every other day? Do they go with the spray on? Or maybe it's spray on already? I'm not sure.

Well, I can't say I found Clinton to be any more trustworthy about what she said than Trump. More sophisticated in her rhetoric sure, but trustworthy? Eh.

He's eccentricities have served him well. I never get the sense that he's playing a "wacky creative" role so much as he is an earnest guy and what you see is what you get.

I respectfully submit that the polls were fine and more accurate than ever. It's was the media that misinterpreted them. If I was arguing about media bias, I'd submit this as Exhibit A. All I know is that RCP and 538 were reliable as usual. Other outlets like huffingtonpost (rolls eyes)... if you had half a brain you couldn't do anything but laugh at those guys and the way they broke down their interpretation of the data. Seriously, you should go read how they did it. They actually posted a story about it. It's amazing the thought process that they admit they used. BTW, that sort of mainstream outlet for "news," HuffingtonPost, relies on the greenest, youngest, and naive collection of scrubs to deliver their content. The hyperbole is hyperactive because there's hardly any adults left steering the ship. I'd say their aggregation is one step above visiting a Facebook political group's page, and that's being generous.

I can't begin to explain how utterly lame and disrespectful many film festivals are these days. Sometimes they're nothing more than vanity projects or a cash grab. The better ones are at least run by earnest people that make an effort within their means, (like ours) but may still come up short. I've happily endured these types of fests --as long as they have a good heart, but when they're run by people that really don't care about film, it's pretty obvious and it's frustrating. Ultimately, if I want "nice," I can talk to my mom. Were they able to screen anything of actual merit? Something, besides your film, that you were happy you watched? If so, what was it?

Also, I'd like to open the thread to included the following question: What's the best and worst film festival experience you've had and why? For me, the worst experience was walking into a 200 square foot conference room and thinking, "this space is where my film is going to be screened!?" Then, on top of that, watching the screening get screwed up because a kid couldn't operate a DVD player or the audio system. And then realizing none of it matter because I was the only person that was going to be there. I hope I don't have to explain why that sucked.

The BSFF will be hosting a free screening of "Last Days in the Desert" during our festival. The screening happens the afternoon of 01/16/17. In addition, an after screening Q&A will take place with the director. http://www.borregospringsfilmfestival.org/about/ To have a film made in my town featuring the upper echelon of cinematic craft is incredible. Director Rodrigo García, cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and actor Ewan McGregor; wow, not a bad list. Obviously, we feel blessed to have hosted this production and, quite frankly, we're still a bit in awe that it happened here. As y'all probably know, Lubezki has won the Oscar for best cinematographer the last three years in a row. Birdman, Gravity, The Revenant. All this talent along with the cast, crew, and location? Not too shabby. I'd like to invite any of y'all on the forum that are in this corner of the world (or even if you're not) to drive on over to our festival and attend. We're trying to become an extremely filmmaker-centric festival, and to have filmmakers there offering their feedback would be very welcome.

Based on my EM5II, the answer is: "the clips look better slightly under." BTW, that review in regards to ergos and operation pretty much sums up my EM5II experience. It's one of those cams where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I am impressed to see that one shot @:54 and realize what's going on there. That sort of "transparent" delivery of what would otherwise be a worthless shot is nothing to be ignored as a doc film maker. Glad to see Olympus in the game at any rate.

Oh, I think you can speak for at least about half of Americans with that sentiment. Make no mistake, POTUS campaigning is a game of rhetoric. Clinton is not good at it, which is why she was unable to turn out the vote. She only needed to convince about 1 outta 200 voters in the swing states to win enough electoral votes. More absurd rhetoric and concerted outreach to uneducated rust-belt whites would have helped her, to be honest. A little more verve with some "I'll totally create jobs for you, absolutely!" stuff. On the other hand, that's not who she is. She knows coal is doomed, for instance, so why promise jobs to the sector? Things like that. Pragmatism in a campaign is not a good strategy. It's noble and honest, but not a winning game. And really, I'm not going to poo-poo Trump in everything. He gets a chance from me. A very very skeptical chance, but a legit one. He's talking about an infrastructure WPA-type program. Which seems like that would make the GOP's leader's heads explode, so we'll see. Totally bummed about the SCOTUS thing though.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I have my own views regarding identity politics, and I wish we were all more inclusive of each other, but I'm also not so naive to recognize that's there's a real backlash against the "thought police" thing. Americans are nothing if not assumptive that we're all individuals.

FWIW, I'm saying the race/nationality thing is irrelevant. Humanity can be awful all around. One race doesn't hold moral superiority over any other in these regards. So, rather than parse the statement of what was said and/or inferred, for me, the shock is that any sort of that rhetoric would come from a potential (and now actual) POTUS. A POTUS should know better. (keep in mind Clinton and Obama have been pilloried for insensitive rhetoric too. "Deplorables" and "clinging to guns or religion") I don't like it that Trump either 1) doesn't know what he said is a bigoted thing to say or 2) doesn't care and used rhetoric as a cynical ploy for voters. I'm not sure off hand, but I believe Trump's quote was something like, "Mexico, they're not sending people like you. They're sending drug dealers and rapist. Maybe some of them, I assume, are good people." I see an implication there. If you don't, I suppose that's your prerogative, but it bothers me. The answer to your question is "no," but I really don't see how that diminishes the actual rhetoric. Of course, my bias of Trump's rhetoric of bigotry was later solidified when he went off on that judge of Mexican heritage too. BTW, are you aware that legal "Trump School" case is going to shake out here in San Diego?

I'll go off on this tangent: Sadly, there are so many rapist in the world it's safe to assume that rapist of all nationalities are crossing borders all the time. In and out. I'm reminded of all the older pasty single fat Western white guys I saw walking in the small villages in Cambodia with teenage girls. There were so many of those dudes around when I drove through there a few years ago. The world can be a sad place. Man's inhumanity to man, etc.

Yeah, "you too!" is a fool's game to play. Finding that sort of stuff on either side is easy to do and hardly productive.

And, FWIW, this video by Ed shows exactly why (in my opinion as a midwest kid) Clinton lost. While the current DNC frets about identity politics and "maximizing demographic alignment," and seemingly paying lip service to labor while glad handing hedge fund managers, people in a crappy reality had to deal with that reality. As they say, pictures are worth a thousand words. Any politician that gets coy regarding this reality does so at their own peril.

As storytellers, let's consider that the "media" is always chasing good narrative thus they're chasing conflict. It's what we all do as filmmakers, if we're any good at our profession. Considering that parallel, it's not difficult to see why hard journalism based on straight-facts is more or less dead. How boring, right? It's not because good journalism doesn't get accomplished, but because not enough people respect it anymore or pay it any mind. Worse yet, many viewers and readers don't even distinguish between an Hannity, Maddow, or O'Reillly as opinion pundits vs. actual journalist. Less respect should be given to online info-tainment ideological websites. It's all an imbroglio, but I don't know if we should blame the media as much as ourselves. Information outlets seldom worry about objectivity these days simply because there's not enough viewers, ratings, or clicks in doing things that way. Why do they do it? Because we ask for it that way. They know EXACTLY what we want and what we're asking for. Believe me, they're doing all they can just to cater to us. They're a mess because we are as well. Actual journalism has marginalized to the corners of media organizations. It's there to lend legitimacy to their more popular opinion commentators, but make no mistake, the end game is to sell advertising. It's not to put forward integrity anymore. If that was the case CNN/MSNBC/FNC would hide in shame. Those are broad strokes. There are a few authentic sources out there, but a consumer needs to be savvy about the game being played and search them out. Typically we don't. For me, this whole discussion can devolve into an existential plight, and a serious reflection of what the health of the republic actually is --for I believe that we ultimately get what we ask for. And we, like all humans, turn to a strongman when life gets challenging. Not because it's smart or a healthy thing to do, but because there's easy comfort in it.

That would be yuge. Really great. The best camera. The best. I gotta say though Ed, surely you sensed this coming. You have an unvarnished view of Clinton. And anyone that's spent time in the rural midwest and then really looked hard at Hillary...well...considering that she had this locked up was never a reassuring thing. Americans are many things, but attracted to the pragmatic aloof intellectual? Eh, not so much. In regards to cameras and production, I am curious to see what the economy does as this odd amalgamation of Trump and the GOP burp out their supply-side ideas onto the nation. If the economy withers, will the corporate gigs get even thinner and anemic than they are now? Or, would potential self distribution of my work become somehow more viable? After all, the one industry that tends to thrive during tough economic times has always been entertainment.

I got me the EM5II. This is an issue with that cam as well. Minor, but it is one. Kinda annoying. Head phone jack is low on the EM5II battery grip so it's not a problem, but still that mic port gets in the way.

Try Best Buy. Looks like the readers are in stock in Orange county.

FWIW, Disney LAND. Not Disney WORLD. Anyway, wouldn't the Anaheim Fry's Electronics have one?

Too bad they couldn't get it to 72. Three second slow-mo bursts in RAW? Could be fun for video. Two seconds? Still interesting.

I'm encouraged, but still waiting for the reviews. The thing about Olympus, for me, is that it actually encouraged me to explore more stills photography. Usually I kept those cameras separate, even though I certainly use all sorts of "hybrids" that technically do both. I'd normally shoot stills on Fuji and video on whatever else...until I used the EM5II. Liked it so much it became my stills cameras AND motion picture camera. At least until I started shooting 4k on the GX85. Anyway, would love to parse down and just have one camera, two primes, and my 12-40 f2.8 for my upcoming 2017 work. If, and only if, it makes sense for video. We shall see. https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2016/09/olympus-mzuiko-25mm-f12-pro-lens-review.html http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42-5mm_f1-2_H-NS043E/ http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/olympus/