fuzzynormal

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Not to stray too far off topic, but I've never understood this. Currently 32 and have no problems remembering what is like to be 22, or even 12 for that matter. 
 

Well, let's also be honest.  The trailer isn't doing the movie any favors.  It's bad.  Mundane while being too revealing of plot.
Maybe Sony should've considered hiring out this guy's editing and storytelling skills:
 

It's just plain basic misogyny.  I don't know why anyone should be shocked by this sort of reaction.  The internet is run by 15 year olds.  15 years old, literally and figuratively.  Insecure dudes need a scapegoat for their sexual anxiety.
Also, they have a hard time relating to gals as regular complex human beings.  As such they don't want anything other than the simple objectified stereotypical woman in their pop culture.  Which, by the way, I think they view pop culture a little bit as their entitlement.  --And I would note that, in a sense, they deserve to feel this way as MOST successful pop culture and commercial marketing caters directly to them.
And they like that stuff segregated.  The ladies can have their own stuff, but their response is to relegate it to the dismissive Chick Flick category,  "Put it in the corner. There we go.  Okay, that feels better."  
When a well regarded pop culture franchise goes against the norm, they get bent out of shape, simply because they're not very sophisticated people.  Some of them might be some day, but at the moment many are not...might not ever be. 
I suppose it's good to try and push back against this ridiculousness, but it's like trying to push back the tide with a broom.  
So, dial up the SJW umbrage if you feel you must.  Be aware that most young guys are just stupid and confused.  Although, might as well try to get through to a few, I suppose.  Worse things to do.
All that said, hey, it might not be a great movie.  

I find this stuff fascinating:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mermaid-stephen-chow-comedy-about-human-impact-earth-becomes-chinas-biggest-film-ever-1545558
As is pretty obvious, filmmaking is a global biz.  Sony and Disney are trying hard to figure it out.  Ultimately, I think that the system will continually fracture a bit. Smaller more niche stuff will thrive to fill the gap as studios continue to try and prop up their tent-pole franchises.  And, by necessity of having to strive for broad appeal, ignore the more artistic and narratively challenging side of cinema.
Those smaller/better ideas are migrating to prestige TV and the internet.  Which is perfectly fine for an aspiring-late-career-documentarian like me.  It's hopeful. 
In the meantime, that goofy Chinese flick is outperforming (per screen) Deadpool by double.

I shoot almost all my m43 stuff  @f2.  But, I do like my f1.2 lenses in case I need that extra brightness in a dark room.  It's good to have that ability even if it means some annoying CA and softness.  A f1.2 lens stopped down to f2 looks sharp.  I'm shooting old Canon FD, but I've used Nikon and Pentax with success as well.

I do run n gun a lot.  Not sure what your situation is, but I'm typically covering 1 subject.  As such, I put a wireless mic on him/her and then the receiver on my camera.  
Lately it's a EM5II with the battery grip adapter.  Good set up in that I can monitor the audio signal and the whole "rig" is small.  Also:  Simple.  No breakdown.  No set up.  No tripod.  I just carry my camera with me and shoot.
Shotguns are fine and all, but they need to be be near the subject to be effective.  Otherwise it's just an expensive mic that's not located properly for capturing clean audio.  If it's a necessity to go with a shotgun, (sometimes the situation demands it) I get an audio operator to boom pole it.  
For the most part I'll pick up group conversation audio well enough from the lav the subject is wearing.  On occasion I've run two wireless mics and I just let it record outboard and carry that pack in my camera satchel. 

Definitely go for it.  I still have a soft spot in my heart for the KY-27 I used early on in my career.  Fully competent piece of gear, but it didn't stop me from coveting the Sony stuff.

good night, brave troll.
and it's spelled "genius", genius.
The movie was distributed by paramount internationally. that included both those countries and whatever rock you just crawled back under.

around the time of the release of the movie, the total seeds for all the torrents i could find was just over 10,000. i don't know how high it got. The Turkish YouTube upload had just crossed 100,000 views when i discovered it (it had been up for more than a month). A torrent was also likely used to make bootleg Blu-rays that one of my actors found in Hong Kong.
ps - fuck you, you belittling asshole.
 

Certainly pros need to work in the specialized minutiae and hone their craft, but I do think it's a bit silly when a naive hobbyist with a t2i tries to shoot raw with expensive lenses, and then attempts to apply advanced LUT's to footage --when they can't even yet figure out how to point a light in a meaningful way, frame an interesting composition, or structure a story with any compelling cohesion.
I guess it's just easier to be technical than creative.
Well, I don't 'guess' in my case, anyway.  I know it is for a fact.
 

I do think the model will change (is changing), but let's not forget that Louis C.K. earned the luxury of being able to thrive on the vanguard of this new model simply because he established his credentials in the old model.
On the other hand, it's proven that mass media is possible with youtube.

Yeah, but how does it render skin tones?

Certainly pros need to work in the specialized minutiae and hone their craft, but I do think it's a bit silly when a naive hobbyist with a t2i tries to shoot raw with expensive lenses, and then attempts to apply advanced LUT's to footage --when they can't even yet figure out how to point a light in a meaningful way, frame an interesting composition, or structure a story with any compelling cohesion.
I guess it's just easier to be technical than creative.
Well, I don't 'guess' in my case, anyway.  I know it is for a fact.
 

I do think the model will change (is changing), but let's not forget that Louis C.K. earned the luxury of being able to thrive on the vanguard of this new model simply because he established his credentials in the old model.
On the other hand, it's proven that mass media is possible with youtube.

I do think the model will change (is changing), but let's not forget that Louis C.K. earned the luxury of being able to thrive on the vanguard of this new model simply because he established his credentials in the old model.
On the other hand, it's proven that mass media is possible with youtube.

I too use the M43 system.  Sometimes with a speed booster.  Last thing I did travel-wise was Indonesia; urban, coastline, and jungle.  Had a heat wave and also lots of days of rain.  Man, the humidity.  Yikes.  The LUMIX and Oly cams I had on that shoot did fine and it all fit into a very modest camera satchel.
During the trip I shot a dark Church interior as well as a few bat caves.  A handful of work at night too.  With a f1.2 prime lens and a speed booster one can get decent exposure at stay below 3200iso.  Need that low-light ability.
Depending on your environment situations, I'd also suggest putting durability and weather sealing up on the priority list.
And while it would be great to travel with robust pro gear with RAW capabilities, the work I do in the field just can't support that kind of commitment, so consumer 8-bit is the compromise.   I've not felt terribly limited, but things do depend on what you're aiming for regarding the end result.

We forget that these days. These cameras are all powerful tools. We dwell in minutiae.

Highlight rolloff is not as good, but in my opinion it's only marginally "not as good."  If you're  pixel peeper, then you'll also notice the the EM5II isn't as good as a LUMIX.
I have two other Pany cams and they shoot better video, but I hardly ever film with them anymore. 
Since I like to shoot with the camera, and the stabilizer let's me get fun creative shots while handheld, the "neat-o" use of the camera outweighs the inferior IQ.  But again, like you, I'm sending most of my stuff to web video and that's kind of a IQ equalizer.
I'd suggest giving it a try for a day or so.  You never know.  Sometimes a piece of gear just feels right...or not.

For what it's worth, I've traveled the world extensively for a client and she's always been partial to the Sony image and the cameras she's used over the years represent that bias.  Her aesthetic and mentality is certainly more from the broadcasting POV rather than cinematic.
She insists on 60fps, for instance.
Anyway, good luck with it all!

This doesn't fit any of your image quality criteria, but since you said the word "fun" I thought I'd mention the EM5II.  In no way does it exceed the IQ capabilities of other cameras, but I just can't help enjoying shooting with it.
Fun for me is being inconspicuous while being able to shoot cool shots on the fly.  (A camera with a wrist strap)  What Snowfun mentions above is a great point.  
Regardless, the EM5II appeal is an sort of an intangible thing.  I'm not even that fond of the menu system, but I do like using the camera.
I've shot corporate gigs with it next to a GH4.  For web delivery I felt like it cut together fine; more than fine, really.
And the things you can do with video and that 5-axis stabilizer, that's fun too.  You could almost forgo taking a tripod, depending on the type of footage you're trying to get.  I think it now sells for $800 new.  I also have 3 vintage Pentax A110 prime lenses for $75 and I think they look really great with the EM5II.  Of course, numerous other lens options exist.  Getting good, fast, and cheap glass mounted to a speed booster will give one impressive low-light ability too.
If that's a huge priority, I'd consider the A7s. The older version used is $1500.
Most cams shoot pretty good video these days.  If you think a particular strength of a camera, such as stabilization or low light, is a perfect fit, then invest in that capability.  Otherwise, seems like you could just stick with what you have and do just fine.

Honestly, I have no issues with it as I think they're angling for a sort of dirty low-fi vibe overall. 
Imaging is subjective.
BTW, you should go find Vince Gilligan's WTF podcast interview with Marc Maron. 
They go off for a wonky 15 to 20 minutes about film vs. digital.  The discussion feels like it could have been lifted from the pages of eos-hd.

Honestly, I have no issues with it as I think they're angling for a sort of dirty low-fi vibe overall. 
Imaging is subjective.
BTW, you should go find Vince Gilligan's WTF podcast interview with Marc Maron. 
They go off for a wonky 15 to 20 minutes about film vs. digital.  The discussion feels like it could have been lifted from the pages of eos-hd.