fuzzynormal

If there's a better metaphor for the plodding of American politics, I'm not sure I could think of one at the moment.

So, I guess I'll be the voice of dissension, the first version was better. I liked the grade and the subtitles way better. The distraction of the subtitles worked with her character's thoughts being all over the place. 

Be that as it may, I contend that a rule of 3 is not something requiring implementation in one's work to make that art effective or worthwhile.  Feel free to disagree.
As for psychology, I do believe that potential voters of someone like Bernie Sanders are more likely to have a mindset apart from a voter that would rather hear jingoism and be comforted by that approach.  
And as this is a short film to appeal to a certain worldview/voter right now (as opposed to a general election) I can see how it might be effective in it's defined space.

If not, what does?
Unfortunately, everyone is uninformed to an extent.  Heck, former Prez GDub and his cabinet admitted they were chronically uninformed and offered it up as an excuse for a lot of their foreign policy decisions. (to which I say there's a difference between willful ignorance and being uninformed, but, well, you know, semantics)

Well, from my POV, I'd give that sentiment a full on raspberry.  If a US citizen voter isn't frustrated with the candidates and is perfectly comfortable with any particular person, I'd say that kind of outlook is more dangerous than being skeptical and worrisome.  Especially in 2016.
If one finds themselves trusting a politician, any politician, I'd say they've gone off the intellectual deep end.
You think it would be any less disturbing if we just watched a similar styled movie called "Trumphead"?  Oh my good lord, that would be something.
Also, Ed, what would you tweak about the color?  Nothing seems off to me.

Cool! 
It's fun and encouraging to see how (seemingly) simple footage can be used for shaping creative narratives.  I do wonder if a lot of filmmakers get that part backwards and demand assertively creative visuals before the storytelling?  Not that you don't need both, but you get the idea.
Also, clever use of irony there at the end is an impressive bit of storytelling craft.
Anyway, POV from an aspiring documentarian, so I'm biased.  I am biased for a heavy handed use of film grain too.  What is it about me that enjoys that?
BTW, one of the things about ideological rhetoric, and is present here, is how things are framed as of the USA is a broken state that needs to be fixed.  You see this in phrases that typically has the word "again" in it.  Make America great again!  Make things good again!  As if the way American culture exists is currently in some sort of disaster.  I don't see it that way.  We're constantly and absolutely flawed and screwed up, yes.  Things are always unfair in many regards and needed remedy, yes, but you can't have a broad swatches of cultures coexisting without that sort of reality.
To assume otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophical DNA of this nation.  
Hey y'all, our system is pretty much broken by design.  The three branches of government are built to NOT cooperate wholly.  You don't fix it.  You continuously shape it through compromise, but fixing it is impossible.
I realize the "again" phrase in this instance is coming from the perspective of a fictional character in a movie, but nevertheless it triggered my thinking, so you should be congratulated.  Good storytelling should accomplish that.

Opinions are like...

I had a bout with stress dealing last year with a bad client and it put things into perspective for me.
Heart problems arose.  Not fun.
Personally, I'm not sure, for me, that the idea of of a suffering "artist" (or, in my case, "craftsman") is worth it.  However, I do get the sentiment of why suffering for art is noble.  An artist desires to be emotionally invested under high stakes for their creations to have a particular energy behind it.  Finding philosophical truths and paradoxes can be an emotional difficulty; much less figuring how to bring them into an existence that fits one's oeuvre.
But, not all storytelling needs to come from that sort of place.
Also, I'm not into the idea of being a work-a-holic.  The notion of being prolific because you have to express yourself is okay.  But the notion of being prolific because you want more jobs and more money is somehow morally wrong to me.  I don't buy into that at all, be that at a cultural level or at an artistic level.
I guess I could understand busting my ass and sprinting hard to work on something like "Ida", for instance, but I wouldn't feel good about myself if I did something like that to help create the next Transformers movie.
And that's not saying that "Ida" is a great piece of art.  But it does have a certain quality in it's craft that gives it more value --to me.
As it is, I float in my little pond content on being the fish I am --and aspire to be.  As long as I progress on my terms, I'm cool with it.  Other creative's muses may push them harder and down a more tortuous path, but we're all different and tell the stories we're gonna tell.
I wouldn't want to be around for those first 5 days.
How about the self-important males that do the same?  Do they get a pass on being idiots or something?

Yeah, well, you know, it's like, just our opinions, man.
 

Yeah, well, you know, it's like, just our opinions, man.
 

Yeah, well, you know, it's like, just our opinions, man.
 

Well, I don't think it's in any way a stretch to realize that the American judicial system is flawed and imperfect.  
Honestly, any system run by humans will always betray our foibles.  Regardless of this particular instance outlined by the documentary, I'd say it's reasonable to realize concerning problems do exists.  Sometimes they can be very deep, motivated by pettiness, institutionalized, and/or highly troublesome.
Cumulative realities about American law over the history on the nation are pretty telling.
So, on the other end of the spectrum in this example, to idealize an institution without honest critique isn't good either.
Also, the main point of the post I got is that a filmmaker can tell a good story without great gear.  Other factors are wildly more important than image quality.  

Not at all.  I actually believe the filmmakers in this instance are making the right choices for their tale. Their storytelling decisions are impressive.  Good storytelling isn't always comprehensive truth telling is all I'm saying, nor should it be. Nor, often, can it be.
And I just felt like I could see some of the narrative strings being pulled in this instance.  I do agree with most of their decisions regarding what strings needed to be yanked (and not yanked) in service of amazing a viewer.
In other words, I'm impressed with the story, but am confident a more nuanced reality of it exists.  I'm not saying I, as a viewer, should experience that nuance.

Indeed.  Happy accidents.
I love the fuji cams for stills and just get so frustrated that their cameras I have on my shelf are pretty average for video.

I say no, not really.
Even Michael Bay is making his jingoistic movie.  If one is not creating something with perspective and passion, then it's just craft.  Which is fine for some things, not so much for others.  And if you want to do something artistic, you need that.  Even unsophisticated passion interesting.  Isn't the opposite rather boring?  It's like looking at a Norman Rockwell painting or a Thomas Kinkade.
I think the reason that so many movies have a progressive political slant is simply because storytelling artist tend to be a more empathetic lot.  One has to be to willing and able to create characters with "truth" to them.  It's easier to get there if you project your feelings and emotions, rightly or wrongly.  
But whatever.  
I don't mind navigating the ideological minefield.  It's part of what makes life interesting.  If you want political parroting, there's plenty on on-line cacoons to wrap oneself in.

Subjectivity in the context of life, wisdom, etc.  As you get older you just look at thing different.  Pop culture aims at younger people, so most gray hair folks develop a disconnect.  You might no be there yet, but it does happen gradually.

Honestly, that's like trying to multiply with zero.
If video ever works well in a fuji camera I'm convinced it will be by accident.

Honestly, that's like trying to multiply with zero.
If video ever works well in a fuji camera I'm convinced it will be by accident.

You can always make the edit with a comp track and share it around to online forums for people that do VO.  If your cut is impressive enough, maybe you can work out a swap wherein a pro agrees to help you out in order to have a cool new video on their demo reel.

“NX-1, GH4 or 5DMkII?”
The answer is yes.  Any of those cams will allow you to capture fine images and to an accomplished 1080p edit.  The quality on all will be fine.  The difference in how they render their image is a nuance that you'll have to decide on your own, preferably by doing tests.
In a way, it's like choosing a preferred film stock.
As we all know, any "drop dead gorgeous" images created on modern gear typically depends on the skill of the shooter and lighting, not the camera.
You're right to be more concerned about the post process and, depending if your a beginner or a skilled pro, figuring out the best workflow for your abilities.  And man, when I shoot a doc and end up with hundreds of hours of footage, I want postproduction firmly planted in the KISS realm.
If you know how the BMCC behaves and are pleased at what it delivers, why not stick with that?  ProResHQ and Raw, use either depending on need.

Can anyone point me to a trusted source/online how-to for doing the post RAW process on an 5DII?  Not looking for anything generic, something you've used that you've relied on and has served you well; made things relatively easy during the post.
Never really had a desire to give it a go, but as cards and computers have changed, might as well see what's up.

Emulation can be a good thing when one is learning.  I've created this color cast many times.
But I'm willing to wager that this era in Hollywood film making is going to be chastised as the time when colorists hooked onto this teal/orange nonsense --and it is going to look ridiculous and very dated to "future" eyeballs.  You know how when you watch an 80's movie and you pick up the visual cues that let you know it's an 80's movie?  The 'aughts and 21st century teens are going to have a very obvious aesthetic too.    
If you want something you create to be more timeless, I'd suggest looking at films of the 70's as a guidance; much more basic back then.
Essentially, I'm saying don't think you gotta do this just because it's what you're seeing most of the time.

Honestly, I think film cameras are easier to shoot with than with the RED.  
I've never been particularly enamored when using one, as it's a fussy thing.  That slow boot up is so frustrating.
But, at that price, I'd buy it if I was going to make a certain type of short narrative film or a feature.
Because the thing demands light, it does force one to be more considerate.  I mean, you really have a narrow range of ISO.  That can be a plus, depending on what you're trying to do. 

Refund!  Aside from that, when I went the projector ran fine.  And it was fun to hear the film spooling, see the scratches, watch the image registration drift through the gate.  The narrative didn't work though.  Not an exceptional film regardless how it was shot.  Appealing to my inner-tech-geek, (hey!  They used the same lens as Ben Hur!) but otherwise nothing too remarkable as a movie...not on the a-list level anyway.  The director is too indulgent with his style and it was more weary than vibrant on this go 'round.
Liked watching Russell do his "Jack Burton meets John Wayne" character though.

Honestly, I think film cameras are easier to shoot with than with the RED.  
I've never been particularly enamored when using one, as it's a fussy thing.  That slow boot up is so frustrating.
But, at that price, I'd buy it if I was going to make a certain type of short narrative film or a feature.
Because the thing demands light, it does force one to be more considerate.  I mean, you really have a narrow range of ISO.  That can be a plus, depending on what you're trying to do.