Jump to content

EduPortas

Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EduPortas

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,344 profile views
  1. I'm not against him as a person. That's beside the point. He just feeds the same hype machine by receiving new gear to review when a company launches a new product, except he does it at the technical level. That's were the credibilty as a YT channel starts to crumble. YT is where a good part of the marketing budget is spent in the tech sector. That budget includes freebies for these guys, trips, special passes, etc. They are not journalists where you can expect at least a modicum of profesionalism and respect for the reader/viewer. They are here to sell hard and fast with links in th
  2. I don't care if he gives a negative or positive review of a Sigma product. That's beside the point. The underlying credibility of these influencers is the main problem. We all know companies are greasing their hands with free gear they later sell to make a quick buck, ad revenue, free trips, etc. They are part of any marketing budget now. That's were they are coming from. Brands and the YT algorithm love them because it make a sweet connection with money spent advertising their new products on Google. They can track exactly when and whom created a surge in gear sold via a particular
  3. I don't care about the technical specs of X gear or absolute technical quality of the image. Dude is clearly a gearhead. He shares no narratives (a review is analytical, not narrative work). So no, his review says nothing to me. But this type of "content" is what goes today by high-quality: talk about specs with the intention is to sell sell sell. Show some graphs. Record a quick v-log. Make you push that buy button. It's not a hobby, it's their job as influencers. That's why this blog is still relevant, even if the author takes six or twelve months to review X new camera . At least
  4. Loyal reader since 2012 (or 2011? I forget). Never thought I'd see the day when the author of this blog would stoop down to some youtuber that is clearly a technician. Dude has no idea of what constitutes art and does not care. He's in it for the views and the afillo links. Guess it's 2021.
  5. Every single movie I can think of that can be called art pushed normative boundries in some way or another. Most of them were missunderstood in their time. Contrary to what comes out today these creations had "weight": being subversive + having good exposition + good craftsmanship. There's some Hollywood stuff, of course, as well as cinema from other countries. Following that logic, 99.9% of the digitally enhanced stuff we're consuming today will most definetly not be remembered in 20-30 years. They are neither subversive nor have good exposition, but are techinicaly fantastic a
  6. Interesting thoughts, thank you. My main gripe with the new stuff is that a vast amount of new creators are better activists than artists. In the past, of course, directors, writers and producers were partisan to different causes, but foremost they were artists. Now it's the reverse: these guys are better activists than creators and their work leaves little doubt about it. For money reasons, of course, big companies have backed them.
  7. Art has never been about not offending people. Some would say quite the opposite: you want to make people ponder. I think the current discussion is more about bland, well-poduced "content" on streaming platforms that is merely watchable, but very rarely comes close to being cinematic art. The truth is most of these new merely watchable shows have a heavy-handed ideological slant that make them transparent in their intentions, yet very profitable. Quite the opposite of art that is complex, layered and often contradictory.
  8. Yes, but the thing is most audiences have become accustomed to these clinical/sanitized products and consider it the new "normal". They will gobble it up just because it's been released on Nflx or Amazon Prime and has a high level of techical polish but little depth. They think it's cool because it's new and since it's new it must be cool, right? As many have said, with most new shows and movies the agenda is so obvious it hurts. Yet after watching high-quality material (cine or TV) I like to reflect and ponder about the ideas inside the narrative, not become partisan to X o Y
  9. Was thinking about the exact same thing today after watching some of Herzog's very first films from the 70s. Dude was really "out there". Sadly, we're not even on the experimenting level of cinema of the 80s-90s right now, let alone the 60s and 70s. I swear the ratio of crappy-to-respectable movies and series on Amazon and Netflix is about 9 to 1. But hey...that's what the masses want
  10. You could. But then hedge funds will start to make money off of other hedge funds betting who will go down each week. Same with stocks. They will bet upwards in price, not downwards as per usual. It's basically just a huge casino.
  11. Because some dead French men of the XIX century and his pals made a bunch of experiments proyecting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 FPS. Then they arrived at 24 FPS and went "yeah, that looks about right and there's no perceivable difference between 24,25,26,27,28,29 FPS and 24 is cheaper to roll". That's the legacy. Like the wheel, why try to change what is already damn near perfect?
  12. Obviously we are living in very different realities. We are a people who enjoy the outside world, despite high insecurity levels and overcrowding. Our weather allows that year-long. Over here enjoying a nice evening with drinks, dinner and a cool movie inside the cinema is the civilized thing to do during the weekend. We can even drink inside the movie theatre, hehe! Audiences are generally very respectful inside movie theaters. When they are not, they get shouted at until they leave the room (saw that during the last Nolan film). But that's rare and, honestly, comical. Pretty sure
  13. We know it is, friend. But not in a flash, more like a slow churning.
  14. People who actually enjoy going out of their houses? Not everyone is rocking a 75-inch screen in their tailored-made domestic movie theater. If some of you guys are lucky enough to own a monster TV set and speakers then great, but going out for dinner and a movie is still a popular and accesible way to have fun. Has been like that for the last 100 years. Streaming services tend to rack-up. Their prices, as many have said, will only go up, even if we don't care for 99% of the crap Netflix and others push on their platforms. I WILL happily pay once or twice a month for cine
  15. I respect that. But the fact remains: cinema and a big ass TV in your living room are two different mediums. As such, the effects they produce are different. The way you receive content through them is different. You can'y say Western civilization without cinema. It's a ritual and a huge industry also. Are you ready to lose that?
×
×
  • Create New...