Alt Shoo

I too fall in that 98% and I’m also extremely aware that you can use a Fisher Price “My First Camera” to create something that can possibly be sold to Netflix. However when that opportunity arises, I would like to have that option already in my stable. I don’t rent equipment, but I do get loaners. 
 
I am also in the camp that having a “Netflix” budget doesn’t mean I am forced to go out and get an Arri or what have you just because. With that budget I’m more privy to allocate that towards more important aspects (to me) like the screenplay, gaffing, set design, talent etc. 
 
With the power of today’s sensor technology I can get an S1H and rival what is considered “big budget” if all the other elements that lends itself to production quality were on par with those big budget-ed productions, all the while being Netflix approved. Also, if I wasn’t concerned with working with Netflix, I can replace that S1H  and use a Gyls300 and I’ll still be able to do what I want.  
 
Which leads to my preference and me wanting to use a GFX 100 or perhaps the 1Dmkiii and not a FX9 or RED, for that matter because I prefer the look the GFX can give my productions. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned Netflix approved because I know what that entails on forums such as this vital platform we are all on, but it’s still an important factor with my purchases. 
 
Regarding the stills aspect of it, yes I can use what are expertly suggested here for print use (even for the IMAX recommendation) and those submissions are wonderful, but it still comes down to my preference for how I want to finish my job!

Here is the Philip Bloom talking about the Fujinon MK Zoom Cinema Lenses:
 
https://***URL not allowed***/philip-bloom-shooting-with-fujinon-mk-zoom-lenses-on-the-pocket-4k/

They're awesome. This is why Fuji needs to bring out their own cinema camera to use with it!

I don't get it what's not clear about this official chart? :

Personally, I'd just look at the outer edges of the GFX100 system and take it from there.
In no particular order these would be :
The maximum of 5fps in stills, the maximum mechanical shutter speed of 1/4000th, maximum internal recording format of 4K30p 10 bit 4:2:0 and a native lens range in 35mm FOV equivalent of 18mm to 200mm.
Those are all fixed limits and ones that without any changes from Fujifilm you will have to consider will always stay fixed so if you absolutely MUST have 10fps or 1/8000th or RAW or 6K or 4K60p or a  native14mm or 300mm lens then walk away.
Of those, though, the fps and mechanical shutter ones are the ones that are absolutely set in stone and Fuji doesn't yet feature any lenses on its roadmap that are outside of the 18-200mm range so that too should be considered an outer edge for the foreseeable future.
The mitigation here with the lenses of course is that I'm only talking about native ones and it is a hghly adaptable mount including AF adapters for EF lenses so its not without options. Importantly, one of these options is a PL adapter which is something that EF bodies can't accomodate.
Which leaves us with the video specs and whether the 10bit 4:2:0 internal or 10bit 4:2:2 external files it produces are good enough versus the internal or external RAW from another camera.
From what I've seen of it, it has a very nice output but until you have an A/B against the other competitor then who knows really and with this sort of money on the line I'd be looking to rent them and determine that myself rather than rely on a YouTube one.
At the end of the day, if I had the money and had to choose between these two particular cameras then I would buy the GFX because my particular needs for it these days wouldn't exceed the fixed hard edges of the spec and I'd favour the massive edge it gives in stills over the smaller loss in video as a worthwhile compromise.
 

Man if only! That would be so awesome and sad too because then I’ll have two powerhouses that still aren’t Netflix approved! Lol

Everything that Andrew has said in reply to you, plus:
 
1. Metabones Hasselblad V to GFX Speedbooster. It brings real medium format to digital! Good choices (for stills as well as video) are
(a) 50mm f/2.8 F (forget about the FE versions -- the electronics won't communicate, and they are more expensive)
(b) 80mm f2.8 F (the CF or C versions are also good, and optically the same; but the F version focuses closer, and could be easily de-clicked)
(c) 150mm f2.8 F
All three above are excellent optically, could be easily de-clicked, and surprisingly affordable. I have omitted the legendary 110mm f2 not because it isn't good (it is), but second-hand price is very expensive.
 
2. For video use, the 16:9 4K crop of GFX 100 is 0.918x, i.e. only a little larger than the 0.934x crop of Red 8K VV at FF. Any FF lens, except perhaps the widest of superwides, should cover. The DCI 4K crop is just a bit bigger, but we still have room to experiment. Judging from screenshots I've seen (I've forgotten where....), Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art should most likely cover the 0.918x crop wide open at near- to mid-distance, or stopped down at infinity.

It's IMAX approved instead!
Here was my lens adapters strategy with the GFX 50S... It will be same when I get GFX 100, in 100 years when the price is down to under £4000.
1x Leica M -> GFX Adapter
1x EF -> GFX Adapter with Autofocus (Techart)
Then multiple Leica M to whatever SLR lens I was using, be it Nikon, M42, Contax Yashica, etc.
The Minolta MD lenses worked the best
You get some light fall off in the corners but not hard vignetting on lenses that pair well with it. Most of the ones that cover are longer than 50mm and the wider ones don't tend to do as well.
Some SLR lenses designed for full frame were over-engineered to cover a larger image area.
Don't expect much in way of corner sharpness compared to Fuji's own GFX lenses though.
You can also get adapters to Hasselblad HC lenses. Or cheaper, older manual focus ones.
There's a lot of old medium format glass on eBay if you don't wish to experiment with full frame stuff.
My favourites of the full frame stuff on GFX mount are:
Canon FD 85mm F1.2 - covers full sensor and looks sooooooooo damn good Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART Minolta MD Rokkor 58mm F1.2 Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm F1.8 Here is the guy who inspired me to try the Minolta stuff
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/
Sigma 105mm F1.4 ART worked well, but very heavy!
And yes, medium format at F1.2 or F1.4 looks every bit as spectacular as you'd think it would
Yes 10bit 422 external. I think it does 10bit 422 internal in fact, or was it 420 like X-T3?
Ask Philip Bloom, he has one.
I'm too poor.

I’m actually thrilled to be a backer for this game changing lens! I’ll be using it with the GYLS300 and maybe try it on the E1. So far the best footage I’ve seen rendered with this lens comes from the users with GH5s and BMPCC4Ks. Like this one in particular:
 
 

Personal View covered it.
Been a long wait for it.
They'd be better off keeping it under-wraps then surprising everyone, and then releasing it.

Id pick both
 

1Dx III as I mostly shoot action so the fps for still and 60fps and 120fps for video are very important.
Plus medium format has more limited lens selection and no real long lenses. MF lens are even more bulky than FF ones.
Last but not least I have a good selection of Canon lenses.
I did not check footage of the GFX 100 so not sure on the impact but is 10bit 4:2:0 and not 4:2:2 and max 30fps... 5 fps still is very slow for any action.
Imo GFX 100 is a landscape camera if that is your primary goal then is probably a great camera and 1Dx is the wrong one. But anything fast paced or need long reach then GFX is not a great choice.
If primary goal is video a C500 II or FX9 is a much better choice.
Not really sure why your question because are so opposite these two cameras.

I'd go GFX 100
Larger sensor
IBIS
Phase-detect AF
Excellent 10bit codec, not too huge file sizes
Very good EVF
Much higher resolution stills
Better ergonomics for video (i.e. tilt screen) and more features

A medium format video camera from Fuji would shut the game down. Even though, it would be a pretty impractical format with limited lens choice compared to Super 35 or full frame, cinematographers think with their hearts as well as their brains, and getting the opportunity to shoot on a nearly IMAX-sized sensor would override a lot of other considerations.
Do it, Fuji. DO IT.

If Fuji made a dedicated cinema camera with a large format sensor and the GFX mount totally by passing mid tier S35 and FF cine cameras would be insane. 

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

Who here would buy a Fujifilm GFX 50R if it was half the price and had 4K 10bit in it? Instead of a Sony/Canon/etc FF Mirrorless for the same mid two thousands price. 

That hasn't happened yet, but it will happen this decade for certain. As sensor costs continue to fall. 

17.7mm vs 26.7 mm , an adapter should be doable! Would be a tighter fit though for the electronics. 
However people who buy GFX lenses (they're very expensive) is an extremely small niche of buyers, an adapter wouldn't sell many at all. 

And I doubt a Fujifilm FF camera should be made, as Fuji would just run into the same problems Sony did. (if not even worse, for Fuji)

As Sony never started out with planning to make a FF mirrorless camera, thus when they decided to later on they had to face the decision of:
1) ditching E Mount and creating a new mount, like Canon has done with EOS-M (then making RF Mount instead)
2) squeezing in a shoehorned FF sensor into a mount intended for APS-C, with all those compromises that mean (such as Sony's IBIS never being as good as the competition)

I personally think Fuji has been very smart here. They realize they're too small to compete head to head against the big guns of Canon/Nikon/Sony FF.

Instead they've got the double headed strategy of:

1) embrace the essence of the purpose of mirrorless, high quality but very compact camera packages. A Sony FF kit will never be quite as compact as a Fuji APS-C kit (Olympus is taking a similar strategy here, but leaning the quality/compact balance further towards the compact side). This allows Fuji to sidestep competing directly against Canon/Nikon/Sony, and Fuji can instead play to their own strengths.

2) bring out mirrorless medium format cameras positioned above FF cameras. As Fuji is gaining the first mover advantage in the medium format mirrorless market, and in the long run sensors will become cheaper and cheaper. Eventually medium format will become "affordable" for even the average joe, just like has happened with FF cameras. Today an entry level FF camera is one anybody could buy, FF is no longer super expensive like it was back at launch. (imagine a world where a Medium Format camera only costs a few hundred bucks more than a Full Frame camera??) 

It's a nifty business strategy, sidestep the white hot intense competition in FF bodies, and instead bring out the very best there is one stop above and one stop below FF. (which also handily positions Fuji's own products two stops apart, which is a good distance to space them apart. Prevents their own products being so directly in competition with each other as they're spaced far apart. Interestly, Panasonic has a similar strategy wih a gap apart of two stops as well with their cameras: but MFT vs FF, instead of APS-C vs Medium Format)

Is a bold strategy which is a bet on the future that Fuji (and Panasonic) are making:

They're betting that with time the performance of their smaller sensors will become so good, many people will happily compromise in exchange for having a small compact kit. 

They're also betting (this was a much eaiser bet for Panasonic to make, than for Fuji. Except that Panasonic is fighting in a tougher market niche... against Sony/Canon/Nikon) that the prices on their large sensors will come down in price far enough that they can become relatively mass market products and not just a small small niche. 

Interesting that the sensor for that camera was developed by AltaSens, the same company  JVC purchased and made the sensor for the GYLS300. 

Interesting that the sensor for that camera was developed by AltaSens, the same company  JVC purchased and made the sensor for the GYLS300. 

Interesting that the sensor for that camera was developed by AltaSens, the same company  JVC purchased and made the sensor for the GYLS300. 

I’m using two Z-Cam E1’s, Sony A6300/NEX7, DJI Osmo Pocket, JVC LS300 & Panasonic Eva1.....sometimes IPhone 8 Plus or X Max, whichever I pull out of my pocket. 

I’m using two Z-Cam E1’s, Sony A6300/NEX7, DJI Osmo Pocket, JVC LS300 & Panasonic Eva1.....sometimes IPhone 8 Plus or X Max, whichever I pull out of my pocket. 

A better question is why don't people for car shots (or any other tight/tricky shots, like from inside a fridge, or in a toilet stall, or whatever) use a BMD Micro Cinema Camera, or a Z Cam E1, or E2, or RX0mk2, or GH5S, or etc...

People are too comfortable in taking the easy non-controversial choice "this is a GoPro shot"

("Nobody got Fired for Buying IBM")

Still will take some more time before the concept of "this is a GoPro shot" will die off from being inside people's minds. 
For "GoPro vlogging" I'd suggest instead a DJI OSMO Pocket, in fact I was just yesterday talking with my Partner about that as she is wanting one. 
 
It's shameful how little my GoPro Hero 3 Black is worth now (NOTHING!), vs how much I used. 
That is why I'm keeping my Sony PMW-F3 ?
Except it isn't the most convenient camera to vlog with.... 

I don't think he meant to be condescending. Action cameras have their uses but outside of their incredible stabilization GoPro has done little to move forward. Honestly if I needed an action camera for anything I'd just get one of the cheaper knock offs before paying the GoPro premium. That's assuming I couldn't just use one of my Panasonic cameras to accomplish what I'd use an action camera for. 
They also lose their value faster than pretty much any other camera out there. I just can't see investing in one unless you really need it. 

mr reid has given them every opportunity to succeed, statistically sony have had 7 bites at the cherry and still lag behind in percentages.
make of that,  what you will ! 
theres a base of 30000 forum readers, 36 votes is embarrassing.  It seem like bloody hard work to engage any of them in any sort of activity on the forum ?
Maybe mr reid should have added a { i desperately want a cinema camera category } for the other 29964 others or perhaps their all out vlogging ?