You probably meant: Pretty uninteresting with a lot of special effects?
I mean, you can actually get into a story like that? This is the stuff moronic male teenagers feed on, but do you actually see any other humans interested in that? This is the triumph of the form over substance. Nice visual, as you said nice special effects, but absolutely nothing interesting to say. A future Spielberg, I guess.
Too many filmmakers with nothing, I mean absolutely nothing to say! You've noticed that too, uh?
No MFT mount is a deal breaker for me and is pushing me toward the Ursa Mini Pro.
One of the best on this board and guess what? I love my G7 more and more and I will create images and videos with it as good as anybody who gets a GH5. As a matter of fact, I'm waiting for the GH5 to ship so the price of the G7 goes down even further so I can buy another one and start shooting with two amazing cams on set.
Yeah, an of course no mention of one of the most prevalent catch-22 in this industry. To approach a casting director you already need to have money and of course to have money you need to start raising it and you can't without your cast, not even on crowd funding platform that require that you already have your cast. So which comes first? Oh, the money of course.
I've found a Nikkor 24 mm MF 2.8 AIS and a Nikkor 50 mm, MF 1.4 cheap on ebay and in very good condition. I use these two lenses on a Panasonic G7 with a speedbooster to adapt Nikon lenses. What I've found is that these two lenses are not as good as the cheap 14-42mm kit lens that came with the camera. Pretty unbelievable and I hate to destroy the myth of the old vintage lens, but after numerous testing I found out the color reproduction, especially on skin tones, is not that great, compared to a modern lens. The contrast is really bad. A relatively cheap modern lens, such as the Bower 16 mm T2.2 totally destroys the Nikkor 24 mm. I think we're talking here about misplaced nostalgia.