How irrelevant articles about Hollywood gossip tarnished No Film School's legacy.
The No Film School website began the boom of DSLR/digital video news sites. But its BS writers may have been the real villains all along.
> If Canon had done this with the EOS-R5 it would have been dubbed "a second failure from Canons mirrorless lineup".
And the people saying that would be idiots. If only R5 did what this did...
Letdown? This is the only camera that matters in 2020.
The Canon R5/6 are a joke in actual production use in the field, the Blackmagic goes to $10K for 12K nobody asked for and nobody needs (nobody really needs 8K either, and those that do wont get it from Blackmagic but from Red, ARRI and co, with real crews and budgets), and the Panasonic is good but this is better for run and gun, documentary, music videos, ads, etc - with better low light than the SH1, less rolling shutter, more codecs, better dynamic range, plus autofocus (killer for one- or few-man crews which a $3K camera is aimed at).
"Are filmmakers rolling for 20 minutes straight? Sure. See David Fincher. But Fincher's budget is going to be different than yours. He's going to have multiple cameras on set that are exchanged out immediately. "
David Fincher? Please ....
Documentary makers, interviews, corporate events, weddings, etc do roll for "20 minutes straight" or more in 4K and would not want their camera to overheat...
> Mel Gibson is an incredibly successful filmmaker and actor. It's also shocking to see that anyone will still work with him.
Perhaps they are mature adults, that care how good he is as a filmmaker and actor, (which is the capacity that they work with him as anyway), and not what his political opinions and personal views are?
It's called being professional.
And why should Hollywood "care" about BLM? Hollywood is an industry, industries produce what they produce, they're not there to care or give us their political wisdom.
> The problem is they are depicted as a reality, they don't just exist in fantasy scenarios, they appear in more ground films and TV shows.
I call BS. All kinds of things in Hollywood/TV are depicted as reality. That's the whole point. There are none "hardboiled detectives" the kind we see in movies, gangsters are hardly like in "more ground in reality" Scorsese films, and so on. "Ground in reality" just means "make it appear more realistic", it doesn't mean it's realistic and not still a movie.
Not to mention that the kind of films that have "prominent" pixie dream girls, are 100% romantic comedies, fantasies, etc, in other words they're almost entirely about entertainment fun, not supposed to be realistic, gritty reality, or anything.
That said, another issue is that those kind of girls do exist. The biggest trope here is that this is just a trope, and such girls can't exist. Which dictates what girls can and cannot be. Yes, there are girls like this who don't fit into the traditional old-fashioned girl / modern girl sterotypes. There are girls into bikes and guitars for example, who also like a quirky look (in fact YouTube has a lot of them). Should they be forbidden because that makes them a "magic pixie"?
Anther BS is that "a manic pixie dream girl is a female character written whose only purpose is to help the men in their story change.". For one, that's the case with almost all supporting characters in movies, men or women. To assist the hero in their story change.
The "sage older advisor" to the main hero kind of character for example, has a similar purpose.
In movies where protagonists are women, it's usually men (ex boyfriends, creepy guys that they fell for for a while, bosses who put them down) are there "whose only purpose is to help the women in their story change.".