The Making of unReal: 9 Days to Go

 The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have great mountain biking with great cinematography.

 Great cinematography =/= maximum slow mo and pixels. It means picking the shots that showcase the subject (in this case mountain biking) in the best way for the viewer's experience, it has very little to do with what camera you use as long as the quality of the camera doesn't detract from the experience. The trouble with having a $60,000, 1000 fps camera is that you will want to use it all the time to justify the expense, whether or not it is the best choice.

 I think people are allowed to make their own movies however THEY want to make them...
The Pinkbike video section/ internet as a whole is absolutely bursting with underproduced Gopro videos, handheld loose/ fast shreddits, why would you need even more of the same from some of the few people with the potential to do something different?

The point of cinematography is to aesthetically capture the subject in a way that makes sense to whatever the overall theme/ purpose of the film is, in this case a remote cablecam flying down at speed with a rider, it's probably to capture the technicality of the riding in a way people rarely see, aka, to "look at the mountain biking" for a longer uninterrupted shot... (the "look how good our cameras are" thing is usually just coincidental, and actually interesting for alot of people who like seeing how things were made.) The internet seems to love to take that painfully cliche "back in my day/ they don't make em like this anymore/ old man yelling at cloud" approach to action sport films with the same nostalgia that people who grew up with comedies like "Happy Gilmore" feel when they smugly suggest "they just don't make funny movies anymore."

I think people seem to create this fuzzy shiny memory of the "golden era" of things, when if you had no previous attachment to it and actually looked at it objectively now, it would be pretty damn underwhelming. I think we forget how cheesy and gimmicky the MAJORITY of those early action sport films were. People loved them because it was fresh/ new and were being offered up in a time in our lives where we actually were happy to see things featuring our favourite pastimes, and not self-entitled and cynical towards a batch of other people's hard work/ personal film projects.

The fact is, the more popular things become, the more people will self-appoint themselves as the critics they think we all deserve and need right now. Anytime theres a BTS shot of a Red camera, people like Charlie Sponsel will climb out of the wood-work to somehow re-word yet another new blog post about how anybody who shoots mountain biking should be shot themselves and that the job should be out-sourced to random spectators with tremors and a fisheye lens.

Not everybody's going to love everything, but it's pretty silly to put energy into disparaging something which is as light-hearted as sports.
(**Not all directed at @Patrick9-32, just see comments like this all the time and it gets old, on your second comment there, I completely agree, technology doesn't dictate that something will be good, it also doesn't dictate that it will be bad.)

 I am not talking about old movies, I am talking about movies like where the trail ends where the journey, the people and the riding are the subject, not how good the camera/effects etc are. Those are the movies which are compelling to watch. Movies with loads of slow motion to demonstrate the quality of the camera equipment don't have any hold on me. You may as well go and watch the slow mo guys on youtube. Either way, I might be proven completely wrong by the unreal movie which I will watch for sure. As you say, people who make their own movies have the right to do it however they want, they probably don't give a toss what I think, that doesn't take away my right to think it.

 I can't wait to give them my money!!!

 STOP WRITIING WITH YOU CAPS LOCK ON MY FRIEND

 Freeloader.