1) I would look into getting a sony vx-1000 or 2000 if you want the LCD screen. I still think it is the best camera for its price. Will set you back about $1000-1200 and really good quality.
2) Final cut is an apple program and premiere is the PC equivalent, so no u cant get final cut on pc. I still think premiere is better but mainly because i am so used to pc's that it is hard to switch over. The best tutorial for Premiere is forums. It is easiest just to come to a forum like this and post your questions about what you want to do.
3) Firsty the aspect ratio is the biggest difference. I assume you are using 4x3 where as hollywood movies are using 16x9. As for editing that 'look' in it depends on the type of movie you are making. (whether you want it lighter/darker, coloured differently etc.) it can all be done in premiere.
4) I would definately invest in a cheap shotgun mic on ebay and attach a boom pole to it.

Hope this helped in some way.

1) the panasonic DVX is pretty solid. but it runs at about 2,500

2)if you know how to use Adobe then stick with it. CHanging editing programs can be a real pain cause they are all different. I'm guessing whoever told you final cut is better is a mac user. I just switched to mac and use final cut BUT it really depends on who you talke to. the adobe vs final cut, apple vs PC arguement could go on forever and never end. So if i were ou i would stick with adobe.

3)dont be fooled by behind the scene things. trust me when i tell you that the quality of raw footage on a hollywood set is NOT the same as a home video. It may look that way because of the monitor or because you are not seeing what the filmed first hand, you are seeing it through another camera which can distort things. In order to get a good quality picture you need good lighting and framing etc.... dont bank to much on post to make your picture look great. alot of beginner do that and anybody with a decent eye can tell when something has been messed around with too much in post. whil you can make your picture look better then raw footage in post you should still have good looking raw footage so you have something to work with.

4)find a good mic and you can make a boom pole out of a painters pole if your short on cash (or buy one for about 80 bucks)

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick

Thanks for the words, helps a lot!

I used to also be puzzled by this jump in quality from the working edit of a film to the final print. Here's why that happens:

To edit, a quick, low-quality scan of the negative is made. This has enough information for the editor, but it isn't sharp and doesn't have very good contrast. After the editing is finished, an EDL (edit decision list) is sent to the negative cutter, where the film itself is physically cut and spliced, then printed for projection. The DVD of the film most often contains a high-resolution, color-corrected scan of this finished print, making it much higher quality than the footage the editor worked with.

-----------------
Andrew Gingerich
Exploding Goldfish Films
Check out my vodcast on iTunes: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=96931870
and my blog at http://www.exgfilms.com

3) There's an obvious difference in visually quality in home movies and hollywood movies; while watching special features of some hollywood titles, I noticed that before the film is edited, the quality is comparative to that of a home movie. Thus, something is done during the editing stage that adds that certain "quality." I think it has something do doing a color-correct, a color overlay, or something like this. Anybody have any idea what I'm talking about? Cuz I want to add that quality, as much as possible, to my films. I want to make it look authentic, not like a home video of a kid's birthday party.

You are very observant! Actually though, this is a major result of how editing (tradional editing) is done. Film stock, especially 70mm is extremely expensive. Not mention having one hard copy of it means you have to be super careful or millions of dollars worth of time and shooting will be gone.

That being said, obviously editors do not use the original film to edit. Instead they make several copies on to very lowgrade film from the hardcopy (which is kept safely underwraps) and edit using the copies. Once the creative editing decisions have been made, the editor goes back and makes the final cuts to the hardcopy and then you have the final version of the film.

Because certain scenes are taken out during the editing process, there is no need to spend the thousands of dollars to get those reels of 70mm film developed- so in the 'Special Features' on your DVD you are probably seeing a lowgrade version from one of the pre-edit low-grade copies.

-=However=- There is software that prides itself in getting video that 'film' look, but in today's industry things are still mostly shot on film... why? Because only film has that "film look".