PaperIsland wrote:I think a better term used to describe a good AMV is Effective: "adequate to accomplish a purpose / producing a deep or vivid impression."
I don't agree with "effective" being necessary for a good amv. Effective depends on the creator's intentions or what the viewer assumes the purpose of the video is. Without knowing for sure what the purpose is, there's no way of telling if the video achieved that purpose.
For the latter half of that you could use "outstanding". It's a nice word. Outstanding as in "awesome" (superior), as in "standing out from the crowd" (prominent), as in "timeless" (unresolved debt), etc, etc.
It still boils down to "good". Anything considered good is probably considered outstanding compared to all the "not good" things.
Unique, original, one of a kind - those qualities have never been a necessary part of a good, outstanding amv. We have many outstanding amvs that are rather similar to each other - they're still just as good as they would be if there were only one of them in existence.
There can be multiple outstanding amvs. There can't be multiple unique amvs. One amv might be unique compared to group A, and another unique compared to group B. But neither amv is unique when compared to each other - because we put them both in group C for being "unique". Once there's a group of them, they cease to be one-of-a-kind and we're only calling them unique out of habit and convenience. They were unique. Now they're just like all the other formerly unique videos. Outstanding.
/semantics ftw
