


Ileia wrote:Yeah, I got it, jackass. I said I didn't like the video and why, get over it. Subjective also means that *gasp!* I can have an opinion.

Mr Pilkington wrote:I saw a lot of scene selection beyond just a lip sync haha video. I can see a lot of time/effort put into this video, and use of tools beyond just the basic NLE.
In my opinion I saw a great deal of merit and effort.
Also to me the audio wasn't a crutch as is indicative of comedy video to begin with. I think the work as equal to the song's humor.
But again, that's my take.



Mr Pilkington wrote:Retractions are regrettable but after hearing the director's side of things it makes a lot of sense. (And you know I fought that one hard.) I too had a video cut from Pro, but because it was questionable I did pose the question to the VAT staff prior to entering. In the future that's really the best bet to prevent said issues.
The one major redemptive quality to that is those videos will be judged along with the expo swill. A quality pro level entry may contend better, so all is not yet lost.
Some random website about movie ratings wrote:PG-13 is a strong warning to parents that the film may contain content inappropriate for under-teenaged children. Any drug use will require at least this rating, as will the use of the F-word as an expletive (using this term in a sexual context will garner an R rating). Nudity is permissible in a non-sexual context and violence may be more intense and persistent than in a PG film.
A rating of R indicates that a film contains some material for adults. Strong language and violence may be prevalent. The R rating also includes films with drug usage and other elements most parents would find suitable only for adults.

l33tmeatwad wrote: I think "picky" is more accurate, as some of the videos you gave high scores for (#16 is a 5/5? really? It's rather mediocre and there was really nothing special about it...) weren't that great, technical or concept wise. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind criticism of my of my own video, but I expect more out of someone who claims to be a "critic"...
Warlike Swans wrote:First off, while limiting bias is good, the point here isn't objectivity; AMVs are an art. Secondly, you very clearly demonstrate a preference for action vids/editing style in your scores, so your bias speaks for itself.
Warlike Swans wrote:"Harsh" seems accurate to me, so does "Erratic." ...Then again if I had a spread sheet generating random scores it would correlate to mine a lot better than mine correlates to zeiram's, so perhaps I'm just incapable of comprehending such an alien mind.
zeiram_00 wrote:l33tmeatwad wrote: I think "picky" is more accurate, as some of the videos you gave high scores for (#16 is a 5/5? really? It's rather mediocre and there was really nothing special about it...) weren't that great, technical or concept wise. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind criticism of my of my own video, but I expect more out of someone who claims to be a "critic"...
Maybe i just enjoyed that video, its my subjective opinion for that video. Read my preface to the review, it says its a basic/quick/generic breakdown of the videos, not full critique. I hope that's what you were referring to by expecting more out of the reviews.
kiarrens wrote:OK, finally done with my nominations.
I'd just like to say that I LOVED #26 and #35. I really, really want to see the video source for 35 now. What interesting animation...
kiarrens wrote:OK, finally done with my nominations.
I'd just like to say that I LOVED #26 and #35. I really, really want to see the video source for 35 now. What interesting animation...

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests