JaddziaDax wrote:Whatever biases you guys may have against both Zac and Brad, I think the podcast turned out interesting and not too bad.
Sure you can tell Zac isn't into AMVs and doesn't think much creativity goes on in our hobby, but I think that's balanced out by Brad's passionate defense.
Yeah a lot of it goes back to "good old times of ye vcr2vcr" but he was specifically asking Brad how he got started, and also Brad talked specifically favorably about the org. (That's some good promotion for us, and look how some of you are treating it.)
I loved that when Zac said that most people just do comedy to pander the audience, Brad flat out told him how wrong his assumption was and correctly stated that Drama is the most over done category. I loved how he talked up Vlad and about running contests. I loved how he pointed out that AX's issues were it's own fault. Also discussion on AWAs contests specifically were still accurate and true as far as I can tell.
Granted most of us who are massively active in the community could easily state that choosing Brad is a bit dated for discussion on AMVs and that proves that Zac really didn't bother to do much research. However, maybe this interview was supposed to be Brad. If you guys missed it there was also a bit about Brad doing a bit of dubbing work, maybe that paired with his name being well known on the con circuit is why he was the one granted an interview. AMV discussion just happened to go along with Brad.
Rider4Z wrote:i'd be all for hearing another interview with another editor, tho. much like code's lip flapper, hearing different opinions gives a much more rounder perspective. just don't treat it like the world's ending if you're not a fan of the interviewee. unfortunately, with all the flack zac is receiving i don't see him fishing out another editor anytime soon to interview even if someone is suggested to him by a credited group of people.
Otohiko wrote:Sorry, I'm not sure who blew it (and I can say that, given that I've 100% kept distance from this whole thing), but it's plainly apparent to me that whoever can make those sorts of blanket statements - not the first from him - is an idiot. Rather than blame the nebulous "AMV community" that he supposedly "engaged" (on his own terms, on his own turf, with his own selected guest), I'd say that this sort of unprofessional reaction makes ANN look a lot worse as a result. It's bad journalism. If he wanted to engage the AMV community, he would do so earnestly and without the hostility he's repeatedly shown. The defensive reactions of some of our members to that sort of treatment are entirely warranted.
If you can't approach your subject without hostility, you shouldn't bother. But as an organization that is concerned with anime as a hobby in general, ANN should have enough of a journalistic standard to recognize that this is bad for them. It's not our job to make AMV talk part of the discourse around anime, because it is that by default; and it's their job to cover the anime community in all its forms. The idea that members somehow have to "behave", "give chances" and suck up to people who are being unreasonable and ill-informed to begin with is nonsense. We don't need to beg for exposure with an organization that can't maintain its commitment to engaging with the hobby at large, acting in a manner that's unfriendly, hostile and prone to snap reactions for no reason other than the personal attitude of one of its editorial staff.
By the way, none of this would be an issue to me if not for that last tweet. But that made it all manners of unprofessional and is grossly inappropriate. Anyone with any understanding of journalism can back me up on this.
tl;dr - way to be professional, ANN.
Yeah, some of ya kind of blew it:
Guess i'll just say that user with what looks like an acronym of my yt channel isn't meangelx03 wrote:Koopiskeva wrote:Didn't listen to the podcast, but I read the thread afterwards.. lawl.
Yeah, some of the users who "seemingly" joined the ANN forums are NOT doing this community any favors. Can we at least put aside whatever bad blood some of you guys have for him, and be more appreciative?
tl;dr - way to be professional, ANN.
Warlike Swans wrote:Personally I don't think anyone "blew" anything. His line; "I'd have liked to do another show that is actually intended to be about the craft of making AMVs and the community behind it, but you'll have to forgive me for never wanting to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole ever again. Not worth it." I think was a lie. He wants to punish us for not kissing his ass.
Rider4Z wrote:Warlike Swans wrote:Personally I don't think anyone "blew" anything. His line; "I'd have liked to do another show that is actually intended to be about the craft of making AMVs and the community behind it, but you'll have to forgive me for never wanting to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole ever again. Not worth it." I think was a lie. He wants to punish us for not kissing his ass.
I wouldn't do another interview either if i got the reactions he did. Whoever was to blame or whoever started the slandering doesn't matter. The bottom line is a great opportunity was given to us by having the interview at all, and all the good the Brad did for us was ripped apart by the judgement and condescension of the org. (Everyone) reacted like the interview was final say in anything AMV, and the future of anime music videos was destroyed. It was embarrassing.
If we're going to criticize someone then we should point out the good AND the bad, and not use such derogating words. Forget your pride and whatever zac may have said in the past to insult you. Step up and represent! The org didn't do itself (or the AMV community as a whole) any favors these last 24 hours.
it's a possibility, but perhaps if he wasn't treated so poorly he might have considered our suggestions.Warlike Swans wrote:My point was that I don't think he planned to do another interview anyway.
i understand this, i do. but again, our reactions weren't any better and didn't make us look good. it made us look like biggots.He's not an innocent. He started with a contentious view and then acted surprised to receive critical response.
but you ARE a part of the org. would you deny it if you were asked such on the ann forum? and i meant all the good that could have been done was shredded, not that you ripped apart what brad had to say. and i also mean in general, not you specifically.I didn't "rip Brad apart," nor did I associate myself with the org on my forum posts in ANN. I don't think this was a great opportunity that was wasted, and I think the only one who should feel embarrassed is Zac (not that it seems likely). I stand by what I wrote, and I stand by the tone in which I wrote it. Moreover, what I read from other editors I can identify was ALL more civilly written than Zac's posts. Hands down.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests