AMV Meta-Review #44: AMV Critiques

[JaddziaDax]

That must be a long lasting standpoint cause as I said, he has been a member longer than I have, and I remember him nagging at me to join the org as early as 2000 or 2001.

I also agree that non-technical people have the right to voice their opinions as much as the people who are "experts" at amv.

I've tried to convince him otherwise that he has a right to his opinions and has a right to post them if he wants, but he prefers to stay quiet. But one thing I'm trying to get at is THAT is also a valid choice if one wishes.

[BasharOfTheAges]

3) Jaddzia mentioned something that I think is yet another sign there's a problem. She mentioned her friend doesn't give feedback because he isn't an editor. The way the site does critiques now strongly encourages people who don't know the technical crap to shut up and hide in their corner. I think that when watching a video anyone has an opinion. Some are more informed on technical than others, some are more analyzing of 'artistic' critique methods than others. But no one should feel their opinion is worthless and currently that's exactly what the org indicates to non-tech people.

Counter-point: non-editors are the ones that leave the most all-10 "zomg that was awesome!!1" ops.

Now, this brings up a whole different side of the issue about being good judges. In the Panels I've been on for cons, being a good judge is a major issue - in fact, in expanding the AMV content at Anime Boston this year we've decided to change the majority of the 101 panel into a "how to be a good judge even if you're not an editor" section.

From what i've seen, editors focus on the technical because it's something they know and non editors either focus on how it made them feel or nothing at all because they don't know. Getting everyone to "know" is a noble goal, but is it possible?

[CodeZTM]

3) Jaddzia mentioned something that I think is yet another sign there's a problem. She mentioned her friend doesn't give feedback because he isn't an editor. The way the site does critiques now strongly encourages people who don't know the technical crap to shut up and hide in their corner. I think that when watching a video anyone has an opinion. Some are more informed on technical than others, some are more analyzing of 'artistic' critique methods than others. But no one should feel their opinion is worthless and currently that's exactly what the org indicates to non-tech people.

Counter-point: non-editors are the ones that leave the most all-10 "zomg that was awesome!!1" ops.

Now, this brings up a whole different side of the issue about being good judges. In the Panels I've been on for cons, being a good judge is a major issue - in fact, in expanding the AMV content at Anime Boston this year we've decided to change the majority of the 101 panel into a "how to be a good judge even if you're not an editor" section.

From what i've seen, editors focus on the technical because it's something they know and non editors either focus on how it made them feel or nothing at all because they don't know. Getting everyone to "know" is a noble goal, but is it possible?

Very true. I think both Godix and Bashar have excellent points. Therefore, I propose a harmonious mix of the two. I think that we should all base all opinions based on both creative and technical merit. And by that, I mean we analyze the tehcnial aspects and grade them according to how it effected the video as a whole. Then, we look at what the AMV was meant to portray (concept wise) and see how well it does just that.

Getting everyone to "know" is a noble goal, but is it possible?

I don't really think we should attempt to make this possible. If we have all technical people, who don't focus artistically or creatively, then we begin to start lacking in the creative/original department. But that doesn't mean that all technical videos should dissapear either. We need those too.

Therefore, like I said, we should have a mix of both when critiquing videos. At least in my opinion.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Getting everyone to "know" is a noble goal, but is it possible?

I don't really think we should attempt to make this possible. If we have all technical people, who don't focus artistically or creatively, then we begin to start lacking in the creative/original department. But that doesn't mean that all technical videos should dissapear either. We need those too.

Therefore, like I said, we should have a mix of both when critiquing videos. At least in my opinion.

People have to "know" how to talk about non technical elements too - which is what godix and the others in the beginning of the chat log were getting to and what i think quadir was getting at by even bringing this up in the first place. Some people are adverse to mentioning things that are so opinion-based though. With technical problems you know you're right - you're dealing in facts. With non-technical things (what we were calling "artistic" earlier on) you're dealing with individual interpretations. They're important to give an opinion/review/etc. depth and meaning to the receiver, but if you focus on your opinion of what works and what doesn't in non-technical terms, you're doing nothing different than saying "zomg i loved this and this and this" with proper diction and well-planed sentence structure.

[Fall_Child42]

here is my question i think we need answered first before we answer how.

Why are we critiquing videos?

[CodeZTM]

People have to "know" how to talk about non technical elements too - which is what godix and the others in the beginning of the chat log were getting to and what i think quadir was getting at by even bringing this up in the first place. Some people are adverse to mentioning things that are so opinion-based though. With technical problems you know you're right - you're dealing in facts. With non-technical things (what we were calling "artistic" earlier on) you're dealing with individual interpretations. They're important to give an opinion/review/etc. depth and meaning to the receiver, but if you focus on your opinion of what works and what doesn't in non-technical terms, you're doing nothing different than saying "zomg i loved this and this and this" with proper diction and well-planed sentence structure.

You make a good point.

I guess I see myself doing that a bit as well. X_X I just think that AMV judging shouldn't come down to merely tecnical aspects and logical based assumptions. I'm not saying we should dump the technical talk altogether, I just think that it's not any less important than artistic flair. Maybe saying "we shouldn't try to get people to know" wasn't the best comment I've made. I think what I was attempting to say was that it needs to be a mix of the two.

Here is how I grade things when I give opinions/critiques.

0-.99 : Horrible Video. Lacked any sense concept and techincal aspects to redeem the video in any manner.

1-1.99: Dreadful video. Lacked a good sense of a concept, and technical aspects were also lacking severely.

2-2.99: Mediocre video. Failed to impress, while maintaining some semblance fo a concept, and had slightly under average technical aspects.

3-3.99: Average. Had a concept, and average technical aspects. Failed to combine or take them over the top.

4-4.99: Above Average: Had well-receieved and well rounded concept and technical aspects.

5: Amazing Video: Both conceptually and technically impressive. Works well to combine the two.

But, that's just me. I don't think AMV's should be "robotic", for lack of a better term. I think that artistic expression should count when we judge AMV's, for better or worse.

[PaperIsland]

I think there's a misconception that a well-thought out critique has to go into metaphor and symbolism while being completely meaningless to the average AMV maker or watcher. A well-thought out review doesn't have to be qualitatively different from a simplistic review in its purpose. In fact, they could both begin with, "That video was amazing," it's just where they end that is different. Furthermore, metaphors and symbolism don't have to be difficult to understand... the guitar in Absolute Destiny's Shameless Rock Video becomes a fairly straight-forward symbol for a rock n' roll lifestyle, youthful rebellion, drugs, sex, etc...

My favorite film teacher said that your gut reaction is a good entrance point into thinking about a film, but it's not a good ending point. I feel the same way about AMVs. You should reflect on how you felt about an AMV and then break it down into what led to that reaction. So, I don't think a "heart" category is necessary. I feel like you start to think about an AMV with a "heart" reaction, break the AMV down into elements, and then finish with your overall score. I do feel that ideas and scene choices are under represented in the opinion break down, however. I also feel that those who bring up the "subjectivity" factor of art are a little over emphatic. Certainly art is a matter of opinion, especially when it's high art or fan art, but there is also a general averaged inclination. This site is quick to bemoan those who love standard "Linkinball Z" videos, as those fans are overly driven by fandom to the point of being uncritical. But if you show such a fan a (generally/on average agreed to be) more skillfully edited AMV to Linkin Park and Dragon Ball Z, they'll generally see the difference and like that one more. It's just that the combination is filling a fandom void which they can't fill any other way and so everything gets heavily weighted towards the positive.

So in summary: I think a "concept" or "shot choice" category would be more useful than a heart category. I think my heart category would vary heavily depending on the day and whether it was my first or fifth viewing as well. Of course, you can self-impose any categories you want and include them in your own review anyway. I'll return to listening now.

[Autraya]

ok this grew massively while I slept so I'd like to touch on a few points that I've seen brought up a few times.
When you get 'feedback' (beta testing, opinions, comments, QC's or just a person at your house) watching a/your video and if said person is not and editor or they are relatively new/unskilled at the hobby yes they tend to have trouble expressing what the problems they see actually are(as previously noted).
But really if you wanted to know what they really mean you can do several things about it... those of you who sit behind a computer all day not interacting with the real world may have trouble with these concepts (I'm not be sarcastic here this is from my experinces as a faciliator, in general "nerds" have trouble with communication)

scenario 1:
commentor "I didn't like it"
Editor "what in particular made you dislike it?"
commentor "I didn't like the music"
Editor "you don't like the song? or how it fits with the anime?"
commentor "the song is really fast and the pictures aren't"
From this little example any editor worth their salt can deduce that there's a problem with the flow/sync/speed of the video using simple questions like that can drag out of course the commentor could have said "I don't like the song so the video sux" in which case i'd shrug and move on (some might ask what song would have worked better).

Now I'm going to pick on some people just because they make good examples of my point not because I don't lub them.

Scenario 2:
While beta testing one of my videos
Eclipse "there's something off with the scene at 0:10"
I looked at the video... what was happeneing in the scene fit well but the speed o the animation didn't, even though he wasn't specific if you really want to find what's wrong you will look deeper and try to understand.

Scenario 3:
During my comments on Ayumix I said the masking in senshi's segment sucked (or words to that effect).
Senshi "Bad masking? o.O"
is that him being incredulos/not believeing me or asking where? I cant tell really.
if he asked - "where about do you think it's bad and what is wrong with it?"
I could have told him "oh, in the first half of your track the outlines are rough blah blah"
Granted I could have said that in the first place but no one is perfect *shrugs*

Scenario 4:
Another beta testing comment
Niotex "It's bad, I don't see the point"
Autraya *explains concept*
Niotex "well that's not getting across at all maybe you could do XYZ as an intro to make the message you are trying to convey more obvious"
Autraya "I can't believe I didn't think of that it's so simple! *runs off to edit more*"

So really it's about communication and I'm not saying to dig deeper on every little comment but if you really wanted to know why or what's motivating a person don't put all the onus on them, you can get off your asses and drag out the info

oh and Katie you are a wonderful beta tester I like it when you nitpick and do a seconds break down because I know exactly where to target.

[JaddziaDax]

I think that the "action/editing" category should remove "action" from it's title because not every amv has "action" in it..

>.>

[Otohiko]

I think that the "action/editing" category should remove "action" from it's title because not every amv has "action" in it..

>.>

On that point, not every AMV actually has editing, either