Dmytryk vs. The AMV Criteria (Substance before synch.)

[Bauzi]

Trythil, editing AMVs is like Alchemy. We deconstruct something and construct it into something else.

Now this gonna be the quote of the year in my personal hitlist.

I think you put out a lot of good statements and thoughts. Oh I really apprecite them, but to be honest.

Everything evolves. You can´t avoid it. You can just look away. It´s not wrong to look away.

[inthesto]

If AMVs are supposed to be like alchemy, why haven't I invented calculus and discovered gravity yet?

[Fall_Child42]

If AMVs are supposed to be like alchemy, why haven't I invented calculus and discovered gravity yet?

I ate dogtato in hopes of gaining eternal youth.

[Knowname]

Relax, I guarantee my next thread won't be so in-depth by your standards.

Don't worry, Servo, just find a way to relate it to burnt cookies or something we'll all be good ^_^ we're already well on our way -_-

Our burnt cookies bring all Moonie's back to the barn.

[Serv0]

Don't worry, Servo, just find a way to relate it to burnt cookies or something we'll all be good ^_^ we're already well on our way -_-

I'm way ahead of you man.

Overall this thread is like shit telling vomit it stinks. -_-

Of course it is. That's why I made the thread in the first place.

Write an article more pretentious than <a href="http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... 4146">this post</a>.

Wow. Why DID I see this coming?

Because you know that you're the pretentious twit who holds an hour long monologe about the allusions and deep meaning of Dude, Where's My Car?

Wrong. Two hour monologue.

What can I say? I'm the most pretentious person I know. I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you guys if I wasn't pretentious.

Stop trying to bash amvs for whatever stupid reason and learn to appreciate the videos for what they are.

Apparently my SERVO NOTES, hold no meaning at all. It makes me wonder if people are even reading my words.

Right now I would like to address this whole story-telling artistic post-modern (insert random deep word from dictionary here) fiasco.
Remember that this thread is attempting to merge the guide-lines of film editing with AMV editing. NOT TO KNIGHT ONE OF THE TWO AS RULER. You guys want to knight something, Knight Crackerz because he's the only one out of all us worth anything.

A lot of editors don't even know that they are telling a story when they edit.

I do not make an AMV to show a story.

Telling a story wasn't the reason why he made an AMV. But he was still telling a story.

Untrue. You are simply forming that story in your own mind to fill in the blanks of what it actually is, giving you a better grasp on what it could 'potentially' mean.

Now we're getting into Aesthetics Koop. This debate could go on for ages on what the "Definition of Story" is. Something I really don't think anyone can define.
Personally, I think the "assumption of a story" you pointed out serves as a hint that there is a story present. But that's my opinion.
But there is one thing that Koop and Servo seem to agree on based on suggested thread by Trythil. Despite AMVs showing visuals through stylized form and technique, one very important element is dependent on the quality overall. That's EMOTION.

To me, the amvs I create are about expressing those emotions, thoughts, and views, not about creating a story for which any onlooker can just quickly glance and realize what it is they are seeing.

Emotion without a doubt is the most important element to SUBSTANCE when it comes to editing anything. And I believe that emotion is also the bridge and connection between SUBSTANCE and FORM. You can't make a flash cut in your AMV if the flash effect has no meaning.
Whether or not Koop and I agree on if a story is present or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that all editors must know that each cut is made for a reason to connect the audience with the characters' and their emotions.

Emotion, with 51%, outweighed the combined value of all the other criteria.

The very same reason why we watch movies. Great story points offers for intelligent thinking, but something far greater is that idea that connects us through substance.
(I'm gonna burn in hell for saying that last sentence to you guys, but it needs to be said.)

There may be an audience of amv viewers who download amvs looking for the sort of stories you find in full length movies. If so, they're the minority.

That's not only true for AMVs, but for movies as well.
I appreciate your thoughts though. Anything that's motion picture shares an overall criteria no matter what. After all, isn't AMVs, music videos, machinima, and movies a form of motion picture?
Anyways, thanks Arigatomina.

oh my

now we have an official pic to say that!!

Eh, your not worth it omega.

*swears profusely*
I despise people trying to turn AMV's into some sort of industry standard, and making us all edit like robots. It bugs the hell out of me. -_-'

Jesus Code, relax. Remember to read the SERVO NOTES. We're not trying to enforce here. We're trying to reach a mutual consensus.

Speaking of robots CodeChrono, I was walking down the street last week and this random girl came up to me and asked if I was a robot. So I guess your statement has a little bit of truth in it. In fact...
Yes! I am trying to assimilate all of you to my cyborg collective.

JOIN SERVO AND HIS ROBOT ARMADA.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!

Since when does the guy that edited Cold Mountain (one of the worst films I have ever seen) get to decide what makes a good editor? Personally, I think Murch is highly overrated, and arrogant.

Screw Code Mountain! I didn't like the movie either.
But I guarantee the editing wasn't the reason why the movie sucked in the first place. It was probably because the script was badly written. And that justifies my point of going back to that BIG IDEA. No matter what you are working on in the motion pictures, your editing technique means nothing if your idea sucks. Except in the case of Mr. Murch, it wasn't his fault the movie sucked, he was just their editor.
Remember: "A sharp image is no good with a fuzzy idea." -Jean-Luc Goddard.

And what about a film such as Apocalypse Now!? That was a film edited by Murch. The intro part of the movie follows the same criteria as AMVs do.
http://www.boochsack.com/watch?v=XOxVjtZujcU

"Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. (4Chan,1).
Rule 34, is greatly an important one, but majority of AMVs however contradict it.

There was a discussion three weeks ago on AMV-Review on how all music videos are actually sexually explicit.

What does film editing have to do with anime editing?

Remember meleechampion, they both communicate emotion through visuals and sound. Despite anime being a form born from editing, it's still a form of motion picture also.
And yes, I do agree that individuals with film doctrines and majors are pretentious. Remember what godix said?

Ahh Crap I haven't even gotten to Trythil yet. What are we at here, 50 pages now?

Trythil, I'm gonna try to keep this short as possible. (Yeah right.)

Answer: A big idea is not actually big, but unique. I'm not saying something contributes to the Originality points. No, something greater. Something that has a face.
Let's say we have a long list of every AMV ever made sitting right before us and we're given the opportunity to pick the ones that really stand out. The ones with big ideas and unique faces wouldn't you agree would be the ones that we would pick? As human beings we lean towards the fresh, rather than the stale.
Remember what Dmytryk said: "The fresh is preferable to the stale."
I know that this question has been brought up before on these threads, but let's attempt to visualize:

KEEP IN MIND THIS IS JUST AN IDEA.

AMV: We'll use an overrated anime with an overrated music.
Anime: Dragonball Z Music: Linkin Park - Session

Now you could do what most AMVs do today, such as edit a bunch of action scenes together properly in synch with the song. In the end an action montage. Just this little description gives it little to no substance.
Or...
we could attempt to enhance substance by making a more unique idea.
IDEA: A session takes place on a virtual dojo, constructed by the editor taken from settings of DBZ. A masked Goku in the beginning of the song stands in the middle of the dojo still and silent with darkness surrounding him. Suddenly the setting around him transforms into an alternate reality set on a different world as the music kicks in. Throughout this "Session" Goku is put through a series of Kombat tests as the virtual dojo works it's magic. As the video ends with the music stuttering like crazy, we see Goku standing once again still and silent in complete darkness. Hence the name "Session."

Now this is just a single idea. It can be taken in many ways. But see how this idea is more unique than simply stringing random action scenes together?
Remember, that AMV editing is like Alchemy. We deconstruct something, and construct it into something else.
Oh yes, and we discover gravity along the way too inthesto.
BTW, inthesto, moonie, Bauzi, Full Metal Sempai, Paper Island, and all others I forgot, you rule!!! Keep posting in the topic if you have questions that I need to answer.

Another BTW, Scintilla, if you PM me that proposition you posted I'll follow you up on it. Maybe someone should post a "SERVO'S BULLSHIT ANALYSIS" thread.

I'm gonna be banned for posting such a long thread.

[trythil]

Answer: A big idea is not actually big, but unique. I'm not saying something contributes to the Originality points. No, something greater. Something that has a face.

This is a cop-out of an answer.

We've agreed that there has been, and continues to be, a focus on "substance before synch" in AMVs. I asked if they were not good enough, or if they were just getting drowned out by the immensely larger quantity of crap, and you said that they were not, and that they just needed to be "bigger". I asked for your definition of "bigger", and you respond with "a big idea is not actually big, but unique".

This is NOT progress!

We have agreed that there are videos out there which put "substance before synch". You have said that they need to stand out more, and (before that) said that the movement producing such videos "has no idea where to go".

Why? What is missing?

Let's cut the bullshit and get to data.

Uniqueness is easy to demonstrate if you have knowledge of the characteristics of an entire set, so I'm going to take that route. (If you don't know those characteristics, you can't say whether or not some arbitrary element is unique, and we just end up arguing about the damn thing for hours and not getting anywhere.)

Therefore, I ask that you state the following:

(0) clear, unambiguous definitions for a "unique" video. It's fine if these definitions can label more than one video as "unique" -- we can get away with defining "unique" as "particularly remarkable, special or unusual", since that's an accepted usage of the adjective.

(1) the most "unique" AMVs out of all AMVs created and released for public distribution as of 0612 GMT, Sunday, October 28, 2007;

(2) what is lacking in those most unique videos, or (if some of those videos exemplify exactly what you're looking for) what sort of qualities those most unique videos exhibit that make them jump out; and

(3) why these videos and their editors, for all their brilliance, contribute little, if anything, to the overall "direction" of AMV evolution. (No points for any argument that involves them being in the minority of AMVs, of course, since you've already stated that their lack of impact is not related to them being drowned out by the immense quantity of crap that makes up the majority of AMVs.)

This is not an easy task, but it will give us something to talk about. You know, as opposed to dropping names and wanking.

===

Just a small note on the example you gave: Mike and Meri's DDR Project 4 track, while obviously not identical, does share some elements with your example concept. The anime match is obvious, but the pacing and idea behind the video has some similarities, as well.

[Fall_Child42]

(0) clear, unambiguous definitions for a "unique" video. It's fine if these definitions can label more than one video as "unique" -- we can get away with defining "unique" as "particularly remarkable, special or unusual", since that's an accepted usage of the adjective.

This is a very bad thing to define. Unlike most things in our language the word unique has a very strict definition. This definition is simply, Being one of a kind, different from anything else. And since no two things can be the same, everything is unique.

[trythil]

(0) clear, unambiguous definitions for a "unique" video. It's fine if these definitions can label more than one video as "unique" -- we can get away with defining "unique" as "particularly remarkable, special or unusual", since that's an accepted usage of the adjective.

This is a very bad thing to define. Unlike most things in our language the word unique has a very strict definition. This definition is simply, Being one of a kind, different from anything else. And since no two things can be the same, everything is unique.

That's one definition. There's another definition which is in widespread usage, and that's the definition I cited. I'm using the Oxford English Dictionary as my justification.

Within (for example) mathematics and logic, there's a very strict definition of uniqueness. I'm not using it here, though, because of

A big idea is not actually big, but unique.

If he really meant "unique" in the meaning of ∃!, then go ahead and erase (0), because we already know what the definition is. If he just meant "an idea that stands out" -- and it looks like that was the point -- then, although you may have a point re: diluting the definition of "unique", it doesn't seem that bad to use a secondary definition. In the worst case, we just stop using "unique" and use a different word or phrase. Like, uh, "attention-grabbing" or whatever.

[Fall_Child42]

I agree, if we are not going to adhere to one of the few concepts in our language that has necessary and sufficient conditions, then we should be using a seperate word or idea to relate what we are trying to express.

This of course brings up a much greater problem of defining non-logical concepts.
Doing this is known to be impossible.

For example. A triangle is a logical concept.
it must have three sides with angles that add up to 180˚ (etc.) with out these conditions it is not a triangle.

The concept of "Game" however is impossible to define in that sense.

So either everything is unique in its logical defenition, or we turn the word "unique" into a non definable concept, either way it is a ridiculous request to make.

[Scintilla]

For example. A triangle is a logical concept.
it must have three sides with angles that add up to 180˚ (etc.) with out these conditions it is not a triangle.

Not in hyperbolic or spherical geometry.