Are we really liking an amv based on how it looks like or how difficult it was to make? O:ZephyrStar wrote:problem with effects a lot of the time is that the general effects loving audience can't really distinguish between good and bad use. I think a lot of the time it's just "ooooh pretty" ...people seem to be terribly easy to impress in a lot of cases.
Are we over-complicating matters?
-
Emong
- A Damaged Lemon
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:02 pm
-
DriftRoot
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:18 pm
- Status: As important as any plug-in.
- Location: N.H.
Few things are static. What's new and fresh can't be new and fresh forever. There was a time when making a "great" AMV was possible without any effects whatsoever (and that's still possible), but it's no longer something that makes everyone sit up and take notice to the degree that an AMV dripping with eye candy does. Right or wrong that's just the way it is.
This hobby has evolved and will continue to evolve as people push the envelope in an attempt to do things no one's ever done before. It's not a stretch to say the bar is much higher than it used to be, particularly in terms of the technical aspects of making AMVs. There are people around with levels of video editing knowledge (not to mention resources) which the rest of us will probably never attain - to say those individuals represent the norm, however, is not accurate and therefore it's a little extravagent to make their AMVs the standard by which all the rest are judged. Nevertheless, they exist and do influence this hobby. The bar is higher because of them, in large part.
I'd hazard a guess that the burden of that influence fall most heavily on new editors. How many people look at the "top" AMVs and despair of ever being able to duplicate or surpass them? I'm guessing a lot. Time was you didn't have to worry about learning lots of professional video editing programs and techniques to make a "top" AMV. Theoretically, if you had a decent video editing program and great ideas and natural talent, that's all you needed. That's not the case anymore, particularly since the great ideas/natural talent apparently can compensated for by special effects.
As far as I'm concerned, people can make whatever the heck they want to make; all I care about is whether I enjoy watching it. If effects help in that department, then go for it. If they don't, then get rid of them. Just don't confuse effects with enjoyment, because the former does not automatically equate with the latter.
This hobby has evolved and will continue to evolve as people push the envelope in an attempt to do things no one's ever done before. It's not a stretch to say the bar is much higher than it used to be, particularly in terms of the technical aspects of making AMVs. There are people around with levels of video editing knowledge (not to mention resources) which the rest of us will probably never attain - to say those individuals represent the norm, however, is not accurate and therefore it's a little extravagent to make their AMVs the standard by which all the rest are judged. Nevertheless, they exist and do influence this hobby. The bar is higher because of them, in large part.
I'd hazard a guess that the burden of that influence fall most heavily on new editors. How many people look at the "top" AMVs and despair of ever being able to duplicate or surpass them? I'm guessing a lot. Time was you didn't have to worry about learning lots of professional video editing programs and techniques to make a "top" AMV. Theoretically, if you had a decent video editing program and great ideas and natural talent, that's all you needed. That's not the case anymore, particularly since the great ideas/natural talent apparently can compensated for by special effects.
As far as I'm concerned, people can make whatever the heck they want to make; all I care about is whether I enjoy watching it. If effects help in that department, then go for it. If they don't, then get rid of them. Just don't confuse effects with enjoyment, because the former does not automatically equate with the latter.