If it makes it passed the tough critics (aka judges), then it deserves to win over the audience.

I wasn't implying that it was only comedy, but I was pointing out that it's not good for comedy as a whole when you mix in other genres just to fill the category (although I do understand the overall lack of comedy submissions tends to force coordinators to attempt things like this). When you mix in parody you ultimately condemn any parody that isn't pure comedy and ultimately fragment the flow of the category when fun parodies are mixed in the middle. Part of comedy is timing and flow, so when you break the flow of laughter you ultimately yo-yo the audience and reduce the overall enjoyment of videos from both ends of the spectrum. As an example, if you had 3 comedy and 3 parody it plays better to the audience to have smaller categories than it does to have one large once because the audience sees the title and then sets up expectations of what they are about to see.purplepolecat wrote:If you look at the rules page, the official title of that category is Comedy/Parody. I try to be consistent when I post here, but often forget.
purplepolecat wrote:If you want to make it at a convention contest, you need to please the crowd, and that includes going for cheap laughs if you have to. As a contest coordinator, my first responsibility is to make sure that the people who come to the contest are entertained, because ultimately they are the ones paying for the room rent and shiny trophies. So if someone wants to grab a cheap victory by actually making some people laugh (and laugh they did, it was no illusion), that's fine with me. If you want to be judged by your peers, we have the VCAs and JCAs.
My comments had nothing to do with what deserves to win, I was simply explaining why purplepolecat shouldn't have been surprised about it at all, it's pretty simple to understand if you really look at it. It's funny when one tries to share commentary on something if it's not entirely positive they will just "assume" that someone is upset with results. I had no involvement in this contest and I have no real care for who did or didn't win what. What deserves to win is what the audience votes for...unless it violates the rules.Rider4Z wrote:It's the judges' job to filter out the "good" from the "bad" (and this is loose statement because many contests simply don't have enough time to play EVERYTHING good that gets cut). But once it's in the hands of the audience it's their decision from there on out, no matter what or why they choose what they do.
If it makes it passed the tough critics (aka judges), then it deserves to win over the audience.
I agree and disagree with this statement... I think a balance can be had where it doesn't have to be fan catering videos only. I often wonder what judges think when coming up with the finalists at cons. The Transformers comment I think makes a great point... that movie made over $100 million this past weekend. Sure it is wildly popular, but it doesn't change the fact the movie is bad. So based on the fact that Transformers did so well... should all movies be like it and less entertaining movies not be made?purplepolecat wrote:As a contest coordinator, my first responsibility is to make sure that the people who come to the contest are entertained, because ultimately they are the ones paying for the room rent and shiny trophies.
Chalk Zone wasn't really comedy either...purplepolecat wrote:OK, I may have read more negativity into your post than was warranted. To be fair though, the only Comedy/Parody entry that wasn't straight up funny-ha-ha comedy was Juno.
Castor Troy wrote:Whoah.
Spoiler :