Do people take the date an AMV was created into account?

AMV_4000 · Post by **AMV_4000** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:52 pm

aluminumstudios wrote:
AMV_4000 wrote: i like older vids.. like Dreams of Red... and stuff.. this newer stuff thats out is too easily edited and too flashy... people like flashyness though... *When i op a vid i look at the date it was made, then go from there.. i know i sucked at making amvs in 2002... so i dont judge that harsh on older vids... thumbs up to veteran amv creators!!*
Thanks

I was being sarcastic when I said this in my LJ a while ago, but there is a grain of truth to it - most of America was bought from the natives with shiney beads and trinkits and the same holds true for AMV audiences :-\ (not that I never used beads and trinkits though )

wow... just wow... but were not using round beads.... were using SHINNY TRIANGLE BEADS FLYING AT YOUR FACE AND FLASHING PRETTY COLORS GIVING SEIZURES!!!!! beads rock...

aluminumstudios · Post by **aluminumstudios** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:03 pm

Beads can be good sometimes. It's just that in the last few cons I've been too myself and some of my friends have been able to predict the videos that would win based on their shinyness.

aluminumstudios · Post by **aluminumstudios** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:04 pm

No to throw this thread off track, I'm sure that topic's been beaten to death. Back on track ... how you see older videos ...

DuoEnigma · Post by **DuoEnigma** » Sun May 02, 2004 4:51 am

BogoSort wrote:
Beowulf wrote:So you would take a relatively recent movie that was shot in black and white like Clerks and say "WTF?!?!? WHERES MY COLOR"?

No!! not clerks!! I love that movie

I think bogo, meant based on the camera angles, and the editing, acting etc. Videos back from 1999 were not as tight as they are now.

BogoSort · Post by **BogoSort** » Sun May 02, 2004 9:54 am

DuoEnigma wrote:
BogoSort wrote:So you would take a relatively recent movie that was shot in black and white like Clerks and say "WTF?!?!? WHERES MY COLOR"?
No!! not clerks!! I love that movie :lol:

I think bogo, meant based on the camera angles, and the editing, acting etc. Videos back from 1999 were not as tight as they are now.

Not quite right, I'm just pointing out the flaw in his argument where he says that movies should be graded on the time period that they were made in(and his example to illustrate his point is the lack of color in 40s movies). Good cinematography as well as good music video editing stands on its own merits using all that a particular medium has to offer.

Declan_Vee · Post by **Declan_Vee** » Sun May 02, 2004 10:11 am

DuoEnigma wrote:I think bogo, meant based on the camera angles, and the editing, acting etc. Videos back from 1999 were not as tight as they are now.

Tight? The editing is more precise? or something else..? What an odd word.

DemonSpawn · Post by **DemonSpawn** » Sun May 02, 2004 1:18 pm

While I feel that it's a valid point to consider the age of a video, I don't plan to judge (or even make comments) differently based on how old something is.

My thought is that self-censoring any review would make the entire review worthless, for the most part. A completely unadulterated review, even if it says things that a bunch of other reviews have already said before, might just have a new viewpoint that none of the others had.

Plus, the age of a video will only show in the capture category, generally. If it gets a low score there but gets high marks everywhere else, it's still a good video, regardless of how old it is.