godix wrote:I go with the broad definition of if it's more than a simple cross disolve transition then it's an effect. I'll leave it at that since to go further would be arguing semantics rather than an actual point.
Agreed.
godix wrote:I do think that it is possible to make a popular vid without blatently obvious effects (IE Euphoria). However I also think that blatently obvious effects will increase the chances of a video being popular provided they're done at least semi-decently and it's damned near impossible to make a popular video anymore without ANY effects (by my above definition)
Well I never argued that it wasn't "easier" to go that route. My point was to rebut the point that you said such videos were "the exception." I was just providing a large number of videos to rebut that numerical assumption.
godix wrote:Ah silly me, you must have meant Glory of Love which was a fairly simple but meaningful video and is currently rated 22 ranks lower than your pointless effect filled action video.
Yup. And yeah that "passing" happened like this week. I actually sorta saw it coming eventually. "Glory of Love" was ahead for a good year, but well...for some reason, I got a slew of all 10 reviews for "Evolution" a few days in a row. It was odd to say the least, but people have different tastes *shrug*.
Regardless of that, it's not a matter of "where" it stacks up on the list, as opposed to *what* is on the list. My point was to illustrate that a video without effects can still make the list. I imagine 73 opinions didn't come because of my
awesome use of the black and white filter
.
godix wrote:Basicially what I'm saying boils down to I think Pyles right that effects are an important part of being a popular editor. I think he takes his obsession with effects entirely to far (and more importantly, he just bitches instead of sitting down and figuring out how to do effects). However the people who claim effects are totally unneccesary are going entirely to far in the other direction. There's a middle ground where effects are important but aren't the be all end all of videos and that's where I'm standing.
Again, I disagree. I don't think "effects are an important part of being a popular editor." I mean first off "popular" and "effects" don't go hand-in-hand. There's no 1:1 relation between them. Just as I named videos, I could name a number of editors who are "popular" and yet don't rely too heavily (if at all) on effects.
-Kusoyaro
-All four members of More than Toast
-dokidoki (*some* of his popular videos aren't effectsy)
-MeriC & Vegettoex
Although I will agree on his "obsession" (as you put it
), I don't agree that they are "necessary." That almost says a video *MUST* have effects to be good. I know that's not what you're saying, but if I quoted you as such...that's what you're saying.
Effects, in my opinion, are used to complement something. They enhance, but are not vital. This is obviously my personal opinion, but if I see a video with bad scene selection, bad sync, but cool effects, I'd say it was a bad video. In turn, if a video had good scene selection and good sync, with no effects, I could still say it was a good video.
See? It's not a 1:1 relation and again, my original rebuttal showed plenty of videos that are "good" and "popular" without effects. It's not "necessary," this is what I am arguing.
..Go effects.
