Do aged AMVs still hold weight in 2009?

[Megamom]

All in all, no matter how many effects you can put on a video, what's good is good and what's crap is crap.

Exactly, the effects are used as needed by an editor, not to overload the shitty video which often makes no sense, we have to use wisely the effects!

[CrackTheSky]

It's a shame that this discussion has deteriorated to another FX/no FX debate because there's more to the original question that `Eclipse didn't bring up. For example, do you get turned off when you see an old video that uses older anime which is (in general) less pretty to look at? Does visual quality make a difference?

The editing technology at our disposal is certainly one difference between today's videos and yesterday's, but I think there's more to it than that.

[Douggie]

Besides effects getting easier to be done with better tools and tutorials at our disposal and effects getting prettier and more realistically by the year, there's also the fact that there's some sort of certain fashion in effects. There's a year of twitches and wiggles and camera shakes, a year of a grudgy look effect, a year of ink splash effects and four years of lens flare effects. Or whatever the fashion is nowadays - I don't keep up with it.

Of course a lot of these age a lot and don't hold their weight after a year/few years, maybe with the exception that these type of effects go back as being "retro" in about ten years or so.

So yeah, the ones who still hold weight is always gonna be in the discussion of FX/noFX I guess..

[blabbler]

douggie:

"effects are getting easier"
no, the knowledge is getting easier to come by. methods of design and composition are the same as ever. the process of creating effects and the software used becomes more complex every day.

"there's some sort of certain fashion in effects"
this is mainly true of the most derivative "me too" videos, and who cares about them?

i'm surprised you're not drawing a distinction between "videos-under-effects", and videos that make valid use effects to progress the story. if your story needs lens flares, it doesn't matter whether they're 80's in-camera, or state of the art 2009. this is what george lucas will never understand...

[Megamom]

It's a shame that this discussion has deteriorated to another FX/no FX debate because there's more to the original question that `Eclipse didn't bring up.

Sorry amigo!!!

Well my answer on the original question.

YES

But it depends, there are many new users, there are many new things (new effects, new ways of editing, new techniques) which largely tractive recently, the style of the old school.

But
I am a fan of the old school...

[qyll]

Maybe not to most of the people reading this post, but to a lot of AMV viewers out there, flashy effects are amazing. However, the appeal of effects is different from the appeal of good editing. I feel that the bedazzlement you receive from effects is diluted whenever another video strolls along with similar effects. Piano keys, flashing bars, static masks -- they were awesome when we first saw them, but then when we saw another video with the same effects, we go "oh, I've seen that already". I think the appeal of effects is much more prone to depreciation than the appeal of good back-to-the-basics editing. Don't get me wrong, the appeal of a video with well done effects can last a long time, but I think that has to do with the fact that well done effects cannot be emulated as easily, whereas emulating canned effects is as easy as opening a menu. Think about movie effects. When you watch a movie like the original Star Wars, why aren't you in awe of the special effects? Because those effects are easy to make now, and you've seen it all. What keeps you watching is the storyline and fantastical elements of the movie.

This is why I think older AMVs with (good) basic cuts age well. Once you wash away that layer of appeal we call "effects", you'll find that solid editing and exciting cuts are the backbone to any good AMV. But then that raises the question: well, don't we have videos now that boast solid editing AND good effects? Aren't those videos with those two factors combined better than just a plain ol' video with good editing? My answer would be: Sure, if you hold videos from different eras to the same standard, (some) videos with effects might be better. The instant you insert a conspicuous effect into a video however, you unleash a monster. The video is no longer genuine and pure, but synthetic and artificial. The editing itself is less important when it's juxtaposed with effects. Some people like that synthetic feel, some people prefer a more nostalgic and cleaner feel. I don't have a preference, but I do appreciate videos from an era when simple cuts were seen more as a craft than a tool.

[Panky]

I think it entirely depends on the viewer's subjectivity and the video quality (not the source quality, but how good the AMV itself is). Like somebody else said, "effects don't make a good AMV" but effects won't make a bad AMV either if they're used correctly. I know that if I get to it, maybe I can learn to make cool credits or effects, but I never really cared too much about it. What is sure, everyday technology gets even nearer to us in editing programs and plug-ins, so in that way, it's easier, but the "real" editing essence never changes.

And no, while visual quality isn't much worst than the anime source itself, I don't think it would make a difference. I even hold an avatar that has more than half my age, and even if I'm talking about anime and not AMV's here I think the issue is pretty much the same. Again, it depends on the viewer, if you like old anime, I don't see why you will dislike old AMV's .

[Qyot27]

For example, do you get turned off when you see an old video that uses older anime which is (in general) less pretty to look at? Does visual quality make a difference?

I've seen this happening throughout the entire time I've been watching anime. Viewers that come into it predominantly exposed to a certain 'era' of animation generally have a level of resistance to older styles. I've seen people that first started watching (or at least took a keen interest in watching) with FMA and Azumanga Daioh and so on view things like Tenchi and Kenshin and even Eva as outdated and stale. On the same token I've seen resistance to the art styles from the original Gunbuster and Dominion Tank Police and Gall Force and so on. I personally only start hitting the outdated barrier when it gets back to the predominant ways things were done in the 70s or really early 80s (I don't have a problem with Macross, et al, especially since I loved Robotech, but the original Mobile Suit Gundam and Galaxy Express movies are generally not appealing to me).

[lynit]

Have you given a thought what's behind this? Isn't it the fact that when you make a simple 2-3minutes video video without the help of AE/stuff, which is single-source (nothing like the latest Nikolakis or Zarx's 58008) (say, simple cuts/fades, 1 anime series/movie, maybe some text), then, considered you are experienced editor, it CAN'T take more than those few days? Even if you include some easy masking or short rotoing... if you know HOW (and made tens, hundreds, thousands of those), they are usually fairly simple to do. Seriously, subclipping REALLY usually takes longer than actual editing.

I was more lamenting the fact that these superbly edited videos are relegated to the category of short 2 minute 'i was bored' videos. IMO I think editing is really going out of style nowadays.

It's a shame that this discussion has deteriorated to another FX/no FX debate because there's more to the original question that `Eclipse didn't bring up. For example, do you get turned off when you see an old video that uses older anime which is (in general) less pretty to look at? Does visual quality make a difference?

Thank you, Ben.

[Knowname]

hold on. I see where this is going it's folding right back up into the fx question

ie
Why is Eva considered outdated? Because it's less effectsy or... 'outdated effectsy'. You can't escape it Ben

ANYWAYS