Do aged AMVs still hold weight in 2009?

[Qyot27]

Except I was the one that said I've seen people view Eva as outdated (I don't, though) - and aside from the fact it's been elevated to classic status along with say, Cowboy Bebop, Akira, and the original Ghost In The Shell and Vampire Hunter D, the animation and the film quality does show that it was still made in the mid-90s, even if you consider Renewal/Platinum (and heck, the TV run of Eva is notorious for being somewhat haphazard with its animation models, switching rather drastically several times inside the span of episodes 9-16 or so). Rebuild doesn't count in this, as that's current and done with current technology and film standards, and thus doesn't suffer from the comparison.

[outlawed]

Forget effects or even editing. This goes back to the conceptual level. If your video's concept is heavily based on visual effects or editing style you use then they may very well not hold up so well years later. Why? Because the concept of the videos impact will have far less impact once everyone is influenced by it and does the same thing.

As much as AMV editors like to talk about good editing and effects they rarely are willing to put their neck out and actually say "I think that video's concept was flawed." This is usually something where it doesn't even come up today because the majority of the videos left that you can discuss concept are drama and most people don't like to talk much about drama vids or story. They'd rather talk about editing or effects.

What's even more amusing to me is that sometimes people will sort of discuss the concept issue but they themselves don't think they are talking about concept. For example someone might say "I just don't like the music choice it doesn't match the editing" Often that statement might be more related to the fact that the tonal or mood properties of the music just DO NOT MATCH with the source and the type of concept the amv creator is trying to make.

[Knowname]

As much as AMV editors like to talk about good editing and effects they rarely are willing to put their neck out and actually say "I think that video's concept was flawed." This is usually something where it doesn't even come up today because the majority of the videos left that you can discuss concept are drama and most people don't like to talk much about drama vids or story. They'd rather talk about editing or effects.

Wait.. maybe I'm only listening to the amv makers that matter but... wow, you are SO wrong lol. Do you not even venture into the announcements area? Oh wait, you don't.

The general public is like that though... unfortunately.

Old amvs never really get old it just becomes uninteresting at some point.

[outlawed]

Wait.. maybe I'm only listening to the amv makers that matter but... wow, you are SO wrong lol. Do you not even venture into the announcements area? Oh wait, you don't.

Just because I don't regularly post in the announcements section doesn't mean I don't browse it now and then. I am not without error but I do also have pretty extensive number of years of viewing the community both from within and from without. Mostly I am talking about legitimate critique of experienced or award winning editors.

There are many videos that are popular amongst other editors on this website or in AMV contests that get critique primarily based on editing/presentation. It is rare to see them get critiqued on a conceptual level. Most AMVs will have some conceptual faults or weaknesses. That's even goes for videos that have won awards. To what extent you can work around this is always part of the challenge. This is less of a case for videos which are based more on visual eye candy than a plotline or fan story perspective. It's harder for eye candy to hold up over time as the audience is fickle.

[outlawed]

I should also add some disclaimer material that influenes my opinions.

1) I don't review or critique stuff in the announcements thread. I can't even recall if I EVER have. When I was most active I'm pretty sure that forum still hadn't been made.

2) I dislike giving critique or review of other AMVs unless I am asked. Usually it's reserved only for people I know.

3) I've probably critiqued my own stuff harder than anyone else would. I have cut corners on everything I've ever made AMV-wise. Why? I'd rather being playing some video games, outdoors, or drinking some Negro Modelo or Guinness =p. Having cut corners makes identifying some problems trivial. I also believe if I seclude myself from outside critique I would prevent other people's comments and philosophies from influencing me. There are disadvantages to that and advantages.

4) Most AMV creators don't care what other creators think.

5) Old school AMV creators in the early online era often critiqued videos on concept but it was only because said videos screwed the video that should have won the award.

6) New school AMV creators in the current online era critique to give helpful advice. If the editor is in one of the cliques that have a lot of good AMV creators then their announcement thread will have a lot of posts since more people know them and it should be the duty of good friends to give them props. In some other scenes this would be called nut-riding but it's not quite the same here. Mostly because we have a lot of female editors.

[dreamawake]

Now seriously:

(...)most of what IS released tends to be simple 'I did this in a few days' hoopla.(...)

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.

That's bullshit and it's not bullshit. There are people that spend months or even a year + on videos that are relatively "simple". Some people need to take that time and some people don't, but I find that most of the time the more time spent on something, even something that's nothing more than basic editing and montage theory, the better it is. You go over things more, you make changes, you slowly tweak and perfect a video until it is absolutely what you want. Some people can work quickly and produce good work but I honestly wouldn't say that about most people.

[Pas]

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.

So far I believe this is the most accurate response to the question raised. Also, personally I believe it's less a matter of effects vs no-effects, and more upon the lines of, why add effects when you don't need to? Sure, some may see it as making the video pretty or unique, but honestly, for me it's like they've made a perfectly delicious cake, then go "oh hey, I'm just gonna shit all over this because nobody else has."

Now seriously:

(...)most of what IS released tends to be simple 'I did this in a few days' hoopla.(...)

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.

That's bullshit and it's not bullshit. There are people that spend months or even a year + on videos that are relatively "simple". Some people need to take that time and some people don't, but I find that most of the time the more time spent on something, even something that's nothing more than basic editing and montage theory, the better it is. You go over things more, you make changes, you slowly tweak and perfect a video until it is absolutely what you want. Some people can work quickly and produce good work but I honestly wouldn't say that about most people.

Gonna have to agree with Joey on this one, because as quick as it may be to make a simple cut AMV, that doesn't always mean that said AMV is actually any good. Sure, you can just chop up the timeline and smack a few clips down where you want them, release it and call it "old-school editing" but that is just bullshit. When working on an zero-effects AMV it's not so much you're doing less work than effects AMVs, more alone the lines of more thinking. Because you don't have a stockpile of effects to throw over it, people generally begin to think and give more consideration to the concept, sequence and flow of the video. Now don't get me wrong, I'm by no means implying effects videos can't have these things, but for the most part they are busier working on the effects themselves, with everything else taking secondary priority. At the end of the day it all comes down to how polished you want your AMV to be. I could just slap some scenes together right now, upload it in 2 hours and call it an AMV but chances are it'd be shit. Time doesn't always have to mean more opportunities to do work, sometimes it can just measure a break so that you can think about the direction your AMV is taking. Often times when you go back and look at something you did a few days ago, you'll notice a lot more mistakes and errors than you did while initially editing it.

One more thing, you mentioned the idea that an "experienced editor" could pull it off, but you need to consider how many truly experienced editors there are on here. Making 5, 10 or 20 AMVs does not automatically make you an experienced editor. It also takes a lot more than simple technical knowledge before someone can claim to be experienced. There's a lot more theory and standards behind editing that I believe most people on this site don't even know about. Yes, the org does house some very experienced editors who do actually understand proper editing, but I believe they are by far the minority.

[Knowname]

blah blah (not meant as a diss, just I don't want to copy two posts for one simple explanation)

Let me tell you this, BEING in the announcements forum and actually PARTICIPATING in it (in a critical sort of way... not just representing for your buddies) are two different things, why? because if you peruse in there every now and then all you recall is maybe... 'I was there' you don't care to remember the particulars cuz... well what's the use of even reading down to the bottom post when all your gonna do is grab the video anyway? Have you ever gotten a qc saying 'oh! I forgot I even d/led this video... but it was good!' or something like that, well that person obviously perused the announcements area and stumbled over your video. A person who contributes would NEVER say that because his 10 video limit would fill up very quickly anyway AND most likely his qc would be formulated after or shortly after he critiqued his thread. I like when ppl comment like 'your last video was made so long ago! I almost got tired of waiting!' That usually means that person is a) a friend or b) very active in the sense that he keeps track of these things.

It's quite logical and that is why I mentioned it. I really doubt you have a clear understanding of how many editors are VERY serious about their work, this isn't youtube.

[outlawed]

Let me tell you this, BEING in the announcements forum and actually PARTICIPATING in it (in a critical sort of way... not just representing for your buddies)

What the heck do your comments about participation in the announcments forums have to do with the difference between critique of concept and critique of editing that I stated my opinion on earlier. The only reason I made that amusing disclaimer post is because I recognize there are some people who have no clue who the fuck I am and how I might perceive things over the years. Your comments about possible common behaviors for someone who participates and watches the announcement threads while interesting did nothing to respond to what I stated my disagreement with. Which is to say I believe concept is not critiqued or valued anywhere near at the level that editing is.

It's quite logical and that is why I mentioned it. I really doubt you have a clear understanding of how many editors are VERY serious about their work

I think my understanding is crystal clear. I never stated that people are not participating or that they fail to discuss AMVs. Discussing AMVs doesn't mean they are critiquing from a concept position as much as from an editing position though. This is only logical though. Most of the people here are editors! So my opinion is I see people discussing mostly from the editing position. Hardly anyone puts their neck out and calls out a video for conceptual flaws. Let's take the usual post-AX contest results drama as an example. There was a winning entry that some people who saw the contest said was miscategorized. I don't recall anyone in that entire thread calling out the video for being conceptually flawed. If the creator's intent was drama (and I do not know if the staff re-categorized it) and all these these editors said it was in the wrong category then what does that hint at?

I am making the assumption everyone here understands the difference between examining concepts of the AMV vs the editing and execution of sequences. Knowname, if you so desire I can use one of my own AMVs as an example and look at your AMVs and pick one for an example. I offer this because your last posts has confused me as to whether you understood the point about discussion of AMVs I was trying to make. I think my flippant attitude to the AMV scene and some of the joking I include in my posts might be throwing you off.

Here's a prime example of someone sticking their neck out. Obviously I don't agree with this one since we put this vid in the ACen contest. A few years ago AX cut Suberunker's Wedding Rings video because they felt it did not meet the definition of an AMV. Talk about a fundamental conceptual disagreement.

In closing,

AMVs are serious biznas?

[outlawed]

Most AMV creators don't care what other creators think.

While this is somewhat of a joke there is also truth. Ever see a thread where people start talking about the next big wave of AMVs, editing philosophy, or the usual B.S. like this thread?

#1 response from a lot of editors to certain issues like is like this: "Just do what you want. Have fun."

While most AMV creators might make use of discussion of their AMV they really don't care to hear you discuss concept. Which is generally why people don't do it. After all who wants to basically be told whether indirect or directly "why the heck did you make this." There is a large difference between examining concept and execution.

They made it because they wanted to and it was fun.