Anime Expo 2012 AMV Contest Thread - WINNERS ANNOUNCED!!!

[XStylus]

<Steps off soapbox, calmly walks away>

I bow before your soapbox, sir.

[Scintilla]

Even Otakon's trolling rule is imperfect at best, because the cut-off date is the entry deadline. This leaves the field wide open to videos that have won at cons that take place after their deadline (including AX), meaning that Otakon is "the best of what hasn't won anything before <insert entry deadline here>." I realize that the purpose of this is so that creators have a chance to submit something else if their video is DQ'ed, but IMHO, if there is to be a real trolling rule, creators have to accept the possibility that if their video wins an award at some other, smaller convention, they may get left out of AX without a chance to re-submit. That will give them an incentive to submit to AX first, which is what I think is the real objective here.

Okay, but assuming you go with a rule like that, how much later could the cutoff date plausibly be? Finalists do have to be decided well in advance in order to have time to clear the legal department and then get the ballots printed, etc.

[Castor Troy]

a) An entry whereby AX would be the fourth (or more) live event that the entry would be exhibited at.
b) Any entry that is publicly viewable online. Any public download links must be pulled and remain offline until after the competition.
c) Any entry that was shown at any live event prior to July 1st, 2012.

I think the ONLY requirement of the freshness rule should be a 12-18 month limit on videos.

[Cyrix]

DQ'ing videos for winning is the same as telling Steven Spielberg, "I'm sorry, Mr. Spielberg, but 'Schindler's List' has won too many awards already, so I'm afraid it's not eligible for the Academy Awards."

It's hardly fair to compare an industry awards show judged by a designated "professional honorary organization" with a contest at a convention where entries are screened live and the general public audience votes. I can't think of a better analogy off the top of my head; usually live contests involve some kind of live performance, so maybe a figure skater could use the same routine at several events, but he or she has to do everything in the routine each time, so the performance will vary from one show to the next. In contrast, a music video is a static entity once it's completed, and (unless the editor tweaks it between cons I suppose) it won't be better or worse from one show to the next.

On the other hand, "Signal to Noise" didn't make the finals at FanimeCon in 2006, but ended up winning Best in Show at AX. Trolling rules are completely unnecessary. The contests sort themselves out.

Signal was also 29 seconds over the maximum video length for AX, wasn't it?

the audience that goes to the contest to see the best videos at the con actually are not, because the ones that won previously are not allowed in.

Why would we want to cater to audience members who don't care about AMVs or the contest enough to watch more than five videos? One could also argue if they went to previous conventions they wouldn't want to see a winning video they'd seen before if they only have the attention span for a handful of AMVs.

I was going to say maybe a good compromise is put videos that have won previous cons in a separate category still eligible for best in show, thus meaning the "best of the best" would still be competing, but that would have to either be the replacement for AMTV in lieu of Upbeat, or have limited slots and be cutting into the other categories, both scenarios which would probably leave a lot of people angry. :-/

[Kazemon15]

It may seem like it's fair to "give other creators a chance" against a video that has previously won elsewhere, but isn't the whole point of competition to see who is really "the best," not "the best of what hasn't won yet"? I mean, are we in elementary school, where everyone is supposed to get a shot at being on the dodge ball team?

But how many wins is enough to justify newer videos getting knocked out for 4 year old winning videos?

If I remember correctly, one year, there was this one Fate Stay Night AMV that made it into the action category and it was a winner as it was a winner in other cons 4 years prior. Doesn't that hurt the competition a little bit as well? Not only does it hurt the competition, but it also tells the creator of the newer AMVs that "AX only wants winning videos, why bother sending at all?"

Also, to add to this, the "best" of the "best" is very opinionated. I was told that some of my AMVs were the best they have seen...while others said that they were crap and unwatchable.

So the whole "the best of what hasn't won yet" seems kind of an insult. Are you saying that if a video hasn't won something, it doesn't even deserve to be in a "best" overall title, regardless if it's in a category of winners or against videos that haven't won yet?

Speaking for myself, winning at a contest where other entries were DQ'ed that were probably better than mine would be bittersweet at best. I want to have the opportunity to win fair and square against the best that can be seen in that contest. If any other creators are looking forward to an empty victory like that just for the sake of winning, then they're probably expecting a free ride from government programs, too (but I digress - see my rant about the entitlement mentality on my Facebook page).

This is also kinda subjective... Every rule has its flaws. Sure, it may be the "best", but it's only a matter of opinion of the judges. Everyone's video is under the opinion of what the judges think are the "best." If one truly wants to be "fair and square", why not just let the audience pick from the entire mass of entries as the best ones? But that's impossible, isn't it? It'll tire the audience out. No matter what, nothing can really be "fair and square."

Allowing winning video also hurts the competition and the audience, as I'll get to that in a minute.

How do these rules hurt the audience, you ask? It is hard for members of our community to believe, but there is still a large portion of convention attendees that don't bother with going to the full contest on night one, because they only care about the winners. Two years ago, when the awards ceremony was turned into a re-screen, there was a lot of complaining on other non-AMV message boards about how AX "forced" attendees to watch all the nominees because, "I only wanted to see the winners." At Otakon, DQ'ed videos are screened in blocks with all the other entries that didn't make the finals. Needless to say, these are far less attended than the finalist screening, so not only does the creator "lose" because of winning, but the audience that goes to the contest to see the best videos at the con actually are not, because the ones that won previously are not allowed in.

I don't get how one can lose because of winning. They've already won and more than likely, their videos were shown time and time again at other conventions, even possibly conventions in the same state where people have already seen it more than once already. Truth be told, I think the ones who don't get in at all due to those winning AMVs pushing them back are the ones that lose, not the other way around.

I can't tell you how many times (no offense to Shin, as I do love this AMV) I've seen Safety Dance. I can only stand seeing that AMV so many times before getting bored of it. And that goes for the audience as well.

The one year I went to Anime LA, Fanime and AX in the same year...I saw the same AMV get in at all three times. By the second time, I was bored out of my mind of it. More than likely, if I can go to these same cons, so can audience. And if they go to one AMV contest, what makes you think they do not go to others? And I also know there are fanatic con-goers who go to other cons as well, in different states. How do you think they feel to pay a plane ticket to see the same lineup again and again in not one state, but several?

This year at AX, more than half the audience seats in the first AMV showing were empty. My guess is that the audience got bored with the selected AMVs before they were even shown, and that's sad.

Even Otakon's trolling rule is imperfect at best, because the cut-off date is the entry deadline. This leaves the field wide open to videos that have won at cons that take place after their deadline (including AX), meaning that Otakon is "the best of what hasn't won anything before <insert entry deadline here>." I realize that the purpose of this is so that creators have a chance to submit something else if their video is DQ'ed, but IMHO, if there is to be a real trolling rule, creators have to accept the possibility that if their video wins an award at some other, smaller convention, they may get left out of AX without a chance to re-submit. That will give them an incentive to submit to AX first, which is what I think is the real objective here.

The creator knows what kind of cons they're submitting to. If they want their videos to be at a big-name convention and contest, they can hold off on submitting to smaller conventions, or send their older winning videos to those conventions instead. After all, this is what Akross does and I don't see anyone having a problem with it.

[JudgeHolden]

But how many wins is enough to justify newer videos getting knocked out for 4 year old winning videos?

If I remember correctly, one year, there was this one Fate Stay Night AMV that made it into the action category and it was a winner as it was a winner in other cons 4 years prior. Doesn't that hurt the competition a little bit as well? Not only does it hurt the competition, but it also tells the creator of the newer AMVs that "AX only wants winning videos, why bother sending at all?"

This. We need anti-trolling rules, just like the mortgage and banking industries need regulations. You cannot depend upon people being ethical, or doing the right thing. I can guarantee you, without anti-trolling rules, we would see the exact same contest at every con for years to come. You need at least a "freshness date" to keep this from happening. Now, who wins, might not always be the same, but the lineup will be ...

[Shin-AMV]

I can't tell you how many times (no offense to Shin, as I do love this AMV) I've seen Safety Dance.

haha whoops <.< Sorry about that, and no offense taken.

[Vlad G Pohnert]

Personally I DON'T believe in having Anti-Troll Rules. How many is too many? Everyone has a different opinion and why should a contest be the judge of what is too much. Besides, people who troll too much are usually fingered upon by the community anyways, so I say let the community sort it out NOT contests. BESIDES, there are now more contests almost then creators that send to contests, so you are actually hurting other smaller events by the bigger ones having "win more then two and your out" rules.

However, a Freshness rule I think makes a lot more sense. I think limiting a video to a specific age keeps things fresh and still gives creators a chance to send to other contest.

Ah and I don't agree with having a rule that you must premiere it at contest "X"... that just as bad as the troll rules as again it limits people and gives a disadvantage to the smaller contests when creators don't send there as they want to save their videos to premier at the big con with that rule

Vlad

[MisterFurious]

I think the ONLY requirement of the freshness rule should be a 12-18 month limit on videos.

I agree. It's the only way to be fair, although I think 18 months is a bit too much.

[MisterFurious]

It's hardly fair to compare an industry awards show judged by a designated "professional honorary organization" with a contest at a convention where entries are screened live and the general public audience votes.

But wouldn't you want AX to have that kind of cachet? If AX wants their AMV contest to be a high standard among conventions, it must welcome all comers.

I can't think of a better analogy off the top of my head; usually live contests involve some kind of live performance, so maybe a figure skater could use the same routine at several events, but he or she has to do everything in the routine each time, so the performance will vary from one show to the next. In contrast, a music video is a static entity once it's completed, and (unless the editor tweaks it between cons I suppose) it won't be better or worse from one show to the next.

So my film festival analogy still stands. Films are static entities, too, and tour from festival to festival, like some AMV's. They do well at some festivals, and not so well at others, so no one sees a need to prevent those that have won too many awards from competing.

Signal was also 29 seconds over the maximum video length for AX, wasn't it?

The version I submitted to AX ran six minutes and fifty-eight seconds, two seconds under the limit. It didn't have titles.

Why would we want to cater to audience members who don't care about AMVs or the contest enough to watch more than five videos?

Because if AMV's are to expand their reach at AX, they must expand their audience.