GMV is a totally different genre ?

[Kionon]

Having made both anime and live-action music videos, and having seen dozens that combine footage from multiple sources, including some that incorporate footage from the original official videos, I'm going to say that's a load of bollocks.

Maybe this isn't quite the nicest way to approach a serious discussing on fan video editing theory. I've seen and made a lot of fan crap too over the last twenty years and learned how to edit in a radio/TV broadcasting vocational program. As with all art, our opinions will obviously be... well.. our opinions.

But these quirks certainly don't make AMVs, LAMVs, and GMVs separate genres.

Separate genres of what? Of editing? I would say they are. Of course you can completely disagree with me.

If you were to split them, would you put anime and western animation in separate categories?

The Org does. I would say in an international context, certainly in an English language context, animation made outside of Japan with no Japanese production staff involved in its production and/or no intent to distribute domestically for Japanese audiences is not anime. In Japan, in Japanese, we call everything animated anime (アニメ), whether it is a Disney princess movie, The Adventures of Tin Tin, or Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu. Even in Japan, however, there is an understanding that Japanese animation, as an art form, has distinct style elements, tropes, referential material, and domestic intertextuality (the stuff a reader or viewer brings with them to the work) that animation from outside Japan lacks. It's difficult to describe if you haven't been in a conversation, in Japanese, about it. But the important point is illustrated thus: Rainbow Brite was in part animated in Japan by a Japanese company, but under the auspices of DIC Entertainment (of France) and at the behest of rights holder Hallmark. Although well known in Japan, it was not produced for a domestic Japanese audience. It is アニメ but it is not (English language word with typical context) anime.

It's also worth noting that a lot of production houses in Japan have non-Japanese staff, and many contract out to non-Japanese animation studios in Korea or Vietnam. But because the story creation, boarding, character design, set choice, key frames, etc are all done in Japan by Japanese production houses for a Japanese domestic market (though with a greater eye towards international appeal than ever before), these productions are clearly anime.

Would computer-generated shows like Reboot get their own category separate from cel animation? Would video game footage be split into two categories depending on whether you used gameplay footage or cutscenes? What about games that include live-action cutscenes like the Command & Conquer franchise? If I were to make a music video using exclusively the live-action mission briefings from the Command & Conquer games, would that be a live-action music video or a video game music video? Do you treat pre-rendered cutscenes differently from ones that are rendered in-game on-the-fly? If cutscenes are pre-rendered CGI, does that put them in the same genre as Reboot? What about machinima footage that LOOKS like it's from a game, but is actually rendered using third-party software, like a lot of Minecraft videos are? What the hell would Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within count as? Most of all, if you were to split them into separate genres, where would you put the videos that combine footage from multiple sources, like this one that combines live-action, Western traditional cel animation, western CGI, anime, and multiple types of original fan-made content?

Answered. And that answer is "it depends."

I won't take on all of the hypotheticals you pose, but I'll do some. Something like Tokimeki Memorial so obviously hits all of the above aspects I mentioned, it's clearly anime. It's an anime video game. So is the Utena game. or the Higurashi games/visual novels. And for a long time (though that has changed) Final Fantasy sprites were being rendered in anime style for cut scenes or official art. And this reasoning is what was behind the Org generally allowing video games. However, I think, and I'd have to consult the rest of the admin team, a music video set to, say, Counter-Strike, would be out of bounds.

As far as Final Fantasy: Spirits Within... although the Org accepts it because of the moniker of FF, its Japanese directors, and its Japanese production house (Square Pictures), it was produced for an American audience and actually was supposed to be a proof of concept for creating virtual cast that would look the same but play different characters in different stories. I'm of the opinion editing with the source has more in common with live action than cel animation or the modern computer generated anime that is still supposed to appear cel animated to some degree. Unlike Disney's move in the princess films to "3D" CGI with Rapunzel, Frozen, Moana, etc, anime has very much NOT done that. I'm actually of the opinion I'd much rather that Disney did the same (of course, now they're all about live action remakes which is a rant for another time).

If you mix sources and therefore mix editing techniques, then you have created a mixed media production, which itself is something else again, or so I would say.

But that's just my two yen.

[the Black Monarch]

You seem to be under the impression that I was talking about Org policy. I was not. Dustin Grim's question was "Are GMVs a totally different kind of work/genre from AMVs?" and my answer was "Fan-made music videos are fan-made music videos... it's all one genre". The lines between genres, or the lack of such lines, exist (or don't) independently of what one person does or doesn't want to host on his website.

And that answer is "it depends."

In other words, you make up the boundaries between genres as you go along, proving that they're not really separate genres at all in any meaningful sense.


If you were to look at all 30-40 hours of my music video library, you would not see the words "live-action" or "game" anywhere, and you'd rarely see the word "anime". Instead, you'd see file names like "Evangelion music video - Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody (ShonenDizzyCow).mpg", "Transformers Aligned music video - Emphatic - Stronger.mp4" (with "Aligned" being the official name for the continuity containing the games Fall of Cybertron and War For Cybertron, the series Prime, and the movie Predacons Rising), and "Multi-franchise music video - Nalepa - Monday (Glitch Mob remix).mp4". My file names are systematized like this for a very good and very specific reason. It makes no sense to have my Star Wars videos scattered across a half-dozen places depending on exactly what combination of Star Wars materials they're pulling footage from (movies, CGI Clone Wars, cel animated Clone Wars, Force Unleashed cutscenes, etc.), or for my Transformers videos to be split up the same way, while the ones that take footage exclusively from the Bayformers movies get dumped in the same place as the Once Upon a Time music videos for no reason other than consisting exclusively of live-action content. It's better for all the SW videos to be in one place, all the Transformers videos to be in one place (subdivided by continuity if applicable), all the X-Men videos to be in one place, etc.

The exceptions, those extremely rare few videos with the word "anime" in the filename, are the ones that exclusively pull footage from anime sources, but don't seem to care what anime they get their clips from, nor about telling a coherent story. They have file names like "Orgy - Blue Monday anime music video.mpg" from Aluminum Studios and "MSI - Strаight tο Videο (Birthday Massacre remix) anime music video.mp4", with the artist and song coming first and the part about being anime coming last because it is the least important consideration when organizing videos.

[Kionon]

You seem to be under the impression that I was talking about Org policy. I was not. Dustin Grim's question was "Are GMVs a totally different kind of work/genre from AMVs?" and my answer was "Fan-made music videos are fan-made music videos... it's all one genre". The lines between genres, or the lack of such lines, exist (or don't) independently of what one person does or doesn't want to host on his website.

I am not under that impression. I'm stating that, in general, my opinion aligns with Org policy. I believe Org policy (especially since I was, you know, peripheral to the discussion around that policy and have been a voice in conversations since to modify that policy) is based upon a set of opinions of how AMVs, GMVs, LAMVs, etc differ from each other materially and substantially. Not all music videos made with video games (see my Counter-Strike example) will fit into the anime style/anime trope, Japanese produced, Japanese domestic market intended to be included in the Org policy. Those included, however, I believe such "GMVs" have no difference materially or substantially from "AMVs" for the reasons I have already provided, I do believe such MVS are really A(VG)MVS, which are really just... AMVs.

My response was really to the assertion that LAMVs or Vidds are the same genre as AMVs. I have already explained my reasoning, and while I could do so again, I'm not sure of the point in doing so. If you're unconvinced, you're unconvinced. It neither rings my till nor picks my pocket if you don't agree with me on this aspect of fan crap theory.

In other words, you make up the boundaries between genres as you go along, proving that they're not really separate genres at all in any meaningful sense.

Please don't put words in my mouth (or text in my keyboard). This is absolutely not what I said. The boundaries exist, but art is messy. Comparing the list of aspects which give rise to any individual example in order to categorise it is fairly normal behavior for critical theorists. I'm not making them up, but they do obviously change shape to a small degree over time. I just disagree the change is substantive enough to declare the entire body of conclusions from decades of AMV discourse "making up boundaries as you go along" and leading to the conclusion "they're not really separate genres at all in any meaningful sense."

If you were to look at all 30-40 hours of my music video library, you would not see the words "live-action" or "game" anywhere, and you'd rarely see the word "anime".

I'm not sure how your personal organisational schema is relevant though.

For myself I have a folder marked AMVs. I have another folder marked LAMVs with only a few entries. Within the AMVs folder is Series - Year - Studio - Editor - Title.container, for example it might be Naruto - 2004 - LinkballZ Studios - Naruto's Constipated.mp4 (obviously not a real AMV). GMVs, all of which fall under the above A(VG)MVs description above and in previous posts, are in the AMVs folder... because they're AMVs. The one exception is , which as I said, is currently counted as an AMV, but truthfully, it doesn't quite deserve that title. The Org recognises it as such, so I've organised it such.

I don't really think my organisational scheme is relevant either. Just thought you might be interested in it.

[the Black Monarch]

It's not the organizational scheme itself that matters, but the reasoning behind it. The idea behind genres, or with organizational groupings in general, is that things within a single group are supposed to have more in common with each other than they do with things from sister groups, within the same parent group. Your organization scheme implies that Naruto videos from 2004 have more in common with each other than than they do with Naruto videos made in any other year, regardless of the song/artist used, which strikes me as insane.

While your stance on this question may superficially resemble org policy, mine is more in line with what the music video community as a whole is doing. The rise of file-sharing networks like Limewire, Kazaa, and Morpheus in 2001 allowed the music video hobby to spill far beyond the anime bubble, and even back then, we had people like 4Paws Studios and the Nuclear Tuxedo Production Team making both anime and live-action videos, and not distinguishing between the two. Then in 2006, Youtube became a thing, and the music video hobby began reaching beyond the file-sharing community. Nobody outside the anime bubble is talking about "live-action music videos" or "game music videos" or "mixed media" videos. They define their videos by the stories that they tell and the characters to whom they pay tribute. When someone makes a General Grievous tribute using footage from Episode III and both Clone wars series, it's a Star Wars music video. Period. Nobody cares that it's mixing live-action footage with two different kinds of animation. If someone makes a Transformers music video using exclusively clips from the Armadaverse (Armada, Energon, and Cybertron), it's a Transformers video. Period. Nobody outside the Org cares that the Armadaverse was made in Japan by Japanese studios for a Japanese audience and therefore it's technically an anime music video not a Western animation music video and blah blah blah. People care about Starscream's story, his relationship with Megatron, and his sacrifice to demonstrate the importance of the Autobots and Decepticons uniting to defeat Unicron. "Mixed-media" videos that stay within one franchise or continuity are quite common; by contrast, multi-franchise videos outside the anime bubble are rare and usually use instrumental tracks from Glitch Mob and Two Steps from Hell.

And speaking of Linkinball Z videos, what ever happened to those? I could have sworn that 15-20 years ago, someone did a study and found that there were between 60,000 and 70,000 Linkinball Z videos in existence, but a search on the Org today reveals only 1,534 results. Where'd the rest go?

[Kionon]

Monarch, I've struggled over your last couple of posts not to call your responses patronising or rude. I tend to try to qualify (something you don't seem to do) by adding things like "I think" "I believe" "it is my opinion" "I perceive" etc. Furthermore I have attempted not to state absolutes or insist you believe what I believe. Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to grant me the same courtesy.

Ultimately it's just fan crap theory, is it really worth being this aggressive over?

It's just like our opinions, man.

It's not the organizational scheme itself that matters, but the reasoning behind it. The idea behind genres, or with organizational groupings in general, is that things within a single group are supposed to have more in common with each other than they do with things from sister groups, within the same parent group. Your organization scheme implies that Naruto videos from 2004 have more in common with each other than than they do with Naruto videos made in any other year, regardless of the song/artist used, which strikes me as insane.

This is what i mean by patronising. Obviously I understand the idea behind genres. You make the assumption here that if I disagree with you on what the boundaries of those genres are, that I must not understand how organisational groupings function, and must need you to teach me the definition of organisational groupings. I did undergrad and post-grad, I got enough of this from professors when doing my masters coursework.

As to the point you raise about my use of years, I actually do believe that in general, one can trace changes in AMV style, production, and technology by paying attention to years, which is why years are important to me. That is a reasonable assertion. Calling it "insane" is not only unnecessary hyperbole, it's a good example of the kind of aggressive language you've tended to use in both of our (perhaps in others?) discussions so far. It certainly makes me not want to continue with you, not because I'm not interested in your fan crap theories (I am), but I'm not interested in being made out as silly or stupid.

While your stance on this question may superficially resemble org policy, mine is more in line with what the music video community as a whole is doing.

Superficially? This seems to suggest you think that my understanding isn't intimately tied up in AMV and Org history. It is, so superficial seems like an odd way to describe that my understanding closely aligns to Org policy. The two are intertwined. Nothing superficial about it.

As for your understanding, there's not one, but two assertions there you have yet to provide evidence to support: one that a "music video community as a whole" exists (I don't believe it does, even the way we talk about the "AMV community" is a contrivance given the fractionalised nature of the internet), and two that your understanding is more accurate than my own.

Nobody outside the anime bubble is talking about "live-action music videos" or "game music videos" or "mixed media" videos.

Maybe. But you're inside it, speaking to someone inside of it right now. You're in the "anime bubble" epistemic sphere, so don't be surprised when the epistemic rules are different.

Nobody outside the Org cares that the Armadaverse was made in Japan by Japanese studios for a Japanese audience and therefore it's technically an anime music video not a Western animation music video and blah blah blah.

...but you're coming into our house and telling us what we should believe about our own hobby? That's the way that paragraph reads to me, which is odd, because you're one of the oldest currently active members of the Org. This is the Org, and we have our own definitions, conceptualisations, etc. Not all of us, I would certainly like to hear from others. But you haven't really framed your arguments in way that seems respectful of what has been built here. And I don't mean the code for the website; I mean the discourse and community.

I'm also a current moderator, which means with the green name it sounds like I'm speaking for the Org, but I think I need to make a disclaimer that I'm not. I actually don't know how the other members of the admin and moderating team think. I really just am expounding on my own. But again, my views do align with Org policy, I've made it clear they come from decades of discussion and have complex reasoning behind them.

So far I've not felt that you accept people can have different opinions (at least on art) and they are just as smart, capable, and serious in those opinions as you are. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree. Indeed, it should be encouraged! How boring it would be if everyone believed the same. But no one should feel like others are putting them down.

And speaking of Linkinball Z videos, what ever happened to those? I could have sworn that 15-20 years ago, someone did a study and found that there were between 60,000 and 70,000 Linkinball Z videos in existence, but a search on the Org today reveals only 1,534 results. Where'd the rest go?

YouTube or lost. 90% of anything being crap, and what not, once file-sharing services like the ones you mention above fell out of favor with the masses, they stopped being traded, and as people's harddrives or what not failed or were wiped... I assume a lot of them just ceased to exist. But I don't know. It's pure conjecture.

[the Black Monarch]

Trust me when I say that you haven't seen me rude. If you want to see what I'm like when I'm rude, blame capitalism for the problems caused by government.

in general, one can trace changes in AMV style, production, and technology by paying attention to years, which is why years are important to me. That is a reasonable assertion.

No, it's not, nor is it true except in terms of technology. There has been a shift away from the two-VCR method and toward editing on computers, for obvious reasons. Beyond that, there has been no general long-term trend in technical or artistic merit. Kevin Caldwell's "Engel" remains better than 99% of the crap that gets made every year by Youtubers who think that putting their cell phone in front of a TV is a valid way to acquire source footage. I'm inclined to say that the proliferation of digital editing has led to an increase in the occurrence of sync-driven and effects-driven videos at the expense of comedy, drama, and other videos that are actually "about something", but I also can't be sure that this isn't the result of me just getting older and harder to impress, and increasingly disregarding videos as "crap" that I would have thought of as dramas 15 years ago.

Superficially? This seems to suggest you think that my understanding isn't intimately tied up in AMV and Org history. It is, so superficial seems like an odd way to describe that my understanding closely aligns to Org policy. The two are intertwined. Nothing superficial about it.

Org policy is about what is or isn't allowed on the Org. Your opinion is about drawing lines between genres of music videos. They're not even about the same subject. The only thing they have in common is that both draw a line between "anime music videos" and "everything else".

there's not one, but two assertions there you have yet to provide evidence to support: one that a "music video community as a whole" exists (I don't believe it does, even the way we talk about the "AMV community" is a contrivance given the fractionalised nature of the internet)

Youtube comments sections prove that it does. Prior to that, the existence of live-action and western animation music videos on file-sharing networks proved that it did. Also, back in the day, editors frequently had their own sites where you could email them. A bunch of people trading amateur live-action and western animation music videos online and emailing the creators of those videos constitutes a music video community.

two that your understanding is more accurate than my own.

I consider the content of our conversations to be sufficient evidence of that.

...but you're coming into our house and telling us what we should believe about our own hobby?

That is, like, the whole point of having an online forum dedicated to a hobby.

[seasons]

Hey there, fellas !
I have a question, as i am new in this forum and i know nearly nothing.
Are GMVs a totally different kind of work/genre from AMVs ?
I'm interested in doing both, but i want to be well aware of what i'm doing and if something posted in the amv section which is a gmv is considered off topic or not.
Thank you for every answer, and see ya !

Just getting back to the original post in this thread, there's two questions being asked here:

Are GMVs a totally different kind of work/genre from AMVs ?

Here's my answer, which I already gave but was probably too pat about to be taken seriously. Game Music Videos are different from Anime Music Videos. One uses footage from video games. The other uses footage from anime. That constitutes a difference and I think that in itself answers the question.

But Dustin Grim asks "Are GMVs a totally different kind of work...?"

Totally: does this word change the meaning of the apparently simple question?

I'm still inclined to answer the same way, so here I'm looking for evidence to justify my opinion. Is this a backwards way of looking at things? You tell me.

Anime is defined not only by its cultural origins but by quirks of the animation that are very inherent and common to it that really affect how editors can and will work with it, such traits lend themselves to creative decision making, constitute challenges that editors must overcome, and ultimately shape the way that AMVs come together. It's very common for scenes to be animated with changes occurring at a rate of once every three frames, for example. I'm sure this happens in western animation to a widespread degree, but I can't say it's quite as common. Game animation is... something else, made for a different purpose, in a different way, that's not going to flow with the same viscosity of anime when you put it on the timeline.

Anime music videos have a unique history that's not found with western animation or live action or video game fan edits. AMVs were a very niche hobby that pretty much existed underground until the creation of this website. It may be hard to consider this site anything other than a microscopically small entity compared to YouTube, but in the context of what the Internet was like from 2000 to 2005 (or hell, just that entire decade, really), AMVs had a thriving subculture around them that GMVs (or really any other kind of fan-edited videos, from live action to western animation and beyond) just never had and wouldn't begin to have on any comparable scale until after the rise of YouTube. People came together to do this weird thing, with this weirdly specific sort of media, coming together both in this community that you're dipping into right now as well as at conventions and other real-life/offline occasions.

Meanwhile, the only non-anime vidding "scene" of note that got reasonably big was... YouTube Poop.

The idea that GMVs or My Little Pony music videos or fan-created music videos edited from live action films or other sources could actually stand up next to AMVs is...really dependent on the ground that AMV creators broke and showed what was possible, which happened without the approval of mass culture or how it defines viral success. AMVs showed how it could be done, and once there was a free, easy to use platform to publish anything people could imagine, it was only a matter of time before that template was followed and the world could celebrate "fan-made music videos." And from a certain perspective, that's the world that we're living in and that's how it all looks, like a big celebration of pop culture where anything goes. But that's not really how we got here and I don't think it reflects the truth.

When Dustin Grim asks "are GMVs a totally different kind of work/genre from AMVs ?," would it be fair to compare his question to someone asking, "are cats a totally different kind of animal from dogs?" (I don't know what the name of this rhetorical tactic is, it's often used in bad faith but I don't think that's what I'm doing here, go ahead and call me out on it if that's actually what I'm doing.)

Cats and dogs are mammals, they have four legs and are found on almost every continent on earth. Today, they are most commonly domesticated and kept as companion animals by humans, who often purchase manufactured, prepackaged food for them from shops commonly referred to as pet stores. Most pet stores sell food specially made for cats and dogs, respectively, as well as other species-specific merchandise.

Based on those facts, it would be easy to assume that there's no meaningful difference between cats and dogs. But it ignores a lot of information!

I'm kind of getting off track, and Dustin Grim asked a second question here (not phrased as a question but certainly implied as one):

I'm interested in doing both, but i want to be well aware of what i'm doing and if something posted in the amv section which is a gmv is considered off topic or not.

I think he's asking about this website and the rules for what's allowed to be shared in the forums here and/or entered into the database. This site has always been specific to anime and AMVs, so for the purposes of this question, there is a very meaningful difference that actually affects what work an editor is allowed to share and where they're allowed to share it.

There have been gray areas here over the years (especially concerning the Final Fantasy games and the early 2000s CGI animated film), which I expected to find a lengthy controversial history of in the deepest depths of the forums here but can't really find any evidence of. Not just any footage from video games was ever allowed here, and that seems to still be the case today. I don't think the existence of gray areas necessarily opens the floodgates for anything at all to be posted in the AMV Announcements & Feedback forum (the most prominent part of this site for sharing new work, presumably the place that an aspiring editor would be asking about sharing their work in). As already stated, there's a subforum for sharing non-anime videos. It's tempting (and reasonable, IMHO) to assume that Dustin Grim is asking his first question because he's more interested in asking the second question.

This site is built around the meaningful difference between AMVs and every other kind of fan-edited video, and I don't think any kind of broad change to how the typical Internet user engages with "content" in 2019 does much to change that.

[Kionon]

Trust me when I say that you haven't seen me rude. If you want to see what I'm like when I'm rude, blame capitalism for the problems caused by government.

If you'd like to discuss political economy, please take it to its own topic here in General Discussion. Politics is not verboten, by any means, but do be aware that it's one of the easiest ways for a thread to get out of control and for moderators to have need to step in. For myself, I won't be participating. I know better.

I'm inclined to say that the proliferation of digital editing has led to an increase in the occurrence of sync-driven and effects-driven videos at the expense of comedy, drama, and other videos that are actually "about something", but I also can't be sure that this isn't the result of me just getting older and harder to impress, and increasingly disregarding videos as "crap" that I would have thought of as dramas 15 years ago.

I feel like this is like saying painting styles haven't changed because elementary school art projects are just as "crap" (relatively speaking) as they ever were. It was difficult enough 20 years ago to see every AMV that existed. It stopped being humanly possible not too long after. I stand by my assertion that I see trends over time amongst those videos I consider good enough to be "keepers" and placed in my personal collection. Technology is certainly the obvious one, but it isn't the only one. This is why years are important to me.

Org policy is about what is or isn't allowed on the Org. Your opinion is about drawing lines between genres of music videos. They're not even about the same subject. The only thing they have in common is that both draw a line between "anime music videos" and "everything else".

I think I said, at least twice, that Org policy came out of discussions on what did and did not constitute an AMV. It wasn't like Phade just said, "I like this video! It can be hosted here! I don't like that video! It can't be hosted here!" with the exception of hentai anime music videos, but no one questioned those were AMVs, the reasoning there was that the Org wanted to avoid problems with being targeted as a porn site. But as for the rest of the policy, it was only arbitrary as any art categorisation is. It seems really strange to hear you say that at its core my own understanding of the genre differences between "music video" productions is not about the same subject as Org policy. This simply isn't my recollection of how that policy developed.

Youtube comments sections prove that it does. Prior to that, the existence of live-action and western animation music videos on file-sharing networks proved that it did. Also, back in the day, editors frequently had their own sites where you could email them. A bunch of people trading amateur live-action and western animation music videos online and emailing the creators of those videos constitutes a music video community.

I think you're using community extremely loosely. If you mean "fan crap video editors and consumers who utilise the internet to share and obtain fan crap" then I'll grant you can say there's a "fan crap video community," but I tend to define community far more strictly. The Org is how I define a community. AMV Central is another. Ohtori.Nu is an Utena fandom community. My labor union is a community. A shared identity, history, communication, tropes, etc. This is why I believe there are many, many, many communities plural, but not one community. I could not show up in one of these other communities using the same terms, telling the same in-jokes, and referencing the history of the Org and hope to be understood. And if I kept it up, I'd probably be asked to leave.

This is a matter of definitional conceptualisation, and I'm absolutely willing to say we're both correct here in our assertions because we're operating from different definitions. However, having differing definitions makes further discourse impossible, because we'll just be talking past each other.

I consider the content of our conversations to be sufficient evidence of that.

Then why even engage if you're already right, and you have nothing to learn, and you are not interested in considering the thoughts of others, why even participate?

That is, like, the whole point of having an online forum dedicated to a hobby.

There is a difference between offering your own thoughts and being dismissive of the thoughts of others. Aside from where you seem to have told me I don't know my own thoughts (I do know my own thoughts, I am the one thinking them) or where you seem to have told me I don't really get to have those thoughts because you consider them wrong, I've tried not to strongly counter any of your opinions. Just offer my own in response. Some people think the point of having any discourse space is to "win over opponents," but a lot of people don't find that kind of competitive arguing enjoyable. Quite the opposite. It drives them away and kills the discussion.

I enjoy hearing the thoughts of others, and I want to be invited to consider the views of others, I do not want to feel like I'm being demanded to accept the views of others.

[the Black Monarch]

This conversation has definitely gone off on a lot of different tangents. Let's wrap it up with a hypothetical. Let's say there are two editors: Bob and Steve. Each decides to make a music video. Both videos use clips from the Matrix franchise, and the song... I dunno... "Big Machine" by Velvet Revolver. The only difference between the two is that Bob uses clips exclusively from the Animatrix, while Steve uses clips from the Animatrix and all 3 live-action Matrix movies. Are these videos different genres despite being basically the same thing? What if 90% of the clips come from the Animatrix? 99%?

Or, if you want to counter with "the Animatrix isn't really anime because reasons", replace the Matrix franchise with Witchblade, and "Big Machine" with... I dunno... some random Skillet or Evanescence song. If Bob made a video using clips exclusively from the Witchblade anime series, and Steve made one that uses clips from both the Witchblade anime and the live-action series with Yancy Butler, would they be different genres even if both used the same song?

Some people say yes, for reasons already discussed. My answer is no, because such a distinction tells you nothing meaningful about the videos from a technical, artistic, or historical perspective. Such a distinction only tells you which one would be allowed on the Org and which one wouldn't. Now that that's settled, can we all go out for cake?

[Kionon]

I say yes for reasons already discussed. I understand and respect your rational and well thought out perspective even if I disagree with both your assertions and your conclusion.

Cake is good.