A Question of Content. A Vidding Discussion
Hi everyone,
I'm Ash48. The moderators have kindly given me permission to host my vidding discussion here at spnroundtable. Thanks. :)
I've recently been involved in a behind-the-scenes discussion about how important what someone vids is compared to how something is vidded. In other words, is content of greater import than technical proficiency?
I've developed some personal views on this topic, and am interested to know what other vidders and vid watchers have to say.
Will you watch a vid because it is technically very clever and interesting or does your viewing choice mostly rely on the content?
I argued that it really doesn't matter how brilliantly something is vidded; it's the content that will win the day. People will most often watch a video because it contains source material that is of interest to them - namely a favored TV show, film or actor, etc. It's unlikely that someone will tune in if they don't know the source very well or at all.
But do you agree? What makes a vid one that someone will stop and watch?
Is it how large the fandom (potential audience) is? How technically brilliant it is? How well known the vidder is? I've seen vids that have received an enormous number of hits because its content is something people want to see... no matter how well (or often poorly) it is constructed. In fact, I am frequently dismayed how popular some badly edited videos are and on the flip side, how under-appreciated extremely well made videos are.
And does it really matter? Should we just make vids we want to make and not care about who watches it? How important is integrity in terms of vidding what we want to vid and not just making one because we think it will get a good response?
Is the technical aspect of a vid important to viewers? Do vid watchers care if it's technically amazing or not? Or do viewers generally not care how a vid is put together so long as the content is engaging enough?
Lots of questions, I know, but I am really interested to hear what your thoughts are - both as a vidder and a viewer.
I'm Ash48. The moderators have kindly given me permission to host my vidding discussion here at spnroundtable. Thanks. :)
I've recently been involved in a behind-the-scenes discussion about how important what someone vids is compared to how something is vidded. In other words, is content of greater import than technical proficiency?
I've developed some personal views on this topic, and am interested to know what other vidders and vid watchers have to say.
Will you watch a vid because it is technically very clever and interesting or does your viewing choice mostly rely on the content?
I argued that it really doesn't matter how brilliantly something is vidded; it's the content that will win the day. People will most often watch a video because it contains source material that is of interest to them - namely a favored TV show, film or actor, etc. It's unlikely that someone will tune in if they don't know the source very well or at all.
But do you agree? What makes a vid one that someone will stop and watch?
Is it how large the fandom (potential audience) is? How technically brilliant it is? How well known the vidder is? I've seen vids that have received an enormous number of hits because its content is something people want to see... no matter how well (or often poorly) it is constructed. In fact, I am frequently dismayed how popular some badly edited videos are and on the flip side, how under-appreciated extremely well made videos are.
And does it really matter? Should we just make vids we want to make and not care about who watches it? How important is integrity in terms of vidding what we want to vid and not just making one because we think it will get a good response?
Is the technical aspect of a vid important to viewers? Do vid watchers care if it's technically amazing or not? Or do viewers generally not care how a vid is put together so long as the content is engaging enough?
Lots of questions, I know, but I am really interested to hear what your thoughts are - both as a vidder and a viewer.