blkltng
8mm

Posts: 2
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2007, 01:20:24 PM » |
|
Live judging, although taking more time, is probably more fair. Maybe it's because I've seen how films are prejudged that I believe that real time judging is more credible. I've judged a bunchca competitions, including national well-known ones, (I won't mention names 'cause what I'm about to say would cause a scandal) and rarely, if ever, do the judges make it through an entire piece. And the later into the judging session it is, the less time the piece gets screened. And of course there's fast forward, so any dramatic timing you've built in is lost. So when people say prejudging would allow judges to re-screen a piece, they are just showing an incredible niavete' It is actually quite the opposite. The judges are trying to get out of the session ASAP. The session was probably publicized as being too short anyway to get the judges to agree to do it. Or they're sitting at home with the remote on FF while they're eating breakfast and watching the news. Or they get somebody else to do it, like their kids, or students, so any expertise, the reason you asked them to do it, is lost. At least with live screenings, you know they have to watch the entire thing, real time, and they know they are there for a given time period. And they are also exposed to audience response. Maybe an old judge with no sense of humor, hearing a tremendous roar from the audience may look at a bit of dry topical humor totally differently than if he was sitting alone. And really, after all, isn't it the audience that matters? And don't you guys want door prizes? And Pizza?
|