Comments on: Devoid Of Yesterday: OFFF Lisbon Titles

By: oddfew

oddfew — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:07:45 +0000

couldn’t agree more.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:42:23 +0000

Well said my friend..

By: rothermel

rothermel — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 04:54:10 +0000

i cant agree more. i havnt spoken up on this piece, because i wanted to see how people reacted. it is a well balanced work, for i am sure there was no to very little pay – done on their own time (i assume).

its funny how we can find older influences in work (bass, rand, glazer, etc…) respectable, but as soon as theres a more contemporary influence (gmunk, ipod streaks, ink splat, deer heads, fishguts?) you are considered rubbish.

this style of critque has gotten old and tired. lets discuss the quality of the piece and not what it reminds you of, no one cares otherwise. it just shows you have more time to care about researching whos “ripping” who, rather than doing the piece yourself.

great job guys, i am sure that the nyc titles were hard to top, but regardless the piece is beautiful in its own disgusting way.

By: unsatisfied

unsatisfied — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:56:34 +0000

THAT GMUNK SHIT IS LOVELY…u are correct. corny bite indeed!!!

By: machinehead

machinehead — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:48:49 +0000

Tiresome visuals cut to soulless music. I’ll never understand the fascination some designers have with dripping blood splatters and death. What are you trying to say?

By: hvanzon

hvanzon — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:25:46 +0000

wow! those negative comments, it’s like this is the worst piece ever made. I think maybe it wasn’t smart of devoid of yesterday to make the titles for offf twice in a row. Especially when you take in account how good the first was. If you do something like that you have to succeed it, which, to be honest, they didn’t.
But cmon, the camerawork, color correction, grading, editing and use of typo are all good. And so what if it’s been done, there are a lot of good pieces that have been done.
It looks like everybody is trying to overrule eachothers negative comments. Which I think is not fair to the work…

By: memoryviolation

memoryviolation — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:22:01 +0000

They been riding on gmunk’s dick for too long.

http://72.10.45.135/ventilate_ca/features/fitc_2008/gmunk_res.html

By: pablo

pablo — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:15:32 +0000

I first though it was ‘more of the same’ and old, copying what you said before: Rubber Johnny. But then I couldn’t stop watching the piece (even though it was the same imagery as the beginning) since the story arc is executed brilliantly. The combination of the editing with the camera actions (the focus pulls were awesome) is incredible, those two choices are very well considered to create tension. It made me satisfied after watching the piece, making it complete and finished. Wouldn’t die for it, but I really liked it!

By: unsatisfied

unsatisfied — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:40:05 +0000

firstly. I am a frequenter here at the fabulous Motionographer. I never registered but now I felt I HAD to say something. This piece in my opinion is pure visual and audible laziness at its prime. Rubber Johnny was done years ago. Why revisit this overly abused and dated form of motion/audio work? Chris Cunningham should spank you for this obvious “bite”. Are you not ashamed? Are you not embarrassed of yourselves? YIKES! this SUCKED! I am going to do a piece like this but THIS time I am going to focus and defocus on dirty diapers then at the end i will spread the dirty diapers on a light table. It could represent just what it is. My version would be more literal though ….pure sh*&t !

By: absolutlahmi

absolutlahmi — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:31:25 +0000

Weak and forced concept, tired style.
I agree with the comments that this type of work needs to better reflect a bigger idea about what the festival is about, and not feel as self-serving as this piece does.