Snowboard Videos...

8

84891jnf92048

Active member
Why are they so much better than ski videos? Edits, movies, everything. They have more of a friend vibe, more fun looking riding, etc.

Why can't someone make ski videos that are like snowboard videos? Maybe I just like watching snowboarding more than skiing......
 
most snowboard edits i've seen are like skateboarding videos, and those all pretty much suck
 
isenseven most definitely makes the most fun videos in all of snowsports. plus have you even watched a think thank movie? it's okay, skiing is just in it's epic phase, we'll snap out of it soon, trust me.
 
/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.pngBascially All somewhat good examples of The friends vibe, and also just an overall better edit, could post a newer one by steve, but its being judged by the rome local gnar contest so a no no right now.
 
that edit sucked and made him look like an even bigger douchebag than he already is
 
Even though everyone hates on snowboarding hardcore, it really isn't that bad. I plan on doing some more boarding next year for a matter of fact.
 
because skiers are too focused on looking gangster to make an edit that looks like they are actually having fun
 
No fake gnag signs or bullshit. Just fun.

/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
The art of flight is ill but other than that I dont see much of a difference between those who film skiers and those who film snowboarders, both have very typical styles.
 
Generally speaking, its not that snowboard movies are good films. It's just that ski movies are really, really bad.
 
I think I just have a bias against the conventions of sport videos. There's too many things to name, but a few come to mind. The sound aspect is seriously lacking: sound design is practically nonexistent, and song styles are nothing short of sporadic, seemingly in an attempt to "cover all bases" like a radio station. Continuity is nonexistent, and the addition of poorly-lit and half-baked interviews here and there don't atone for the fact that they're nothing more than pornography.

One thing that really bothers me is the fact that people want to see a trick from start to finish. Because the duration of most clips must reach this quota, the overall pace and the feel of the editing is slowed down. And god forbid you cut in the middle of a trick or don't show the landing, because that seems to be the only thing people actually want to watch. There are exceptions to this, such as the Nike "Chosen Few" ad, which was shot and edited gorgeously, but videos like that are few and far between.

Ski, snowboard, and skate videos are at a lull. Amidst the endless film burns, "bad TV" filters, or complete disregard for geometry are an elite few in a sea of mediocrity and regurgitation.

I should note however, that I am the last person to say that skiing should be even remotely serious. In this context, none of this matters. But if I am to appraise these videos for their artistic value, these problems are full force.
 
See I personally don't think that's the definition of what a good film is. You are judging the films based on aesthetic criteria established by the film community (which, as i have said before, can be pretty fucking pretentious). To me, a film is good when it accomplishes what it set out to accomplish. You mentioned porn, so I'll use porn (the sexual kind) as an example. Porn films are great films. They aim to create a way for people to fantasize different sexual scenarios, and many of them do exactly that. A film like transformers is a great film. It aimed to entertain males (many of them probably high or drunk) in their teens and twenties. It did exactly that. Action sports films aim to entertain kids who partake in such sports as well as provide them with a sort of fantasy land. They do exactly that.
Are any of those films well scripted, well acted, well shot, or well edited? Often times, no. But regardless, they do exactly what they try to do. And in my book, that's a good film.
I understand your view and I felt the same way for a long time. And I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't believe that myself.
 
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying a good film is one that abides by some sort of Hollywood criteria, or any criteria at all. My gripe is that they fail to break free from a mold. Pornography, Michael Bay, and action sports films are all criticized because they are redundant and, like I said, regurgitated.

I agree that the Hollywood aesthetic criteria can be very pretentious, and just because I expect at the very least some sort of quality craftsmanship doesn't mean I condone this pretense. I'm just saying the people need to stop blindly following the internet definitions and "rules" bullshit and define their craft through personal experience. Among the high-production values one can find great diversity, from Aronofsky to Tarsem to Kaufman to Fincher...all these directors have brought something new to the table. What do you see in action sports films? Follow cams, "film burns", fake tilt shift, unjustified shallow DOF, the list goes on...

I will have to disagree with your conception of what makes a film successful. That sort of logic may seem like an attractive solution to the problem, but in reality I just don't find it feasible. By that model, we should give equal praise and respect to both a porno with 1 million views and an Aronofsky film. Does an internet meme carry the same prestige as a Salvidor Dalí painting because it was successful in making people laugh, just like Dalí's work was successful in providing artistic inspiration? Do we lump funny cat videos and Mozart into the same category simply because they're achieved their purpose, regardless of how different and unrelated that purpose was?

Furthermore, wouldn't it be a bit of a far stretch to assume that all ski videos assume the same role, or are merely for the purpose of entertainment or escapism, as you said? Isn't it possible that there are other, alternative motives behind why someone might enjoy them? I know I personally don't give a shit about watching skiing; it's just an excuse for me to film mountains.
 
I must add tho that skiing videos from happy pro and strudel pack have the Fun, friends vibe to them. but snowboarding has more
 
Fair enough. But you have to admit that by immediately criticizing the lighting and continuity of action sport films, among other flaws, it made it seem like you were looking at them from a very traditional standpoint. And don't get me wrong, I also agree that porn, action films, and action sport films are all redundant.
And I am definitely down for some progression in action sport films. I thought Life Cycles was a massive leap forward in that it focused on the filmmaking, and more specifically the feeling and nuances of mountain biking rather than try to show the gnarliest shit with mediocre filming.
From an artistic viewpoint, you're right. An Aronofsky film deserves way more respect than a porno, a Dali deserves more than a meme, and Mozart deserves more than cat videos. But to me, unfortunately, film is seeming more and more like a business rather than an art. And that's why I would say if an Aronofsky and a porno both successfully reach their target audience, they are equally "good." Artistically equal? no.
You are also sort of lumping different things together. Mozart's work is intended to be appreciated by those who can understand fine art. Films are not the same way. But if a meme or cat video made as many people laugh as Mozart or Dalí's work has put people in awe, then I would say they are all equally "good." I don't think what makes something 'good' is necessarily dependent on its artistic value (in the traditional sense of the word "art," of course)
Why else do you think people might enjoy watching them? I only just came to the escapism conclusion on my own so I could definitely be wrong. But why else would kids spend money every year to watch people ski better than they ever could in places that they will never go to? And why do a lot of kids like to watch pros skiing more mellow lines or even skiing in a public park rather than the steepest of steeps or superpark shoots? I think it's because it makes that fantasy more tangible. Obviously they also like just being wowed by the skiing as well, but I think the escapism aspect is a big part of it.
Your last sentence makes sense, but that's more about the filmmakers. I think the reasons why we film skiing and why we as filmmakers watch ski movies are different than the reasons that the general public watches ski movies.
Regardless, this is all obviously opinion. I was just saying there are a few different ways of looking at what defines something as good.
 
All good points, but keep in mind I stated that my argument is only valid if we are to analyze them strictly from an artistic viewpoint. Otherwise it's null. And believe me, I don't think ski videos should be taken seriously. The whole reason I started Boys Club is because I wanted to just say "fuck it" and make videos with horrible filming/editing/sound and have absolutely no regard for quality. It's pure, shameless entertainment, and I just embrace that as a part of skiing.
 
Good point, I missed that you said that.
but i think that while you are evaluating them from an artistic viewpoint in the more traditional sense of the word art, i am also looking at their artistic value. creating a funny meme is a true art of its own, yknow? or making a movie that you know won't be great but targets its audience perfectly, that's an art too.
 
Metaphorically perhaps...when I speak of art, I am generally referring to a system of established methods or philosophies (fine art). None of this "I can shit on a canvas and use wordplay to call it art" business.

But hey, I'm a stickler like that. I hate Warhol, Duchamp, etc.
 
Yes, but this implies that any attempt to make serious, artistically pleasing videos are successful, which they generally are not.

Try to be serious and you see regurgitation. Approach the whole thing as a big joke and you get humor. I prefer the latter.
 
for sure. but i wouldn't put art like that in the same category as the art i'm talking about. the art you're talking about, as you said, adheres to a system of established methods or philosophies. at the same time, the art that i'm talking about it equally thought-out. they know what sells and what doesn't, what will make people laugh and what won't what music people will like and what music they won't like. it's not as obviously beautiful, but in my opinion it is equally as artistic. nothing like splatter painting or shit like that
 
hahah glad everyone enjoyed reading it. and youre pretty much spot on. i cant speak for landis, but i am a film major and landis has the knowledge of one at the very least.
 
as a snowboarder, i kind of view it the other way around. i end up watching alot more skiing videos than snowboarding. i dont know why, maybe i am bad at finding the good snowboarding videos, but ive never seen hood snowboard edits like these... im not saying they dont exist either, im just saying ive never seen any. if you have please post them.

/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
well its just like skiing, theres good edits and bad edits.

seems to me like theres more bad than good in snowboarding but theres still some really entertaining ones out there. knife show 3 was rediculous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top