Yuku free message boards

On the particular topic of discussion currently going between Trevor and Witold, I must admit Witold makes a damn good point. If a character's name is The Ebullient Zautrino, I think Trevor really should have enough respect for our work that he bother to use the correct name of the character.

That's what I suspect is really at the heart of what Witold is trying to say - that it is not silly that as creator of a character, that someone trying to write a supposedly respectible critical review of something should be asked to at least use the correct character names, otherwise any possible worth said review might have suddenly looks rather shaky, if the reviewer can't be bothered to name-check basic story elements.

For example, Trevor, that second film you assisted on - Bad Ass Mono Winged Angel. Now, that's its correct title, but it is indeed a long one. I could easily start calling it something shorter, like Terrible, but that might upset you, because I am not even bothering to use its correct title.

Similar principle here - if people refer to something, they use the correct title. So at least have the common courtesy to use correct character names. In fact, you don't even have to use his file name in future - Zauntrio is just as short as "Knight", and would not only be more accurate a description, but it would also not annoy people.

Quote:

---

Well, thanks very much for that. What an opinion to hold. I come here and give my honest opinions on your fan films, some os which I enjoy, some of which I don't. Some of which I have ideas which occur to me that I feel may be of benefit to you - which you can take or leave.

---

And sometimes you do that in your reviews, especially in your reviews of our fan films. And for that, we are always grateful (and I am sure both Witold and I have stated that on this very forum 2-3 times as well).

However, can you honestly admit that your review of The Monopoly Pub Crawl of Doom was constructive criticism? Of course not - I've just re-read it, and I myself cannot find anything there which approaches constructive criticism.

Quote:

---

To have you say such things is hurtful - that I write such reviews sometimes during my listen to the audios (making notes as I go so I don't miss anything).

---

Well, to me that's what your original post very much reads like - a simple set of notes about the production. But surely you must also agree that notes do not a constructively critical review make.

On the other hand, I could say your original post contained things that hurt me as Director - because you basically said that everyone's efforts on this one were totally wasted, and your overall opinion opens the very post you wrote.

Quote:

---

That Witold has chosen to centre on my non-use of a character name is regrettable - despite what you say you have both pounced on it eagerly and used it as a launching pad for comments like the one I quoted.

---

Not really - as I said, I have been finding it difficult to write a response to your original post, but because it is so overtly negative and really nothing more than a collection of personal opinions that I cannot find anything to really discuss with you.

Witold made a simple comment originally to try and generate some discussion to determine why you constantly call a character in our stories via the use of a wildly inaccurate job description - in the hope of clearing up any potential misunderstanding later on...

Quote:

---

If you don't want me to review your stuff fine - to me that signals that you don't want people who say negative things about your production.

---

Oh, dear God - this old chestnut. Why is it that when we disagree with what someone has said, and it just so happens that person has said a whole swathe of negative comments about the production, people automatically assume we want to silence negative reviews?

For the record, we welcome any and all reviews of our work - be them positive or negative. All that we ask is that the reviewers step beyond personal subjective opinions, and try to provide us with feedback which enables us to examine a production and pick apart faults in an intelligent fashion, and ergo enables us to be better at this whole production lark.

Given the above criteria (which both Witold and I have stated several times), can you now see why we don't like your post, because it really contributes nothing at all to helping us to further our skill here? Perhaps if you were to make a new post, detailing what you'd like to hear changed in the Director's Cut (or something - am just offering but one example here), then I myself might find it easier to repond to your post.

Quote:

---

I have always strived to provide my opinions balanced with at least *some* ideas of how *I* feel they could be improved.

---

Not in this particular thread you have, hence the choice of ours to ignore what you've saaid. Go back and re-read what you've written Trev - it's nothing more than slagging off every single aspect of the entire production, with the occasional clause of praise vying for space against great paragraphs of negative opinions.

I've openly stated in this thread I would welcome and and all opinions on how this story could be improved, because I am currently re-mastering and re-editing it. However, you've not done that.

Quote:

---

a) you start new threads when an existing one is in place, my word, what a big deal he makes of his comments!

---

You know I explained that to you several months ago, Trev, and it's all down to a fiscal reasoning about keeping the cost of the board down. You acknowledged my statement to that affect, so please drop this ridiculous comment because both of us know it's total crap.

Quote:

---

b) you forget characters names!

---

Maybe it's the English teacher in Witold and I, but both of us do like people to do at least a minimal amount of research before they write a review, simply to give it a small amount of credibility. We are not using that simple fact to try and ignore your comments, but rather trying to discuss something which we happen to feel is important.

If you don't feel it is important, then just ignore us - it's not that hard.

Quote:

---

c) you think we should spend 1000s on our productions!

---

Well, your comments really do suggest we should. I will grant you that you do offer us lots of suggestions for improving our fan films, but when we ask for details (and more importantly, cost estimates), you go silent. Given our research in the areas of improvement you suggest indicate a substanial cost involved, is it any wonder we automatically assume you are asking us to spend lots of money on our productions? It's because all your suggestions will cost us money, despite your claims that they will cost us nothing.

Quote:

---

d) you find fault with a technical aspect, so therefore you think we are incompetent!

---

Well, this view from us mostly comes down to the way you use the English language Trev - what you say reads very much like a suggestion of incompetence on our part. If that's not what you mean, then that's fair enough - in future just watch what you say, and how you say it, so such incidents can be avoided in future.

Quote:

---

f) You weren't there - your comments are invalid!

---

But surely on occasion that can be a justified response to someone's comments about a film? If what they say is fundamentally inaccurate because they were not privvy to the behind-the-scenes information, we always strive to better inform our audience by gently correcting them. That you take this as an opportunity on our part to "denounce" your opinions is a rather false statement to make, because it is not.

Hopefully this post has cleared some misunderstandings up Trev. We welcome your reviews, and have always said so (well, I know I have at any rate), as they usually provide for fascinating reading. However, it just so happens on this particular case your review was rather nothing more than a collection of subjective notes - nothing we can really discuss.

Quote:

---

What did you want though? If I suggest certain things then Witold jumps in and brings up the usual stuff - you weren't there, that isn't what I wanted, you don't understand my intent. All valid of course - but he seems to think that my opinion is something that *needs* to be held above his own. This forum is all about ideas after all. Witold takes those ideas as affronts to his expertise.

---

That may or may not be correct (I am not here to argue something I have no involvement in) but have I myself ever argued such a line with you? Of course not - so at least give me some consideration when you do review things that I direct, like this audio for example.

Quote:

---

I didn't really - I said that I enjoyed the first part of it but it went beyond comedy to a point where it didn't seem like anyone knew what they were doing - making it up as they were going along - accents that went further and further away from anything remotely funny - and the story became totally inconsequential.

---

I see... well, in that one paragraph you've managed to be far more lucid and concise than you were in the entirety of your previous post. The above comments are the sorts of ones we like to read, because they actually assist us in working out why you didn't like a particular aspect, and ergo attempting to work on improving that aspect in future productions.

Although I would like to ask for some clarification as to the point at which you felt the production "changed" - define "the first bit" and I'll more easily understand you.

As for the accents, well, they weren't being played for laughs as such - they were merely there to try and show the sort of people Rudolph and Dasher are - your ordinary Cockney lager drinkers.

As for your criticism of the script, I'd dearly welcome some more detail on that particular aspect, as I am trying to work out how someone found it difficult to follow and understand (if I am understanding your above statements correctly).

Quote:

---

a) The story ten minutes shorter
b) 95% of the accents redone
c) Tighter pacing, as was evidenced by the opening scenes in the bar

---

"A" and "C" are being worked on as I speak, but (B) I disagree with, because I myself am happy with the accents as a whole. But I take your point, and will think about accents and such like for future productions.

Quote:

---

*I* know that, but initially Witold didn't, so he wasn't come from a financial consideration in his comments.

---

Well, what's that got to do with me?

Quote:

---

My research involves listening to the audio and offering opinions, nothing more. And no, that doesn't mean you need to spell it out in each and every audio.

---

Well, if all you are offering are opinions, then don't call what you write a review. Secondly, if all you are offering are opinions, then please do not get affronted if we chose not to reply to them, because I can honestly say it's not out of any desire to silence or ignore you, believe me.

Thirdly, could you explain the second sentence in the above quote please? I have no idea what you're referring to.

Quote:

---

That is simply not true. I have offered enough suggestions to you to enable you (if you wish) to pursue cost-effective avenues of investigation.

---

Not really - you've offered us suggestions about how to improve our films, and then said to just find out how to achieve these all by ourselves. We need more than vague suggestions, Trev.

Quote:

---

The main rub seems to be that I haven't provided names and addresses, quotes and suppliers phone numbers.

---

We're not asking for that level of detail - do give our research skills some credit Trev - but all we are asking for is a little nudge in the right direction.

Quote:

---

I'll say it again, what a lot of free stuff comes down to is using some of that old fashioned shoe leather. Personal effort. I am not going to give you a list of my own sponsors for my films - where is the incentive for me in that?

---

The same incentive as for when you review our films - to make our work better? I don't know, to be honest - I am not asking for your magical book of contacts for all these films you apparently make, but all I am asking for is some idea of where to look. Unless it's escaped your attention, Trev, it's a big world out there, with lots of companies and people.

"So where to start?" is the big question...

Quote:

---

If you truly want to enable your productions to improve in the air of set design, technical details and so forth you need to get out there and find stuff for yourself.

---

Which we do, and constantly do. I don't know if you realise this, Trev, but our films have been slowly improving with each new release. Sure, the improvements might not be as quick and dramatic as you're hoping for, but they are there.

Quote:

---

To be honest, less time spend revamping websites and participating in webcasts and online discussion forums could perhaps be channelled into obtaining the very resources to improve your fan films.

---

Well, given that I have little involvement in the BTR Video department that Witold himself runs, and that Witold has little to do with the web site revamping, means your above statement is kinda futile.

Oh, and as for webcasts, well, given that we're actually recording a production during the webcasting, which is the whole point of our webcasts kinda also means your suggestion above falls flat on its face. I mean, if we're currently in the studio recording an audio drama, how can we also be out and about securing sponsers?

Sponsers, I might confirm, have zero interest in supporting Internet-based fan vids. Trust me, I've looked into it, and they're not interested. If we were entering into competitions or whatever, they might be - but given our audience, corporate sponsers couldn't give a jot.

I don't know if you realise this, Trev, but we spend more time on this company than is really justified. We do this because we want to produce the best we can given our own personal limitations - limitations we are constantly striving to overcome.

Just because we don't meet your lofty ideals about how and what we should be doing, doesn't mean we're just sitting around on our arses attempting to work out the next way we can release a sub-standard piece of crap for you to ridicule.