Episode 7: The politics of Industry Award Shows

In this week’s show, Terence and Philip discuss the politics of Industry Award Shows. Why should we care? Is there an alternative or does there even need to be one? If not awards, how do we judge skills, with a divergence down memory lane to the “Gunsmoke” footage and similar exercises. How do we judge the work of an editor? And only one reference to the “NLE from Apple”!

7 thoughts on “Episode 7: The politics of Industry Award Shows

  1. I love this episode. The worst thing to happen to the commercial editorial business has been the AICE awards show. It makes commercial editors guilty of the same thing they always complain ad agency people do, which is judge work based on the concept without any idea of what it took to get to the finished edit. Anything having to do with advertising is always ego driven so it just reduces editing to that superficial level. A real shame.

  2. I am surprised you didn’t mention the Avatar loosing best picture to some interesting but not appreciated by general public film.
    Avatar really SHOULD have won. I know that the awards are patting themselves on the back and that there is a lot of politics in this.
    Cameron does not play the game and go to the same parties was what I heard.
    Still, I feel Avatar loosing the award was very dangerous for the Academy as for me and I bet MANY avid Film watchers, the Acadamy awards seems a poor indication of what is good.

    For Example, if a critic tells you to go to see X film, and that film is crap. You don;t listen to that critic anymore.

    James

  3. Yeah, references are the number one way. Then there is the interview where you can suss out a certain amount about a person. But in the end sometimes you have to take a chance.

    I have been burned by editors who were recommended, and then later, when it doesn’t work out, the recommender says they have had similar issues with the recommended. Go figure!

Comments are closed.