Steve and I entered this competition with one purpose. We didn't enter the competition to try to gain fame, to better theory11, or prove anything. We entered to win. We realized that if we could put part of ourselves into the video - show everyone our personalities, that we would be different. Rather than pretending to be mysterious and underground we took you with us on our day in the city. Along the way several strange things happened, such as a cab driver telling me that the card I produced in his window was his, the random man walking up to me asking about how I threw cards so far, and more that couldn't be shown.
We had a good time sharing each other's company and hope that those watching can appreciate this. It is a true rarity in this world to find a fellow flourisher who lives in such close proximity. Add to this, a true camaraderie and the number suddenly drops to single digits. We understood this – it greatly improved our odds. If we could perform moves that utilize the two of us, we would enter into unchartered territories. Surely a panel of judges would appreciate two person moves in a collaboration competition, right? Well...one would think so.
Don't take this the wrong way; the F501 video was truly an eye-popping work of cinematography. I have the upmost respect for you guys and wish you all luck in the future, although you really don't need it. What troubles me about the results is the grading system. It seems fair. You look for videos that contain quality, originality, creativity, and a certain something. Naturally the last quality is somewhat gray; there's no way to concretely explain what makes something “pop.” However, for the other three, there most certainly are. Theory11, you want to be the best forum, store, media center? Learn from those who have had contests before you. Handlordz, the originators of the so called “Battle”, created a system that declared a winner without any doubt. Like a teacher grading a paper, a rubric was designed that graded each portion of the video. This ensured the fairest results.
What happened was, you told us that our video had the best material. Dave Buck said himself that had this been a shorter video, we would have won – hands down. This puts a slightly bitter taste in my mouth. Let me verify for a second that this is in fact a collaboration contest. Were we not meant to create a video that utilized two or more people? What Steve and I did was perform moves that none of the other contestants thought of performing. We collaborated not only during the video, but in the very moves; performing cut sequences in time, transferring packets mid cut, and pulling cards from each others springs. Is this not what you were looking for? These moves had more originality than other groups – they had never been seen, they were devised in a Pinkberry. They were more creative. We saw the collaboration as a challenge and tried to create moves that would best show the teamwork. Quality you said was top-notch. So what then was the issue?
It seems this gray area has reared its ugly head. The intangible “wow factor” seems to have made the ultimate difference. So it was the style? I'm sorry that Steve and I stayed true to who we are. We aren't mysterious. We're two unassuming guys who can do some pretty neat stuff with cards. For us to make a video where we aren't running around doing ridiculous things and generally having a good time would be ridiculous. It would be like the Bucks donning cloaks because it's the cool thing to do at the time. I think that what many of us may have lost sight of, is the simple fact that what we are doing is playing with cards.
I'm not asking for a recount, an explanation, or an apology, because I don't expect any. I just want people to see that flourishing doesn't have to be so serious. Feel free to perform the way you want. With time, people will appreciate what you're doing. Who knows, YOU may even get to be 3rd place in a contest somewhere!
Adam
In my opinion i think he really should have won. What do you guys think? leave a comment to discuss.
