My only regrets:
Fix'd song
Dull pv.

The pv was nothing special sure, but I still enjoyed it. I think it fit with the song just fine.

ALSO.... Holy fucknkanefoiehkn jgi hshit klenakekijel/kan !!!?><./.";'{]!!!@3#*(897*&*%#$&!!*&(*%$^$*^*&^$##&T7!!!!!!!!!!!!






















New album.


If your wondering why I'm so happy (which I know your not its just normal brye reaction) but for once I will have money to buy the damn album!!!!!!!!!!!

This PV was better than their last few, IMO. And the song is still quite good. I was worried I might lose interest in it, but listening to it in higher quality, I can tell it's a pretty solid track. Good stuff.

Looks like quick 3D Studio Max work. I mean, that building was made from mostly primary shapes and images of bricks and wood applied by uvw mapping for the textures. The lights were simple spotlights and regional lights, the shadows were from a checkbox on the objects called "create shadows". The smoke was a simple particle system, the animations of the objects would have taken very little time and all the camera moves and rotation are quick and fairly easy to animate. Outer space was one big-assed picture applied to a plane. The things that needed an outside touch were obviously the filming of the band and an artist to draw the 2D elements like the man and the rocket, which again, can easily be applied to a 3D shape and animated.

I really like the song, but it deserves a better video. Like, the One Life video was the "straight outta film school" PV, this is the 3DS Max equivalent.

The video got deleted - here's another source for those who missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aawXu_SmX-U

[quote="Cloudy_One"] I really like the song, but it deserves a better video.[/quote]

Agreed.
I just want them to go back outside.

[quote="Cloudy_One"]Looks like quick 3D Studio Max work. I mean, that building was made from mostly primary shapes and images of bricks and wood applied by uvw mapping for the textures. The lights were simple spotlights and regional lights, the shadows were from a checkbox on the objects called "create shadows". The smoke was a simple particle system, the animations of the objects would have taken very little time and all the camera moves and rotation are quick and fairly easy to animate. Outer space was one big-assed picture applied to a plane. The things that needed an outside touch were obviously the filming of the band and an artist to draw the 2D elements like the man and the rocket, which again, can easily be applied to a 3D shape and animated[/quote]

Somebody's trying too hard...

To do what? Is there some ulterior motive I have that I'm not aware of?

Some people are going to look at it and say it looks cheap. I'm elaborating on how cheap it looks to me. A college kid could have feasibly made that for a final project, turned it in and got a good grade. I have no reason to back down from that assessment. I'm saying I wanted more than that for this particular video, considering, you know, Avex Trax supposedly being an [i]upgrade[/i] and all.

[quote="Octave_Flow"]I just want them to go back outside. [/quote]

Me too! This song feels like something that a live setting would be great for.

I know nothing about programs and animation and shit but some people were all like, "OMGFTWBBQSAWCE LEWKS SO GEWD HQ FTW I LUV PIRROWSL0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0OO0LLL."

So it's nice to know WHY this pv looked so... lame. Feels good to see that I'm not insane and that some people agree with me! Everyone loved that pv but I can't help but be disappointed by it. Does not look good for the single now. :/

[quote="Cloudy_One"]To do what?[/quote]

To flaunt your knowledge. I doubt the PV looks like that because all they could find was a college student with a trial for 3DsMax (more likely Cinema4D), it's clearly a stylistic choice.

[quote="ChubbyRaccoon"]
So it's nice to know WHY this pv looked so... lame.[/quote]

^ All I was going for. I was sharing (what little) I was familiar with. Any wiff of arrogance is imagined.

I don't see it as a stylistic choice either, but a compromise. This video looks like they wanted to save a ton of time and money on their idea, unfortunately to it's detriment. It would have looked much, much better if it were a real house at a real street corner. With real people, props. Nothing wrong with using cg, but it should not be at the expense of the film.

The exact same reasons I disliked the Ooparts album cover, actually. Totally empty feeling, hacked and slashed, drab, easy to pick apart. They took a picture of them on a couch and added and ugly road, background and blur. It was an entirely computer made [i]simulation[/i] of a couch car. It could have all been done with photography, but they didn't want to build it and look for a cool place on the road at the right time of day; they wanted it quickly. Instead of me thinking "heh, that's rad", it's more like "well, that's kinda funny".

It can be amusing, it can be the right sentiment, but if you take shortcuts like these, it doesn't feel authentic. It doesn't come across as 100% effort. I understand the need to make compromises, but if they are welcomed and glossed-over, treated like finished ideas, [i]then they become the norm[/i] and the door opens wider for more compromises. The quality slides.

So if they found a road that looked exactly like the one on the OOParts album cover, you wouldn't have a problem with it simply because it was a real road that they took a picture of.

[quote="Spike"]So if they found a road that looked exactly like the one on the OOParts album cover, you wouldn't have a problem with it simply because it was a real road that they took a picture of.[/quote]

I know you were responding to Cloudy but I think you're missing the point. Whether they use "CG" or "Film" is all irrelevant and totally subjective.
It's the fact that they have the resources to make something totally awesome, but [i]someone[/i] somewhere along the creative process is lacking in imagination.

For example, for a video that's promoting a song called "Energia".... I'd say it lacks energy.
Not to sound over-sentimental or anything but personally, the video seems sort of detached with the music to me - especially at an emotional level. As a fan that frustrates me.

[quote="Cloudy_One"]
This video looks like they wanted to save a ton of time and money on their idea, unfortunately to it's detriment. [/quote]

I agree with this but I see it as both a personal stylistic choice and a compromise.

The sentiment of the video is nice, the best part is when the father fades out and the dead son fades in, to symbolize that they are both going into space, the completion of the journey, the closure the father is seeking. I don't think the visuals do that sentiment justice.

Franz Ferdinand made this video for Can't Stop Feeling, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58IM48-EU9E which didn't appear to cost a lot of money, but the vibe of the song could swing a comical approach. I don't think Franz fans could possibly have anything to be upset about; it's funny and it fits. Now take No You Girls, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25sBhhOR ... ure=relmfu with posteriors aplenty, a multitude of mood lights, switching perspectives, it all works wonderfully for the attitude and vibe of the song. The visuals suit the build up and chorus, it draws the strengths out of the song and makes it more appealing.

Jimmy Eat World did an awesome video for Sweetness, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU3KBI5qyEY that combined cg, models, motion graphics and live settings. You can really feel the surreality, the energy, the sense of optimism and the rush of the performance. CG and modeling can be wonderful assets, like in this video, and in my opinion they look chintzy and out of place in Energia.

With Energia, like, the rocket is supposed to be the visual anchor here. It's the symbol of the song, the inspiration. It's not the first thing I think about when I think of this video. The first images that comes to mind are the pillows singing in front of a teal cg building in pitch black nothingness and that goofy ass camera spin. Not quite Energia, not quite iconic stuff. If that's not what comes to mind first, then congratulations, your brain blocks out ugly things. Seriously though, if you disagree that's fine, that's taste. I think the video struck out with three men on base.

That's why I'm bummed. Sweet song, sweet album cover, goofy, sloppy video. I'm not out to step on anyone's toes here, I'm sharing my thoughts like anyone else would. I don't wish to convey any preference to one visual medium or another, I'd prefer the design team to always make the right choices for everything but of course I realize this to be an impossibility.

It's just a PV. No one listens to music based on the PV.

Also about the whole voice distortion effect, it's not like they haven't used it before. Intact it's right there on stalker too, just less noticeable. And on many other songs.
I don't think voice distortion effects automatically equal bad. For example X's final composition before breaking up, Dahlia, uses voice distortion in the intro to the verses to very great effect.

I don't particularly like the PV, but I haven't liked any of them since 1989. I just disagree with you that the video looks like it does due to a lack of time, resources, effort, or all of the above. It's a purely stylistic choice, if they wanted to do more they could have but it's just the PV for a single.