super_jayhawk: Ok now, a question for those of you that saw Furry Night Live 2008........

Super Jayhawk (

super_jayhawk) wrote,
@ 2008-02-02 03:19:00

Ok now, a question for those of you that saw Furry Night Live 2008........
For those of you that are interested in helping us with feedback for FNL...

Does anyone have any comments, good bad or otherwise, about what you thought about the Furry Night Live 2008 Show that we worked on... other than the same objections about "Dick In A Box?

There were 19 other acts, and we'd like to know what you thought about those too.

If you are up for it, please post them to

furrynightlive)

Thanks!

-SJ

(Post a new comment)

	bosn 2008-02-02 02:14 pm UTC (link)
	Honestly! I had no idea that so many furs were members of the Parents' Television Council! Who knew? Aww be nice. Those that voiced there objections were very sweet about it and complimentary toward the rest of the show. At least the ones that spoke to me. You put on a great show, don't cheapen it now by belittling someones point of view. Your to cool a guy for that. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	super_jayhawk 2008-02-02 10:05 pm UTC (link)
	The line was more of a funny bit rather than trying to belittle anyone's point of view, but I have smoothed out the message. Lots of people worked really hard on the show, and they deserve to hear feedback about the show without all of it being overshadowed by a tempest in a teapot, that's all. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	bosn 2008-02-03 01:22 am UTC (link)
	Agreed. Sadly I missed much of it as I had to help the drummers out of the building. By the way the drummers were just thrilled to do the show with you guys, they said they never seen such great costumes or such nice people. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kj_roo 2008-02-02 03:47 pm UTC (link)
	Oversensitive prudes! o/` put your junk in that box. o/` giggle and well done too.. (Reply to this)

smackjackal
2008-02-02 04:18 pm UTC (link)

So, the show was fun to watch as a whole. Having San Jose Taiko perform before hand was awesome! I'm a little upset that "Under the Same Sky" wasn't up for judging but that's just because I threw in a paw to help out on it. It would have been cool to have seen how others watching the show rated it. (Though I understand the reasons that it was withheld from judging and feel that it was an appropriate decision.)

The show rolled along very well. It felt a little too short even though there was a lot packed in there, just an indication of how well things moved along. Though you've go not real control over how many video submissions you get, it would be kind of nice to be able to interleave more video segments to bump the show out a bit. I know that there would be scheduling conflicts with the dances, though. Then again, I go don't go to the dances and prefer variety show style entertainment at conventions. (Wow...I just sounded like my parents for a moment.)

Reserving the first few rows of seats and selling tickets to them for charity might be an interesting idea. I don't know what the cost breakdown would be but I'd shell out a few bucks to not wait in line for 60 minutes for good seats.

As for Dick In A Box, eh. I personally didn't mind it being shown. I didn't vote for it because it was a shot-for-shot rip of an existing routine. I know a tremendous amount of effort went into making it but I think it lacked any kind of originality; I was pretty 'meh' on the video as a whole. I was bummed that it won over far more creative acts but the masses spoke, they seem to want reheated, furred rehashes of edgy SNL skits. I consider it a win for effort, not for content or style.

And you know what? Winning for effort is just fine too.

Edited at 2008-02-02 05:05 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Under the Same Sky and FNL judging

super_jayhawk
2008-02-02 10:17 pm UTC (link)

My apologies if I didn't appropriately make it clear when we were working on Under The Same Sky that we weren't going to have it judged. In the last few years I have worked to produce the headliner act for FNL as part of the show as a "House Skit", as it were. We did this in 2006 with Robin Hood, and 2007 with the James Bond skit. Both Under the Same Sky and the Godzilla were done this way for 2008, and even if they weren't video productions, we've had an understanding that the blockbuster act for the show doesn't get judged. The prize money is there to encourage the art of fursuit performance for those just starting out, and it would seem unseemly if we went in and competed for it with the big-name skits. (Especially since up till this year it was us putting up the prize cash). Basically, the big acts are to draw in the crowd, and the prizes and voting are there in hopes that the show is good enough to keep the crowd.

Thank you big-time for your help with things at Hakone, in both film projects I felt I was in way over my head and didn't know if we were capable of pulling off what we were trying to do. Under the Same Sky is a work of art for the ages, and you were a big part of that. For the last eight FCs we've tried to push the envelope and advance the art of fursuit performance to the next level, and this year we blew the envelope away... and I have you guys to thank for that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Under the Same Sky and FNL judging smackjackal 2008-02-02 11:34 pm UTC (link)
	Like I said, I totally understand the reasoning and agree with it. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

super_jayhawk
2008-02-02 10:21 pm UTC (link)

Reserving the first few rows of seats and selling tickets to them for charity might be an interesting idea. I don't know what the cost breakdown would be but I'd shell out a few bucks to not wait in line for 60 minutes for good seats.

Wow, that's a great idea, I hadn't thought of that. Traditionally when it was the FVS no one would have even bothered with the concept of reserved seats since the show was not a big draw at all. But with FNL getting better each year since 2005, the demand has increased accordingly. If the Charity Auction were to auction off the first 5-6 rows of seats (other than the videographers that are there as part of the show) that might do pretty well.
Not to mention getting people to show up at the Charity Auction.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	bosn 2008-02-03 01:26 am UTC (link)
	Sounds good in theory, but I can see how some would think it smacks of elitism. You know, the rich paying for better seats. And it would be the chair who would bear the brunt of the heat for it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	smackjackal 2008-05-23 04:27 pm UTC (link)
	Actually, I'd wouldn't reserve that many rows. Three at the most, I think. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Fur In A Box kinkyturtle 2008-02-03 08:39 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, it's an expectation thing. When it started, I thought, ooh, a fursuit version of Dick In A Box. Wonder what they're going to do with it? ...Oh, just recreate the original? Huh... (Reply to this)(Parent)

aeto
2008-02-02 04:42 pm UTC (link)

I'll mostly agree with Smackjackal actually. It was, without question, the best show FC's ever done in that line, even without the drummers, and with them, it was just amazing. (I know they weren't technically part of the show, but it blended in so well...) Tren's voice issues were unfortunate, but you take what you get in that regard, and clearly there wasn't anything you could do about that.

On the Fur in a Box, I'm really not sure about the rating. It was on the edge, which is always going to generate a few comments. I also didn't vote for it, partially for the reason Smackjackal stated, but partially simply because it was pre-taped. I don't think it's fair to judge pre-taped items against live ones, since on the taping, you can try it as many times as you like, discarding the missed takes. Live, you get one and only one chance to get it right. If you're going to have video segments (which I think is a good idea), I think they should be judged separate from the live acts, which means you need two or three to judge.

Just my opinion, though. And don't forget that I started off saying it was probably the best show FC's ever done; keep the suggestions in that context. :>

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	smackjackal 2008-02-02 04:54 pm UTC (link)
	You make a VERY good point about filmed vs. live entertainment. If anything, the video segments should be judged and awarded as their own class. A few months ago the notion of encouraging more fan productions like this with a kind of an at-con film festival sprung to mind. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	atpaw 2008-02-02 06:17 pm UTC (link)
	I agree; judging video and live seperately could be neat! Though I wonder if there's enough of a critical mass of video entries just yet? (Would more people submit videos if they knew in advance of a seperate category?) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smackjackal 2008-02-02 06:25 pm UTC (link)
	Maybe. That's kind of why I thought it would be interesting to host a short film competition at the convention where con members could vote on their favorites. (Reply to this)(Parent)

fjmccloud
2008-02-02 07:45 pm UTC (link)

I should be posting this in the FNL LJ but I can't resist replying here. :-)

Video is this new frontier for FNL, and I'm sure people will wrestle with it for awhile. This year the video submissions were standalone. Last year both Drama Llama and Howl Another Day integrated it with live performances. I had a skit this year that didn't get done in time. It also would have melded video with on-stage action. So it's hard to pigeon-hole video presentations.

In 2006 had we known there was going to be video at all (it was new that year for the dances!) we would have made Nottingham Castle an incidental video clip rather than a meager prop on stage.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	fjmccloud 2008-02-02 07:51 pm UTC (link)
	errmm...can't remember but they probably had R4 running at the dances previous to 2006. Still, that was one screen off to the side as opposed to the nice audience-centric dual screen setup we had starting in 2006. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	smackjackal 2008-02-02 08:36 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think it's hard at all. There is a very significant difference between an entirely video submission and one which is a combined live/media presentation which makes such a delineation very easy and quite natural. Of course, just my opinion. (Reply to this)(Parent)

super_jayhawk
2008-02-02 10:30 pm UTC (link)

My assumption going in with all the video skits is that they would be nonjudged-- as were ours. (Of course ours are nonjudged either way). One of the big reasons we went to video is that there are things you can do in video-land that are difficult or impossible to do on stage, not to mention you can take the best of your three camera angles and three takes (like we did for Under The Same Sky) and polish it up way beyond what could be done on stage. The only videos I knew about were our two movies (Godzilla and Under the Same Sky) and Belic's Psycho short, so we didn't really have a plan for judged video acts.

So I was kind of surprised myself when Fur-In-A-Box came in on Saturday afternoon marked as judged, as much as anyone. We didn't really have a policy that videos were nonjudged, it was more of an assumption. Since all judged acts were presented on the same ballot the distinction wasn't made there either. But maybe there needs to be a video category too, of at least one "Best Video" award, if not 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

This was the first FNL that had full-blown video skits entirely on screen (rather than just having them partially on screen and partially on stage) hopefully we've inspired people to pursue that angle, but you make a good point about the judging. Gee, wonder if FC will give more budget for more awards if more categories are created. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

aeto
2008-02-02 10:45 pm UTC (link)

Actually, in an audience-judged event, I'm not really sure if you HAVE to exclude yourself from judging. The placement of the Godzilla and Same Sky videos may force exclusion (as they didn't go through the same procedure for time placement as all the other acts), but had they run during the show, personally I'd see no problem with them being judged.

Unlike a live act, everything is done in advance, so it would be hard to say you gave yourself anything "special" in terms of setup, etc... The only issue would be ballot counting issues, but that's easy to resolve (by making sure whoever counts them does so in isolation from people who were involved in making any). Certainly, this is just my opinion, though, and I can also see why you might want to exclude your own videos even if you didn't actually have to do so.

"We didn't really have a policy that videos were nonjudged, it was more of an assumption." You know, I kind of guessed that was the case. One of those, "Oh... What do we do now?" moments... (Kind of like when the write-ins for the ninjas placed last year. :> )

On another note, I don't know if they have gotten in touch with you, but the folks from Eurofurence would like permission to run the videos during their con. They do a pawpet show which is totally unlike anything I have ever seen otherwise (and the only reason why I said this year's FNL was the best show _FC_ has ever done; their pawpet show last year literally brought the audience to tears). During the set changes, they need to fill 3 or 4 minute gaps, so run videos on the screens, and would like to use those. I'll try to dig out your address and email soon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

foofers
2008-02-02 08:03 pm UTC (link)

This was by far the best FNL / variety show that FC has ever done by like an order of magnitude, maybe more. Not only in terms of the quality of material, but also for starting on time and with a minimum of technical glitches. Slam-dunk.

The only suggestion that comes quickly to mind is a subtle design issue with the ballots: either don't number the acts (their sequence is already implicit within the top-to-bottom list order), or show sequential numbers that don't necessarily correspond to the act numbers you've been working with backstage (disengage the conceptual model from the internal model in software design terminology, if that's easier to grasp). I was helping count ballots backstage, and the write-in candidate "Where is act #3?" (or whatever the two dropped act numbers were) received more votes than some of the actual entrants! Those gaps in the numbered sequence show the whole world that acts are being dropped (notably enough for people to write-in "Why?"), whereas an implicit or renumbered list would further the audience's impression of a completely seamless presentation, which is how the show otherwise appeared.

Does that make any sense? Masquerade didn't get it either.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	smackjackal 2008-02-02 08:29 pm UTC (link)
	Or they could just mention that certain acts are being presented for voting consideration or not before the act starts. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Ballots and Technical Glitches

super_jayhawk
2008-02-02 10:43 pm UTC (link)

Hrm, will have to compare notes with you on this one. We actually renumbered the acts so they would be contiguous (which caused me lots of trouble on my spreadsheet), something that I understand the Masquerade didn't do, to its credit. If #4 was deleted, you just skipped the number, you didn't make #5 the new #4.

The gaps in the numeric sequence on the ballot were due to the nonjudged acts being interspersed with the judged acts-- specifically Scruffy's "Further Confusion News flash" that had four different parts, and four different act numbers. The numbers are important backstage and for the A/V crew to sync up on what audio/video must be played, so we used them all over the place like hard IP addresses-- and stuck to them. My only regret was that we renumbered over dropped acts (so act #4 was removed and all the act #'s changed, which made it a pain for me to edit my timeline spreadsheet).

Maybe the numbers should just not be on the ballot, just the names.

The A/V and minimum of tech glitches was entirely due to the A/V staff and the show director toiling back at the A/V booth for days before the show and during the entire performance. They did an awesome job and helped make the show great. I was terrified such a good show was going to get shot down with technical glitches, but they kept us airborne the whole time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Ballots and Technical Glitches

foofers
2008-02-02 11:02 pm UTC (link)

The gaps ... were due to the nonjudged acts being interspersed with the judged

Ah! Perfect sense then - you did remap numbers, I just didn't realize the gaps were for the nonjudged. Hard IP (crew) vs. DNS (audience) is exactly what I was trying to say...good paradigm, thank you...and it sounds like you were already 99% of the way there, just that a few folks were confused by the lack of those numbers on the ballot.

Also, regarding the objections to a certain act...folks at the hiss-and-purr were overwhelmingly positive about it, only suggesting that any such material in the future be put in a separate age-restricted late night show. So...are you up for running two FNLs? :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

farraptor
2008-02-02 10:13 pm UTC (link)

I thought all the acts this year--video or no--were excellent. Simply the best performance at a furry con ever. Content-wise, I really have no suggestions. I just hope folks keep making quality videos and acts!

Rehearsal Suggestion:
One thing that might help the performers to enhance their creation and better-utilize rehearsal time would be to have a FNL boom-box available for use during rehearsals.

This would allow at least one other group to go and practice their act in the back corner while main rehearsals are going on.

I brought a boom box for use in our act (since I'm within driving distance, and I could afford to pack the extra stuff), and it was worth its weight in gold during rehearsals.

It would be great if FNL had one that could be lent out during rehearsals to help other groups that may have to fly in from distant places.

~FaR~

(Reply to this)(Thread)

super_jayhawk
2008-02-02 10:51 pm UTC (link)

We actually did have a boom box, and used it heavily for rehearsing Snow White and the Seven Samurai (especially as we didn't get any stage time-- people had to leave for the fursuit parade and we had to practice in the hotel room).
We should have broken it out to let people walk through their skits, that was why I brought it, but we got so bogged down in all the paperwork and stage/AV issues that we kind of spaced on it. But that would definitely help.

One thing that Comic-Con does for their masquerade is split up all the acts among multiple staffers who act as the "Dad" or "Mom" for the performers. We got there in 2002 and a Comic-Con staffer said, "Hi, I'm your Masquerade Dad. ". We went over all the forms with him, walked through the audio and he submitted all of our paperwork and never even saw the masquerade director until the show had started, and our "Dad" took care of everything. Rather than having an FNL Lead/Second that are pulled in 79 different directions and have everybody tugging on their sleeve, this might be a better approach.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	foofers 2008-02-02 11:13 pm UTC (link)
	I'll second that need for backstage moms/dads. Would this be a gopher request, or something different? We were somewhat shorthanded for the Masquerade, so a bit of non-staff talent was quickly rounded up to help pull it off. This saved us, but might have been improper from some sort of liability standpoint. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs