Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anyone else annoyed by ARI's new YouTube video style?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I was immediately turned off when I viewed the Yaron Brook video on ARI's website. I thought it was a poorly clipped/cropped video of Brook, unnecessarily applied to a bright background so slides could be incorporated. The clipping & cropping to such a background would have been more pleasing and acceptable if the background was more important to, or needed in the video. Unfortunately the background was bland, unappealing, lame, and not needed. As JJJJ stated, it may have turned out better to have filmed and shown Brook sitting/standing in front of a book shelf, maybe even at a desk. I don't think there is much wrong with Brook's speech; I think he's the best live (audience, radio, t.v.) speaker that I've seen from ARI, and I think he will improve with future prepared & produced videos; however, of course, someone with a mid-western accent would be preferable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more videos have been released now:

This spokesman is a bit more animated than the previous one, with a less monotone voice (though not as brilliantly pleasing to the eye). ;)

It's certainly better with the light blue background, than with the bright white one.

Edited by JMartins
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was immediately turned off when I viewed the Yaron Brook video on ARI's website. I thought it was a poorly clipped/cropped video of Brook, unnecessarily applied to a bright background so slides could be incorporated. The clipping & cropping to such a background would have been more pleasing and acceptable if the background was more important to, or needed in the video. Unfortunately the background was bland, unappealing, lame, and not needed. As JJJJ stated, it may have turned out better to have filmed and shown Brook sitting/standing in front of a book shelf, maybe even at a desk. I don't think there is much wrong with Brook's speech; I think he's the best live (audience, radio, t.v.) speaker that I've seen from ARI, and I think he will improve with future prepared & produced videos; however, of course, someone with a mid-western accent would be preferable.

Bold above mine. RussK see things wrong with the video, but likes Brook as a speaker. Shows you how different views can be over these matters. I guess they could Hollywood it up with an impressive set and spokesman, and get the ideas in there. But for me, so long as nothing is too distracting and the style is reasonably nice, I don't really care about these details. It's the ideas expressed that are important.

Edited by Thales
Link to post
Share on other sites
Two more videos have been released now:

This spokesman is a bit more animated than the previous one, with a less monotone voice (though not as brilliantly pleasing to the eye). ;)

It's certainly better with the light blue background, than with the bright white one.

I think the bg works better too, compared with the first videos, and helps reduce the blurring of their editing; however, you can still see part of the speaker's face/neck disappear during certain body shifting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares? I mean, seriously.

ARI is getting great videos out there. The message is important. Who really cares if there is "body shifting" and other minor issues? I didn't even notice it. I was listening to what Don Watkins was saying, not scrutinizing over the make-up of the video.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares? I mean, seriously.

ARI is getting great videos out there. The message is important. Who really cares if there is "body shifting" and other minor issues? I didn't even notice it. I was listening to what Don Watkins was saying, not scrutinizing over the make-up of the video.

When it looks aesthetically good, it has a greater inspirational value to many people -- thus they're more likely to favorite it, re-watch it, and/or pass it along to friends. If the visuals didn't matter, no institutes would bother filming their spokespersons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When it looks aesthetically good, it has a greater inspirational value to many people -- thus they're more likely to favorite it, re-watch it, and/or pass it along to friends. If the visuals didn't matter, no institutes would bother filming their spokespersons.

It's good to look aesthetically pleasing. But right now, we should not be focusing on these minor details. It is a great accomplishment that ARI finally has the money and the man-power to actually produce these videos. If you want the video to look better, give more money to ARI. Sitting here discussing how it could be better is useless.

If you truly value making these videos better, either offer your services to ARI or give it more money to find the right people to do so. Other than that, we should be appreciating all that ARI is doing, heavily promoting it to our friends, family, and co-workers, and learning how ARI intellectuals are fighting for the culture so that we can do the same in our own lives. Criticism is easy. Actually going out there and fighting for cultural change is much more difficult and also much more productive and important.

Edited by Mimpy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...