Taken as an entire piece, its very good.
Taken as an entire piece, its very good.
Human nervous system has a similar mechanism where limbs are slowed down just before the impact when striking something to prevent muscle over-extension and injury, high performance martial artists train against this so that full speed and force is available upon impact without any slowdowns.
On that note though I was watching the recent world of Warcraft cinematic they just put out and while obviously phenomenal and gorgeous and state of the art, it made me realize that the biggest tell for me for something being computer rendered is always physics animations. Things always seem to move just a bit too smoothly or consistently, or slowly. I think it just has to be that way because if something is 24fps you have to make it visible for a couple frames so as to demonstrate a movement, I remember reading in an animation book about how animating something "realistically" isn't a good idea because it just won't look good because of the nature of how it's presented (at a certain framerate, framing, aspect ratio, etc).
Saying something can be improved is not the same as saying that something is crap.
It happened to me with programming games; I entered competitions and even won one or two, making me believe I'm just SO good.
Now that I'm 30+ years old I still crave that same level of recognition which is basically unobtainable for me now as I'm just another cog in the system. Sure, I have some nice projects here and there and I get a compliment out of that some time, but never on the level I received while I was young.
I think it's incredibly important to give people advice on what could be improved, while still being respectful / praising of the work that's already done. That's how, in my opinion, you get a balanced individual.
Then again, I have sought criticism my whole life. The harsher the better, especially from people whose opinions I respect. Criticism and failure fire the crucible of improvement.
I think you nailed something that I was wondering while browsing this thread. What difference does it make if a person practiced 5-10 years a craft resulting to winning an award if that person started when he was 10 vs. 25? The headline would not only be radically different if it was a 30-year old who did it because he studied since he was 20-25; We might not even have a headline. It would have been "oh, someone won the award. Yay?"
Do we reward the output as as standalone (as is) during the contest, or do we also reward our perceived potential (imagine what this person would do in 20 years)?
But guess what, that is also part of what makes movies interesting.
For example I kind of hate most action movies starring actors like Tom Cruise or movies such as the James Bond or Jason Bourne series but I do love more liberty with reality when it comes to movies treating on myths/legends, science fiction or animated movies.
Everyone put their own cursor. This discussion is kind of moot anyway without knowing the author intention.
I have the same - probably because you know from experience that, e.g., someone taking the punishment that John Wick or Bourne does wouldn't be running around two minutes later but you have no frame of reference for, say, an 8ft goblin doing the same.
(Like the first episode of Slow Horses: there is no way a huge anti-terrorism training exercise across London stations wouldn't have every second of communications recorded for later examination and it made the whole premise of the show - that the fella is exiled because someone lied about what they said to him over those comms - nonsense to me.)
I would also claim I don’t think it’s nice to judge people based on their age, regardless if it’s good or bad judgement. Furthermore, I would definitely be annoyed as 16yo if I were deemed “good enough for my age”. He competes with peers, at the highest level, not with superiors who do him a favour.
We have separate sports classes based on gender on age to reflect abilities.
It's takes time to get good at this stuff, a younger person has inherently had less time.
I'd structure it as one overall ranking, but special age rankings within that.
A 5 year old could hypothetically win overall, but if they didn't they'd still be rewarded in relation to their (age) peers.
There's an 'encouragement' element that you're missing. My 5 year old draws objectively bad pictures. I wouldn't tell him that though. I want him to get better so that he does become objectively good.