I understand that the judging is subjective, but the film “Beast Mode” by team “Dirty 30” should be on the shortlist. Story and execution are finalist material. I would really like to know how judges make their picks?
I would really like to know how judges make their picks?
On past form you'll never find out but Auckland is run a bit more openly these days so... maybe?
I watched it in the screening room, it's obviously a skilled team, and a polished short, but I thought it was overlong, and quite uneven in tone.
My guess would be the judges watch all of the films and then decide which ones they think deserve to be on the shortlist based on if they thought they were good films.
I would wonder if you have seen every other film in the competition if not at least the ones on the shortlist to be making a call that bold?
in saying that - I understand you are asking for a list of judging criteria - which i think is a fair question to ask for some transparency around that if you are genuinely curious - but i do think that outright stating that something deserves a spot over the judges picks is perhaps not a great call -unless you have seen the other films and are prepared to back that statement up in the conversation that can ensue.
While i know you probably feel that its unfair that a film that you may have personally supported did not make it on to the shortlist, there are a group of people celebrating their own inclusion and to call that into question in a public forum is maybe not super chill.
We try to be transparent with judging and are doing our best to keep everyone informed - we published the judging criteria on the website which is the same criteria given to judges. We also list all our judges with a short bio where we can. https://www.48hours.co.nz/about/judging/
This competition is fierce there are so many great films and often it's not that certain films aren't good but that there were so many good ones. In the end, it is a competition, but everyone should be proud of their films and that they made one in the 48hours. That's the hardest part, that is why we run heats and have a review site to acknowledge those who completed the challenge. We hope everyone shares their films in the screening room that didn't make the shortlist. We will be announcing Auckland finalists on Facebook live on Thursday evening - Time TBC.
I just watched this film Simi, it's a good film and very slick (wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of tech noms) but yeah the story was a bit uneven. Having judged a few times previously originality of story and originality of use of genre are huge. This took a few bits from THE BEAST WITHIN [very cool starting point to be fair] and had the social media spin payoff but it probably needed to explore that a bit more clearly than through the phone updates in order to progress. Just my 2c. I'll chuck in a review later :)
Great answer Ness, I love the transparency this year. Out of interest were the shortlists in the major centres decided by all the judges?
Yeah I too feel that film deserved to be on the shortlist.
But there were a *LOT* (or so it seemed to me, I only went to two heats! Heat 3 & 4) of truly amazing amazing films, so I suppose some of the amazing films had to make the cut :-/ I'd hate to be in the judge's shoes! So really tough decisions had to be made.
Simi - I too agree. I watched that film and thought - Dayum that didn't make the shortlist?? (and it seems any nominations for Auckland too? From last nights nominees released...)
I would say that would be a shoe-in for the top 25 in most centers... however AND IT'S A BIG however. It says one of two things... there are either 25 better films (subjectively chosen yes) from Auckland (very feasible since they have ALOT of teams...) or the judging missed a beat this year! But until we watch all the films, we won't know...
From what I understand (Ness/Ruth - correct me if I'm wrong here...) the judges rank all the films (and categories) from favourite to least favourite...- the lists/results are collated and then the judges have a get-together to discuss/argue/finalise them all and the rest is history! (or something kinda like that...).
Seems pretty upfront, open and fair to me. I mean, I've never been a judge or fly on the wall etc, so I'm guessing... however, with that set-up, every Judge gets their say - it's democratic (i.e. blind voting) and they can argue anything they disagree with in the get-together as a judging team (like they do in the bigger film festivals).
What more can you ask? I mean if anything is contentious they can talk it through and if a judge or two are outliers in their opinion, it can be understood and a decision reached together.
And most of the Judges I've seen listed, know their shit or specialist area, so you know... We are pretty lucky to have this competition with the caliber of judges involved... so can't really complain!