What Would You Change in the 48 Hours Comp?
First time starting at thread, so, bravely getting up courage, here goes.
It’s 5 or 6 PM on the Sunday and you are doing your wrap up form when you get to the “Any Feedback?” question and your first thought is: I haven’t got time for that now! Or maybe you typed in a couple on incoherent suggestions that hadn’t had much thought - they were just the things that bugged you the most at that moment in time. So what about doing it now? On reflection, what needs improvement? What ideas do you have that you think would improve the competition? Maybe the gods are watching and some things get tweaked in future events. I’ll start.
Approximate Number of Teams per Region based on Number of Heats: AK 276, HN 48, WN 240, CH 120, DN 60, Taranaki 36, Gisborne 24.
Number of Finalists per Region: 12 (so far anyway). Note to self: Next year enter via Parents address in Palmy North since chances for recognition are better in Taranaki region.
I know, it’s not about the winning or losing, its about taking part. Without having a big debate on whether the country has gone too PC in its schools (don’t get me started on that one!), or if indeed life really is about Winners and Losers in the end, the ratios by Region strike me as just wrong.
There was a point when I thought I was going to see the judges view of the top 3 in each genre then I remembered it doesn’t work that way. So should it? What if every (larger) region named their top film by genre – they don’t need to get prizes, just a certificate acknowledging that achievement would be fine in my view. I think each year some of the genres will probably not lend themselves to producing a big winner.
The Finalist-to-Competitor ratio also bugs me when I look at it now. What if for every 120 teams there were 12 nominations (one for each genre) plus 3 or 4 Wildcards (from any genre)? CH would have 15 or 16 teams from which the expectation would be that most, if not all, prize winners would come. WN would have 30 and therefore a Winner and Runner up in each genre, plus 6 Wildcards. AK would have 35-40 so could end up with 2 or 3 (or more) per genre to pick a genre winner from. DN would have 7 or 8, Taranaki would have 3, Gisborne would have 2 (OK, maybe 3 is the minimum). Doesn’t that seem more balanced? Wouldn’t that create more interest and motivation in some of the “lesser” genres? Hopefully this approach wouldn't increase the judges workload too much - its possibly already the approach they are taking in order to get down to the pool from which the winners emerge.
Also I’m not sure how some of the Team Type questions map to the possible prize set. There’s a Best School Team (yep, fair enough), is there a Best All-Chick team, Best Teen team, etc? If there isn’t, then there needs to be, otherwise remove those team types from application/wrap-up form as they serve no purpose.
I’m not looking to increase the prize pool to the point where everyone is a winner - that would be silly. But just want to question if there is a way to widen the acknowledgements to the point where more competitors feel there is a chance of being noticed and therefore encouraged to return year after year, especially when some of the same big name teams are often the ones in the winner’s circle.
Right, now that I’ve got that off my chest, I should be able to get back to sleep.