-
FCPX Freelance
-
[Andrew Kimery] “If they are anything like the YouTubers I’ve worked with they wouldn’t call themselves editors even though they might edit their own videos.”
Funny thing is, many of these “YouTubers” videos have better production quality than some of the reality TV crap out there. But they are called “YouTubers” and “hobbyists” while the reality TV is on the high-pedestal of “broadcast editor”!
and so it goes….
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “Funny thing is, many of these “YouTubers” videos have better production quality than some of the reality TV crap out there.”
I completely agree. My two teenage kids have shown me their favorite youtubers (Rudy Mancuso and Liza Koshy being two of the most popular) and while it’s not my kind of programming I would argue that these youtube stars are making very high quality videos with great editing techniques. The youtubers have created a style all their own and it’s very effective for the audience that they’re serving. And naturally, when you average over 4 million views per video you’re obviously doing something very well.
I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles -
[Scott Witthaus] “Funny thing is, many of these “YouTubers” videos have better production quality than some of the reality TV crap out there. But they are called “YouTubers” and “hobbyists” while the reality TV is on the high-pedestal of “broadcast editor”!
and so it goes….”
You are conflating some things. No one is equating YouTuber w/hobbyist, just that lots of hobbyists are YouTubers. For every Freddie Wong or iJustine or RWJ there are literally millions of other users that are, well, very, very pedestrian. Taken holistically content that makes it to theaters, streaming services, TV/cable, etc. is higher quality than what’s uploaded to YT. Hell, even YouTube keeps trying to shake off it’s lower-budget image with things like the YouTube Channel Initiative (now defunct), YouTube Spaces, YouTube Red, etc.,. It’s just the way it is.
It’s also a reason so many successful YouTubers try and go beyond YouTube. For example, not long ago I was working with a very successful YouTuber on a documentary and I asked why they didn’t make it a web series. I thought the topic of the do would be great for that format, plus they already had a huge online audience to tap into. They said they’d already been there/done that and that they wanted to take on a bigger challenge. It’s was part of a bigger plan at their production company to prove that they could do more than just ‘web videos’. They were setting their sights on bigger budgets, more prestige, and a chance to do projects that wouldn’t do well on YouTube.
I started working in digital/New Media in 2006 and did that full time until 2012. Even though I’ve mixed in some unscripted broadcast/cable shows and indie doc work the majority of my work has been in Digital. And thankfully ‘Digital’ has become a bigger thing because working on it in 2006 certainly didn’t have the same ring to it that it does today. My Digital gigs ran the gambit from bare bones, run-n-gun to working out of giant production trucks and TV studios. But, generally speaking, the expectations (and pressure) have always been higher when I’ve been doing broadcast/cable work. “Don’t worry about it, it’s just for the web” is a phrase I’ve heard over and over again. If you are distributing via regular YouTube, Vimeo, or your own site the deliverables and QC are totally self-determined.
Finally, LOL, trust me, editing reality TV doesn’t get you put on any sort of pedestal. LOL. I’ve been to industry events where the presumption by the panelists was that everyone working in unscripted TV really wanted to work in scripted TV since scripted TV was ‘real’ editing and unscripted was just unadulterated crap. Of course this was years ago before there was a resurgence in quality unscripted TV (and the later re-branding of unscripted into sub genres like reality TV, docu-series, docu-follow, docu-drama, etc.,). These days I think theres a little more respect for unscripted projects, though scripted (both TV and film) is still seen as the pinnacle of the art/craft (in some ways I agree, in others I don’t).
But I digress.
TL;DR, There’s stratification in our industry, just like there’s stratification in every industry, and I don’t know why people try to pretend there isn’t. It’s like saying there’s no difference at all in the overall level of talent, monetization, prestige, etc., between the Arena Football League, the CFL and the NFL.
And so it goes…
-
[Andrew Kimery] “I’ve been to industry events where the presumption by the panelists was that everyone working in unscripted TV really wanted to work in scripted TV since scripted TV was ‘real’ editing and unscripted was just unadulterated crap.”
I can totally understand the preference for working in scripted tv but not just because it is more respected within the industry. Editing non-fiction or “reality” tv is hard, real real hard. I spent years editing that style of television programming and I’m currently wrapping up work on a 24:30 non-fiction medical show which was almost completely unscripted (except for the show host stand ups and the tease vo’s) and it was crafted in the traditional documentary style of building the story through interview bites alone. There is nothing easy about editing that style.
I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles -
[greg janza] “I can totally understand the preference for working in scripted tv but not just because it is more respected within the industry. Editing non-fiction or “reality” tv is hard, real real hard. “
In some cases, unscripted TV show editors actually get paid more than those working in scripted TV.
I agree on the hard work aspect. Just like with documentaries, you are trying to mold a story from the footage. Definitely editor as writer.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
I’m reluctant to label one genre as harder than the other because so much can vary on a case by case basis (plus if you are working on large Hollywood productions there is a lot of pressure and stress that doesn’t exist when you aren’t in that white hot spotlight). I’ve heard people say film is a director’s medium, tv is a writer’s medium and documentary is an editor’s medium and I’d agree with that. I think doc/unscripted certainly requires the editor to be more involved in the producing/writing aspect more than in scripted. I’m starting to see more and more editors with producing and/or writing credits on their docs and not just ‘edited by’.
I’ve also only worked on a handful of small scripted projects so I’m probably not the best one to judge both experiences side by side.
-
[Andrew Kimery] ” I’ve heard people say film is a director’s medium, tv is a writer’s medium and documentary is an editor’s medium and I’d agree with that.”
Agree 100%. Cutting a doc now and this statement couldn’t be more true.
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
“Wonder which system harbors the most “have it but don’t generate a penny from it” practitioners.”
Considering the fact that a Creative Cloud subscription comes with all of the Adobe apps there are certainly a huge number of subscribers who do not use and likely have never even opened Premiere Pro. Conversely, Final Cut Pro X is a standalone purchase, making it much more unlikely that someone would purchase it specifically and then not use it. I rent Adobe software every month and despite my subscription including at least 24 different apps (shown in the Creative Cloud app) I only ever use 4 of them —and none of them are Premiere Pro. So while I do pay to use Adobe software for paid work am I being counted as a tick in the Premiere Pro box? How many people use either of these apps for paid work is of course very difficult to determine, but given the nature of the different purchase models it seems to me that the a la carte option would by default provide the most ambiguity.
Gabriel Spaulding
Creator & Director of ACE Enterprizes
Videographer | Video Editor | Motion DesignerHow Can We Help You Tell Your Story?
http://www.aceenterprizes.com -
[Gabriel Spaulding] “I rent Adobe software every month and despite my subscription including at least 24 different apps (shown in the Creative Cloud app) I only ever use 4 of them —and none of them are Premiere Pro. So while I do pay to use Adobe software for paid work am I being counted as a tick in the Premiere Pro box? “
My thoughts exactly (although I do use premiere when it’s the only option). Plus, I don’t want my monthly being used to develop the 20-odd software in the rest of the CC package that I don’t use. Selfish, yes, but I could care less about the majority of CC for my money.
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “Plus, I don’t want my monthly being used to develop the 20-odd software in the rest of the CC package that I don’t use.”
I would highly doubt that Adobe cares what you want. To them you’re just another subscriber whether you use all 20 programs or none.
I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up