Please don't let Joe Hahn direct any more videos.

They should call Lasse Hoile. Do you want a good video, artsy, but not spending millions of dollars on flashy effects? This is the guy:

[video=youtube;FBS7ejV9qEk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBS7ejV9qEk[/video]

Want to deliver a message? He can do it too:

[video=youtube;efsm6aJPybg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efsm6aJPybg[/video]

 

Not gonna say much, as I understand both sides here.

 

I couldn't agree more, merely criticising something is now considered by many as "trolling"

 

I find it sad that you have nothing to say about my contribution to the thread.

 

I disagree with more of what the OP said, but one thing I will say is this.

Animating =/= directing. And it's hardly as though Nakazawa didn't get any credit for the work he did do on the BTH video. If memory serves me correctly, at the time people made a pretty big deal of his involvement considering he was fresh from working on Kill Bill.

 

You quoted somebody else, so I assumed that you were aiming at them in your post

 

I do not believe that the recent video, Burning In The Skies, does a good job of representing the song that it accompanies, I feel that it is a very lazy take on the song and it disappointed me by a mile, I don't understand, in any way shape or form how this video represents the song, the album or anything to do with the embodyment of Linkin Park.
Remember that this post and all of my posts are in my opinion, in no way am I placing myself on a pedestal, or trying to be a voice for anyone except myself, with that in my mind; I believe that many of Joe's music videos are way too quickly cut, out of sync with the songs and they are starting to repeat in the methods in which they are produced (refer back to my first post for more details on that)
I believe that is time to let someone else direct one of the videos, change is a focal point for Linkin Park, so why not?

P.S. I remember it being against the rules to impersonate a member of the band, and calling my opinions pathetic in other threads is totally uncalled for, if you were offended by my sarcasm, which was purposefully "unsubtle" then perhaps you should refer to this web page; it may help you understand the concept of sarcasm.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/sarcasm.htm

 

The problem is, a different director cannot and will never know what LP truly want in their video. Joe, as a member of the band itself, he know the deepest layer of meaning of the song and how it should be to connect perfectly with other ATS's videos (the fact is TC and WFTE videos were directed by him).
And we, the fan, though we can dig the meaning of the song, we may not fully understand what it means. Also, BITS is also connected with the rest of the tracks in ATS. Put the album aside, BITS video is still also connected with other singles.

Anyway, we can state our opinion about anything here, I did not offend you by any means in this post so don't take it too seriously.

One more thing, people have very different view on art. I.E: Lots of people say "Mona Lisa" is very beautiful, but believe me, I don't know what is so beautiful in that art. They said her smile is a mystery but I think it's just a normal smile.

 

You must be new here.

The rule is to never take anything Minus says seriously, unless he's being serious.

As an English major, I am well aware of the concept of sarcasm. Your use of it in your closed thread was in no way complementing or backing up the idea you were trying to convey. You were not subtle enough for anything that could be considered a satirical piece.

Your impressions of the band in the little 'story' you created were one-dimensional, and did not contribute to your idea that the band shouldn't trust Joe to direct videos anymore. They were the lowest derivative of the "Yes Man". In any satirical piece, the idea is to sell that this is an inherently possible situation; this story could've happened in real life. The grounded nature of reality mixed with the idea you are trying to mock, defame, or depreciate should be enough to jar the set opinions of the people you are addressing.

Take "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift, for example. The premise is to lure the reader into believing in a certain set of conditions, then turn their opinions into an absurd idea (i.e. eating babies to solve population issues). Swift demonstrated that sarcasm should be wielded as a scalpel, not a hammer. He took this idea and supported it with logical evidence. The absurdity of the idea and the sound logic behind it makes the piece a shining example of sarcasm, satire, and literature in general. In the end, Swift claims that if his well-backed idea was too extreme, there are more rational solutions to consider. Which, for anyone who was initially an opponent of said rational solutions, becomes a reprieve. Noting the common sense of ideas that you were previously opposed to compared to the absurd - yet properly argued - is key in pieces such as these.

You can find more modern uses of satire and sarcasm in established publishing like The Onion, if you require more examples. For the sake of brevity and to prevent retreading on prior points, I'll be skipping an in-depth analysis of The Onion.

Your piece, in casting the characters, dialogue, and ideas as all being absurd, leaves no credibility to anchor. There is no counterweight to your argument; your piece is lacking a foil. You literally have one sentence of dialogue that may be considered a counter-argument, but that in itself was an absurd statement, and you did nothing to argue counterpoint. If you're going to sell the idea that Joe is a bad director, having tension surrounding that statement is key; you do not capitalize on this at all.

Remember that to be an effective sarcastic or satirical piece, it has to be grounded in reality, like Swift's A Modest Proposal. Out of all the elements of a story that you have used (which could in fact be expanded upon, but I'll leave that for another post), you decided to cast them all in the vein of the crude humorist.

So where does that leave you? In not playing up any logic, reality, or credible characters in your piece, you do absolutely nothing to prove that you have a real stance on this piece. In fact, were that piece to be written by me (of which I would be severely disappointed at myself), one could come to the conclusion that my purpose was not to prove that Joe sucks at directing, but that I was making fun of people with your opinion! The ambiguity does not help your case at all here.

Your piece is not an effective case study in sarcasm. This would fall under crude humor. In its one-dimensional portrayal of whatever simple idea you were trying to communicate to your audience, you restrict yourself to a merely chuckle-worthy story with horrible grammar, capitalization issues, and no credible way of saying you believe the premise to be true. It is aimless, poorly constructed, and does nothing to convince anyone to shift to your viewpoint. In this regard, your piece fails.

If you have any further questions on how to improve your piece, you may contact me via PM. Any further attempt to demonstrate a one-up mentality concerning the intelligence of my character or logic by linking websites written by untenured so-called 'experts' in a given subject will be either disregarded or given a response of increased length. If the latter is the case, rest assured I will not pull my punches in terms of dissecting your poorly-formed attempt at sarcasm, your argument, or you.

Good day,

Minus

 

Dear Stalkers, and casual viewers

It has come to my attention that there has been a lot of debate as to the entertainment value of our promotional music videos as of late. The most recently made animated picture and the one which garners the most discussion and debate is that of the video for Burning in the Skies, which was directed by myself Joe Hahn.

As Official director for Music Videos for the band Linkin Park ( Lincoln Park) it is my duty to represent the creative support behind the members of the team. We, collectively inform you that while we appreciate all support given and praise handed out that we must object to your negativity and your wants of us to stray away from what we decide to do. More importantly, we just don't give a flying fuck what any of you say. We do our thing and laugh at anyone who wishes we do otherwise.

Thank you for your time in watching the video for Burning in the Skies and giving your opinion on the matter of it's relevance in popularity and artistic direction.

We hope you all the best in fucking yourselves.

Sincerely, Joe Hahn (of Linkin Park)

 

Minus, will you marry me?

 

Did they teach you not to waffle in essays during your education? I believe not.
In the modern English language readers appreciate quality, not quantity.
C-
Had it not been for your fetish with the longer words which dance around the descriptions of what I presume you were going for, i'd have possibly given a B, the first step in becoming a great writer is to lose that ego.



Anyway back on topic, the music video has grown on me slightly, but still not enough to change my mind
I think I am starting to appreciate the deeper meaning behind it though, I understand the scenes with the old guy and the anorexic girl, but the rest doesn't make too much sense to me, if somebody wants to say.. write an essay on the music video I would be happy to read

 

How ever you need to see it dude. I have only used that word once and in specific reference to this particular thread which is my definition of that word. The end.

 

Then close the damn thread. Problem solved.