The panels critiques of Special Delivery would be highly appreciated. What set it back....what did it lack, what was liked?

Thank you ahead of time.

Will do, Lazarus. As I'm sure you've seen so far, the judges are keen to respond but please give us a day or two to gather our thoughts and make the posts.

No problem! I appreciate your time.

I'll also be posting feedback for you and any other filmmakers who want it. Due to work, etc., it's going to take me some time to get my critiques together.

Congratulations on being a top-five finalist, BTW. Not too shabby given the competition you faced.

First off, I can only share my individual perspective about this or any other film I comment on. I don't speak for all of the judges, only myself.

One of the first things a filmmaker who didn't win the competition must be wondering is ˜why' he didn't win. Critiques about the good and the bad are fine and all, but the ˜why' has to be the main question.

At the end of the day, judging any competition like this is a subjective matter. Just like with the Oscars, the film that wins is the film whose overall presentation most appeals to the most judges. A different set of judges might have picked a different winner, and every filmmaker who didn't win can take some consolation in that fact.

While the judges looked at all aspects of the films entered, the quality of the story was certainly a key consideration. Most films had fairly basic stories involving planes fighting and little more. In some cases, there was nothing more. Other films had much more going on than just random planes flying around shooting at each other, and those films faired better in my eyes. (I should point out that the community's pick of the finalists and even the judging panel's final picks did not necessarily mirror my own in every case"”hence the caveat at the start of this post.)

Since the Olympics are about to begin, I'll use an Olympics analogy. In gymnastics, some routines are inherently more difficult and if perfectly executed will earn a higher score than a perfectly executed easier routine. However, a perfectly executed easy routine can beat a more difficult routine whose execution isn't very good. It all comes down to the execution and the subjective impression that leaves on the judges.

"On Deck" illustrates how an easy story, well told, can be very entertaining. If someone had asked me if a film shot from a single perspective and practically without any cuts would work well, I would have predicted it would not. But I thought "On Deck" was very effective for what it was. That's because its simple concept was well executed.

"Special Delivery" is pretty solid in terms of the nuts and bolts (cinematography, editing, etc.). Other films struggled with the nuts and bolts, but this didn't. There's also a story here. It's not the most sophisticated story of the bunch, but it's not the least sophisticated either.

Beyond merely ˜having' a story, something we looked for was originality in the story. I guess if I had to say why "Special Delivery" didn't take home the top trophy it was because its story didn't have the same degree of creativity and originality that others did and the execution, while good, didn't overcome that. A competition is a relative thing, of course, so all that matters as far as winning is concerned is how a film compares with the other films. In that regard, SD did well (it was a finalist) but didn't stand out as the best.

I guess you could say the two films that took top honors bested the competition because either they had better stories or their stories were no better (equal or easier routines) but were better executed. In short, their presentations (story + nuts and bolts) made a more favorable impression on the judges.

Is any of this making sense or helping to make anyone a better filmmaker?

The one thing I would hope every filmmaker takes away from this competition is that the most important part of any film is its story. Cinematography, editing, visual effects, sound effects, music, etc., etc."”all of that stuff is there to serve the needs of the story. Story is king in any film. Even Hollywood forgets that sometimes. How many special effects films flop at the boxoffice? Films like "Blair Witch Project" and "Cloverfield" have some horrendous cinematography and editing, but it serves the purposes of the story and works in those contexts. Story isn't the only thing, but it's very important--so important that no filmmaker should make a film (unless it's for practice or is a demo) without giving the story he plans to tell a lot of attention. Neglect it at your film's peril.

I've babbled enough, so I'll leave it to someone else to try to dissect the nuts and bolts of SD if they want. As I said earlier, it's pretty solid in that department, although that's not to say there's no room for improvement. It's one thing to be "solid," it's another to be "artful." You should take pride in the fact that SD beat out eight of the 13 submissions and view the fact that you didn't finish in the top two as merely a challenge to work harder on creating and artfully telling a great yarn in your next film. Easier said than done, of course. Best of luck on the next one.

Lazarus, GL2 has summed it up pretty well.

The story was very basic, there was nothing really to grab the viewer. This was a standard good guy fights with bad guy, kills him and goes home.

Cinematography was solid, I also agree. You developed this short and improved it from the original that you first posted and took critiques on it that you listened to and made changes. This is all admirable.

So far, so good. It's encouraging to see a new moviemaker taking these first steps and eager to learn. You've proved yourself that way – both eager and willing! Reminds me of another certain moviemaker from a few years ago who needed to learn so much

If I can offer any advice, Lazarus, it would be to seek what the two winners had – style and originality. You've got the nuts and bolts sorted, now build the beautiful machine.

Looking at Kamikaze and how you have developed that experiment, I am pretty sure you can go the whole 9 yards.

This community needs all the characters in our little world. Compared to the huge machinima world we really are a minor little island, and it's the variety of visitors that keeps us alive. Some are in for the long haul, some just pass through and leave their mark, and some are resident and will only bear fruit in the fullness of time.

Hmm, now before I drink any more wine, and get any more poetic (I wish), I'll close and wish you the best in enjoying your journey 