Nominations for the 2008 Gallifrey Awards are now open!

[rhoboat.livejournal.com]

Nominations for the 2008 Gallifrey Awards for Doctor Who fan videos are open now until midnight GMT on 12 February (6 pm Eastern on the 11th). These awards focus on New Who videos made in 2008.

Please be sure to read the RULES carefully before you make your nominations. The one rule we'd like to stress is that you must have a valid email address for each vidder you nominate.

You can also WATCH or JOIN the gallifreyawards community for updates.

Feel free to spread the word and use the banner below the cut and link back to our website!

Comments

*having read the rules*

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Maybe I just don't get it, but why the hell would you want to have a Doctor Who fanvid award that excludes eighty percent of Doctor Who?

Re: *having read the rules*

[rhoboat.livejournal.com]

As stated in the rules, "[t]he popularity of Doctor Who and ensuing fanvids is a result of the last two Doctors. So we decided these vids should concentrate on them." Moreover, we mods are not as familiar with Classic Who, so including more than 25%, again as stated in the rules, would be too difficult to maintain. Having said that, we also welcome people to start their own awards sites if they're uncomfortable with the rules that we've set.

Re: *having read the rules*

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Right. It's your awards, so you get to make the rules.

But I think people would be happier if you called it something like a New Who-based fanvid award. Calling it a Doctor Who fanvid award sort of implies that it covers all of Doctor Who and not just the last five years or so.

Re: *having read the rules*

[rhoboat.livejournal.com]

It was my mistake in not clearly announcing that these are awards focusing on New Who. I have edited all the announcement posts to reflect that fact.

Re: *having read the rules*

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

I asked the same question last year, and got the same response, rather rudely phrased. So I think this is just a contest best ignored.

Re: *having read the rules*

[eneffigie.livejournal.com]

Why/how would it be "too difficult to maintain?"

Re: *having read the rules*

[rhoboat.livejournal.com]

As moderators, we watch every vid nominated and make sure they're placed in appropriate categories, so it helps to have familiarity with the source footage. We also don't have a lot of free time to run these awards, so we need to limit what source footage is allowed to keep the nomination numbers at a reasonable level.

Re: *having read the rules*

[lolcoholic.livejournal.com]

The way you worded this rule, you're saying the popularity of Doctor Who is a result of the last two Doctors, and the fanvids ensue from that. That statement is highly inaccurate. Do you perhaps just mean the popularity of Doctor Who fanvids?

Re: *having read the rules*

[ghost2.livejournal.com]

My question was going to be, "Why have awards that exclude 80% of Who in such a condescending, dismissive, and inaccurate manner when it could have been done in a much more polite way?"

Re: *having read the rules*

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Those rules are the ones that classify the first twenty-six series of the show as a spin-off like Torchwood or the SJA. I find this completely nonsensical.

[lolcoholic.livejournal.com]

My biggest problem is with this line:

"the popularity of Doctor Who and ensuing fanvids is a result of the last two Doctors"

That is not true and just bugs me. "City of Death" had 16 million viewers. "Journey's End" had 11 million.

[(Anonymous)]

That's not what you said, though. You said "the popularity of Doctor Who and the ensuing fanvids", not "the massive popularity of Doctor Who fanvids". That makes it sound like Doctor Who was a niche cult show until RTD revived it.

Uh, that was me.

[lolcoholic.livejournal.com]

ETA: No one is begrudging them for having a New Who competition. It's the unfortunate wording of their info that is causing people to comment.

1) They advertised their competiton as a general Doctor Who contest.

2) They labeled the first 25+ years as a spinoff.

3) They said the popularity of Doctor Who is a result of the last two Doctors.

That stuff is going to get a reaction.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Gee, I wonder if maybe they hadn't developed vidding software in 1979.

[boniblithe.livejournal.com]

People were VCR tape-to-tape vidding long before 1979.

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

in fact...in the olden days of vidding.....started around 1975 with a slideshow projector and a cassette tape player.

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Vidding

[biichan.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected!

[snikives.livejournal.com]

Eh... I still think the point is valid as the process was less accessible/more time consuming. I would think that this would deter the more casual fans from vidding. *shrug*

[ageless-aislynn.livejournal.com]

Wow. o_O

If you have a spin around YouTube and look at the ratio of Classic vids to New Who, you'll see it's going to be heavily slanted towards the New. That's not saying that New is "better" than Classic, that's just because New is vidded more than Classic, that's all. :D

Classic Who has a LOT of fans and deservedly so. But it stands as a fair assessment, in my opinion, for somebody to say that in the Doctor Who vidding part of fandom, then New Who is going to be the vast majority. That's no disrespect to Classic Who, that's just plain fact. ;)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Since you're limiting the contributions to only 20% of the Doctors available, wouldn't it have made more sense to declare this a "New Who fan video" award? Because it's not a Doctor Who one, clearly. Doctor Who did not start in 2005, it most certainly did not become popular in 2005, and to declare it did is only to cause a lot of resentment among much of your inteneded audience.

Also registering my umbrage:

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Your rules separating the two eras of Doctor Who shows a stunning ignorance for the history of the fandom you're claiming to love. I can't really fathom it myself.