Posts: 14011
-
Karma: 10,001
I say the budget. Well, actually, that's a tough one to answer, because the question comes down to what the film company is, overall. Alright, so you can have a film company that hangs out in the park at a popular training ground and travels around to the "main events" of the year and get enough content of "pro" skiers to put together a video of "pro" riders at an AM level.... while they could pull off pro caliber riding, they are an AM video... so, really - it's tough to say.
No, you can't base it off of DVD sales, no, you can't base it off of the riders... I would say that you should base it off of riders/location... like, if you have high caliber riders with majority of content from urban/backcountry with shots that you can't find from other "pro" videos then you have yourself a pro video.
So, with that mentality, Volourz is not considered pro, because no offense to them, their videos aren't full of A Grade shots, so even though they have the riders and the original shots, they don't have the amazing riding that the riders in their videos are capable of. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so, but that doesn't necessarily make them at the "pro" level of videos.
"pro" is professional, and when you watch any movie, I really think that stands out. You can't really base what is "Pro" and what is "AM" on trailers alone. Budget isn't the ultimate decision, because (not sure if you can quote me on this) Berman did his first couple videos on no, or close to no, budget and was considered pro... so it's not as to how big your budget is, it's about the amount of high end riders combined with the amount of high end riding that is not in a park setting that is the final decision.
*disclaimer* I am drunk, and therefor, may have made a reply that is larger then necessary, but you know what? I do think I am making sense, so I stick by my word, and if you don't like it... well, thems the breaks.
