Thanks for the pointer. Looks like his movie is available on Vimeo- https://vimeo.com/16598921
(24 min, b&w)

And I never said that nerdwriter (or anyone else) isn't allowed to criticize movies.

My point is that anyone looking for art in modern movies will inevitably be disappointed. The art in filmmaking has been replaced with business. And like @artician mentions above, creative work has to appeal to a large audience.

I'm not saying that there aren't any well made artful movies anymore, just that the ratio of those to hollywood-factory-churned-mediocre-fest movies is steadily decreasing.

What he's talking about here is "cliche", but cliche's have themselves become so cliche, it's no longer effective to use that term to describe them.
This same phenomenon is found extremely widely in literature and music. I stumbled onto this following college, after being trained to have a critical eye for creative work, when I found myself hating everything that humans produced but not understanding why.
My personal theory is that 1) we've not yet learned to teach creators how to identify and cultivate truly unique ideas, and 2) the structure of our current systems for fostering creative work require said work to appeal fundamentally to the largest possible audience, which is easiest when a universal language (visual, auditory or written) exists.
We're trained to build on existing ideas, which is critical for success, but not how to reject established ideas and instead find new ones that are capable of maintaining familiarity, or communicating their core concepts without need of educating the audience.
It's an interesting evolution of process that I'm sure we can find in other areas of the human experience, beyond the field of creative media.

This opinion that color grading can be 'right' or 'wrong' is pretty ridiculous. It's just a creative decision, if you don't like it get a job in vfx and work your way up over many years until people respect your opinion enough to allow you to make the calls, then you can tell them to make everything really saturated and contrasty.

*ban
The Creative Short Films
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JTMDx3i7TU

Okay, they did choose the correct thumbnail, but that Stranger Things costume at 6:42 was very creative.

*backup=[...snipped...]

The YouTube page description is just the licensing info, then if you go to storyful.com the video description is "Web Comedian Explores Irish Attitudes to Depression".

The description is "In this YouTube skit, two people are discussing a friend’s illness. YouTube comedian Sir Stevo Timothy explains the illness in many creative ways, but his female companion is sure that it’s depression. The two cannot agree, but the conversation highlights some Irish people’s ideas about this subject in a humorous way."

So staged actors but a serious topic still.

Very true, which is why I was glad she asked whether anyone in charge of compliance had been fired. However, her point about his paying back the money is pertinent, as he has stated repeatedly that he "takes full responsibility." I don't feel one can claim to both take full responsibility and personally suffer none of the consequences.

While cross-selling is absolutely legal, managers at a high level should be savvy enough about how people behave to realize that if low-level employees are heavily incentivized to sell, while also being punished for not selling enough, then they're going to get creative about how they do it. That should absolutely lead to careful monitoring of any newly-opened accounts to ensure they're entirely legitimate. Without that compliance structure in place, it's inevitable that fraud is going to happen. Human nature makes it very easy to predict.

This is without even getting into the allegations that whistle-blowers who made serious efforts to inform upper-level management about the malfeasance were disregarded and subsequently fired.

"Creative un-originality. " gets my upvote.

@eric3579, I agree with you. Hillary's reputation took a big hit after the DNC Leaks broke during the convention.

@newtboy, here's how I think of the campaign. (Please pardon me for this silly fable. I just kinda got writing and my creative side just sorta took over, and I just kinda had fun with it.)

.. ..

As the primary campaign advanced it was clear that Scissors was the front runner in the Rep's side. Unless something changed drastically, he would be become the nominee.

On the Dem’s side, the race was not yet decided. Rock was behind, but not by much. He was quickly closing in on Paper’s lead. Rock was hoping that his strategy of being consistent over time would prevail and win him votes. In the beginning Paper had taken off an airplane. Laughing at how slow Rock was to gain speed. But now Paper’s once comfortable head start was being called into question. Could Rock’s momentum grow fast enough to overtake her?

Paper had gone through extensive planning (on paper) long before the election. Paper wanted to keep news of Rock from reaching the voters. The idea as was to keep Rock "covered over" to the point that many of voters just didn't know about him. They just saw the old familiar name of "Paper" on the ballot and went with that. They had little or no exposure to Rock.

Rock was on a roll, and it was clear that it was gathering no moss.

Since so many voters relied on “traditional” media for information, it wasn’t too difficult to keep pro-Paper ads on the radio, and television, and in newspapers. It was expensive, but Paper seemed to have an unlimited supply of money to fund the campaign. It was almost like Paper had bought the press...

Though Rock started to break through into the areas that Paper had been dominant, the Strategy worked. Rocks downhill momentum wasn’t able to fully catch Paper’s airplane—head-start.

Paper would win the primary and go on to face Scissors in the general.

But at the Democratic Candidate Coronation Ceremony, something terrible happened!

It turns out that someone was keeping a paper-trail on Paper’s dealings. Paper had written many correspondences, and many of those letters had reached the hands of Wikileaks, which had finally chosen to publish the secrets!

The strategies Paper had used to ensure victory over Rock—the Cover-Up Campaign—were revealed. The fundraising done by The Paper Foundation to keep money flowing around laws were becoming clear.

And each week and new secret seemed to drip onto Paper’s hat…

What happens next? We don’t know. There are so many questions! Could a boat float if made of Panama Papers? How deep will the leaks get? What other secrets will be revealed before the final election? Will Paper win over former Rock supporters now that the reality of the Cover-Up-Campaign had been uncovered? Who will win the final election? Can Paper beat Scissors?

Could Scissors have been secretly helping Paper out behind the scenes out of a fear of facing Rock? Could Paper have been helping Scissors in the early parts of his primary campaign out of a fear of facing Ben Carson?

Tune in again for out next episode of House of Cards I mean Rock-Paper-Scissors to find out!

//

//

Okay, I hope you read that with in the lighthearted voice it was intended. And I’m not hiding my bias. This story was mostly about Paper—who (at first) I thought would be a fine second choice.

(I was rooting for Rock the whole time! I liked they way he rolled!)

Trump was Scissors: Wouldn't hesitate to cut his opponents with his uh.. 'wit.'
Sanders was Rock: Consistent over time. (Not blown around by the wind)
Hillary was like Paper: Thin, like her integrity.

the color grading is not cgi's fault, you're talking about creative decisions that George Miller made. If the goal was to keep the footage looking raw and documentary-style, they could have done the cgi that way.

I kinda dislike Ableton Live though some people are incredibly creative with it... like Flying Lotus.

As TV dies...commercials get more creative.

Now all you need is a kiddy pool, a ton of salt, and an indigo child to float in the pool; in an effort to perform random astral projection, locate and match people up to play D&D. Then dump a thousand d20s in the pool and have the child telekinetically randomize the rolls.

I'm certain there's a method to create randomization via shock therapy. We just need children to experiment on. Perhaps if we administer LSD to pregnant women in hospitals during ongoing double blind tests on a global scale, we can increase our chances of creating super human children for the strict purpose of more authentically randomized D&D.

I mean, it's not just the rolls that need to be given more randomization, the world creation and random events that are generated by human creativity aren't truly randomized --

But if we inundate developing fetuses with hallucinogens and then hook them up to machines and float them in saline solutions, we stand a chance at creating some truly frightening... err, creative D&D worlds.

I know all this...ED2 is one of my favorite movies. I was not implying a lack of creativity, only the irony of the juxtaposition of 1. A shot for shot remake vs 2. A seemingly original plot. ED was also quite an original, but not 2, as good as it was.