As if David Copperfield had an idea to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. He has a plan he thinks will work, but it doesn’t. So instead, the audience is made entirely of stooges. And we’re made to believe that they’re all random people.
Or it works, and he can actually put random people for whom the illusion will work!
Either way it only really works on TV if you believe that the live audience is real. If it’s a fake audience, anyone can do it, and it’s not interesting. (there are many well known magicians who use stooges and/or camera tricks all the time)
I feel the same here. The very reason people liked the video was the process he presented, not just the result. So lying about it is lame.
And I think it's unfortunate because he could have posted almost the same video with just saying "and… it didn't quite work! So I edited my real yarn logos and threads to get the final clip" and it would still be a cool result.
My gut tells me lying for clicks “isn’t cool” because I might feel bad if I was one of the clickers. But is it formally unethical?
Lying for profit seems obviously unethical because there’s an exchange of currency for a service. So if I contracted you to make a stop motion thing and you faked it with animation I’d be rightfully pissed.
But lying for entertainment? Haven’t we been doing that for millennia? Pro Wrestling, Hollywood, History, Makeup, Mythology, etc…
If you have given me nothing and I give you a lie, who is harmed? I may have broken your trust, and you may not like it, but that’s just that. Or is attention the new currency?
It’s harmful as it sets up the audience to end up either disbelieving everything they see or to think that their own abilities/failures aren’t normal. Especially given the blatant lies, “it took three days and I’m really happy with the result, you can barely tell the difference”.
Narrative wise a compelling video could still have been made showing which parts are real and how CGI can have benefits, especially if the final result was a hybrid of stop motion and CGI. Go what this longer video to see the details.
I must be jaded to assume everyone posting videos on youtube is doing so for profit, but... judging by the amount of expensive professional equipment he has, I suspect he is doing this for profit, and not just "entertainment"
In the first case I’m not getting what I purchased.
In the 2nd case I was scrolling videos looking to be entertained. The video entertained me; therefore, I got what I came for.
I am no less disillusioned in either case when learning the truth. But in one case I was cheated out of something of value while in the other I was no less entertained in the moment (even if I paid for the entertainment, I got what I paid for). Maybe I don’t want to see your videos anymore because you made me feel bad later, but you still entertained me in the moment I was looking for it.
IDK now I’m honestly kinda curious. I read the apology piece thinking this guy is a dishonest jerk but now I’m really wondering if he needed to apologize at all. Though, I imagine this was eating at him and it is refreshing to clear his guilty conscience. So the advice to probably don’t do this likely holds for people with similar dispositions.
OK, I see where you're coming from, you didn't personally lose money. I'll even concede that the first one is worse.
I still think both are wrong - the second one steals from the public's ability to trust things, and is unfair to creators who don't lie. Same with how cheating on school assignments is wrong, even if you can't point very directly at who was hurt. Its bad for society and almost all codes of ethics agree
I agree cheating is wrong. But it’s wrong because it’s fraud. You’ve falsified data and materially misrepresented yourself in a situation where there’s an expectation of honestly measuring your aptitude. Whoever relies on that truthful representation (such as a college offering you a scholarship) is being cheated out of something of value (a student with commendable aptitude that will one day give back generously to the endowment, che<tongue>ek). We tend not to worry too much about cheating because usually it doesn't work out for the cheater in the end, but it’s clearly unethical.
“Stealing from the public’s ability to trust things.” Well… I tend to believe in people to an extent that would make Jonathan Kent proud, and even I don’t think entertainment that takes liberties is bad for society or erodes trust. If almost all codes of ethics agreed that entertainment had to be real, Hollywood and the internet wouldn’t exist.
I can see it being unfair to other content creators who believe that real content is one of the rules of the game. But since I’m not in the content creation industry I don’t know if that’s the expectation.
I guess the question is: is this entertainment (like hollywood) or journalism. I read the news not because it really materially affects my life but just because its cool to know things that are true.
Fake news in an article about some cool thing someone did would still be sad to me, even if it doesn't really change anything
If what you hoped to get from the video was an entertaining few minutes I guess you're right to feel fine
But i hoped for an interesting look into the creative process and inspiration that fun things are possible, and I feel cheated
IMO if the lie is “inside the work”, then it’s fair.
Another example in the comment thread is Fargo. The lie about the true story happens inside of the film itself.
But if you lie in the meta data, then it’s unethical. In this case if Fargo was categorized as Documentary or non fiction.
This was a big deal when the book A Million Little Pieces has to be recategorized as fiction and a lot of ppl were deceived.
Another thing you really shouldn’t do is say “I don’t use steroids or makeup or surgery - I achieved this body through hard work alone” which makes ppl have unrealistic expectations. Super unethical
Spinal Tap is a parody. Parody and satire are such that the audience is not initially told the performance is a lie, but the work itself gives more and more clues that it is not real. It gets more and more ridiculous. The point of a parody is to comment on the thing parodied.
He actively worked hard to hide that it is not real. He gave no subtle clues. The work's lie does not make a commentary on Netflix, craft art, or anything. The only thing the lie does is make you think he is a really skilled craft worker. That's why the video spread, and so that's why there is such outrage at the lie. It wouldn't have gone viral if he admitted it was CGI.
The Spinal Tap version of this would be like the same TikTok style DIY videos, where it is common to show some steps and the jump to the finished product, but where it would be obvious that he had not DIYed it. Like if he took $30 of yarn and used camera tricks to "build" a fully working computer to watch Netflix. That would be a parody commenting on the same thing as the "draw the rest of the fucking owl" meme [1]
Fargo opens with "This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."
The disclaimer that this is not, in fact, the case, is in small print in the closing credits.
What you're describing is a cultural thing specific to the horror/thriller genre -- the audience is in on it. Even when you know it's not real acting like it's real helps people get into the right headspace to feel the fear.
Fargo is a fictional "movie adaptation of a real events."
On the other extreme, do you care if a video presenting itself as authentic is fully staged or not? Does it matter if a video you watched was fully AI generated but is claiming not to be?
I think his conclusion about pivoting when a more efficient method was necessary is totally reasonable. I would wager a significant amount of any frame-by-frame animation takes similar shortcuts, so it doesn’t reduce the quality of the final product in any way, imho. There’s nothing “pure” about the process of creating motion pictures. It’s all tricks. The result is all that matters.
I’m not sure why he would even “fake it” in the first place. Part of making something is the journey to get there and often an initial idea doesn’t work out, or a better way is discovered once the work begins. That’s what I enjoy about watching makers: how they pivot when they run up against a wall.
Confession: My sixth-grade solar oven science fair project (that took third place) cooked bacon about as well as a well-positioned hand mirror. I used a microwave for the final bacon pictures.
It's not a problem to take shortcuts when making something for the screen; in most cases that should be encouraged.
But this project wasn't about making a Netflix logo animation; it was about using a fun, low-tech method for achieving a similar result. The whole point of the project was the method, not the result.
So if he had taken shortcuts when making the original Netflix logo animation, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. But claiming that he used a specific, unconventional approach to do this (focusing on how he did it, not what he did), then lying about that for clicks... that's pretty disgraceful in my opinion.
As the mantra went in film school, a zillion years ago, before we had clicks to fake things for: The most creative people do the best job of hiding the source of their creativity.
Like it or not, stuff like this has been the norm in the art world since forever.
I think this story is not about the result. The story is about the journey how he got there. When he realized that his original plan wasn't working he did it differently, but told it as if he sticked with the plan, which was the reason he got all the attention.
This doesn't feel like hiding anything, it is about openly lying.
One thing this blog post is missing is the words "I'm sorry" or "I feel bad about this." I suspect he doesn't feel bad about it at all and revealing the deception is now just for more clicks and attention.
We teach kids that lying is wrong.. not because it hurts people (it does) or that people care (although they do) but because it tells you something about the morals of a person. You don't have to prove the individual social damage of each lie. We've accepted that lying has bad enough consequences often enough that "lying is bad."
I get that we now live in an age of trolls, but this isn't a "whoo hoo, I trolled the world!" post. This post is using the language of morality that it's wrong to lie. The post itself is saying what he did was wrong. And yet, not apologizing for it. As you say, it's just another troll.
Exactly. It's also pretty disrespectful to the honest people who spend years mastering a craft or skill that is appreciated for the process rather than just the end result.
It's an interesting topic in light of generative AI art. In many cases, the generated stuff can look nearly identical to some really talented artists' work. So are the artists themselves irrelevant? Is their work more or less valuable, given that it took much more time and effort for them to produce?
Why do people line up to see the real Mona Lisa when they can see essentially the same result on their smartphone or tablet?
What is everyone going on about here? Lying is bad. He lied. That's bad. What is all of this "if he didn't hurt anyone what's the big deal" crap? Is this how y'all run your companies? Are you all just riding the edge of morality in case you profit from it?
This reads like a submarine ad designed to drive clicks to his site which happens to sell stop motion and visual effects courses. It just rubs me the wrong way- because the video was impressive, so before this disclosure I'd be inclined to buy his courses.
I wonder how fake "art" videos differ from fake news? Certainly, the "art" videos claiming that they are real is part of the cachet, but also the fake news would not be as impactful if it wasn't believable. Maybe it is just a part of life now? There is the solution to annotate fakes instead of removing them but it is not really usable right now, e.g. I can see no way to link this article from the youtube short.
"In my experience, every artistic project hits a 'valley of despair' about half way through. It's that moment where your imagination gets ahead of your ability and failure seems inevitable. However, it's in that valley where creativity thrives because it takes out-of-the-box thinking (or a switch of toolboxes) to climb out.
Creative success isn't always about sticking to the plan. It more often than not looks like finding alternate solutions and being flexible in the face of challenges."
I didn't see the original, so I'm not really emotionally invested in the thing, but it's a good learning opportunity.
IMO it's deceiving and dishonest to fake an elaborative creative process and tell the viewers it's something that it isn't.
On the other hand it's also a good reminder that only because a puppy eyed artsie guy makes a 7 minute documentary-style video that looks completely honest and believable, it doesn't automatically make it honest and true.
It was time I learned that, I added the "arts behind the scenes" category videos to the fake prank videos, pickup videos, political commentary, and product reviews. Everyone lies.
As if David Copperfield had an idea to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. He has a plan he thinks will work, but it doesn’t. So instead, the audience is made entirely of stooges. And we’re made to believe that they’re all random people.
Or it works, and he can actually put random people for whom the illusion will work!
Either way it only really works on TV if you believe that the live audience is real. If it’s a fake audience, anyone can do it, and it’s not interesting. (there are many well known magicians who use stooges and/or camera tricks all the time)
I feel the same here. The very reason people liked the video was the process he presented, not just the result. So lying about it is lame.
And I think it's unfortunate because he could have posted almost the same video with just saying "and… it didn't quite work! So I edited my real yarn logos and threads to get the final clip" and it would still be a cool result.