The Netflix Logo with Yarn was a lie
kevinparry.tv
kevinparry.tv
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.
I'm happy he lied, because I enjoyed the illusion.
What matters is the amazement when the first person pulls it off.
It seems that lying about it was sort of okay, but admitting it gives the backlash.
I disagree that it would have been just as cool if he admitted at the end that it was digitally animated.
Spinal Tap is not a documentary...
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]
The disclaimer that this is not, in fact, the case, is in small print in the closing credits.
What's the difference?
the viewer of this video is expected to Never find out it was a lie. The video is much less charming once you know its digital. I feel cheated.
Audience expectation of a behind the scenes vid: 100% truthful if maybe edited to look more fun
Audience expectation of a movie: less so, tho tbh the Fargo one might be crossing a line
Fargo is a fictional "movie adaptation of a real events."
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?
and anyways, now I have to be a little more sceptical watching fun handmade things online, which is a shame
In my experience there’s a very real difference.
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.
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
“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.
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
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
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’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.
I just wanna know how they make movies
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.
Like it or not, stuff like this has been the norm in the art world since forever.
This doesn't feel like hiding anything, it is about openly lying.
It sounds like your film school mantra is just a less punchy version of this
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.
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?
a) it's easy to lie with videos, and
b) videos are still way more trustworthy than any other media on the internet because those are even easier to fake
It's not hard to think that you really shouldn't rely on the internet as a source of truth for anything anymore.
It’s some variation of that.
Good exercise in not blindly accepting things, which is arguably more valuable than a cute Netflix homage
Which means its probably not an actual problem but was good subterfuge to get more attention
So, well done kayfabe and that got a follow on life for something (At least I) had no idea existed let alone had a problem with.
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."
This touched me, no lie
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.
HN rules prohibit me from saying if I have flagged your comment or not.