Had the most trouble I have ever had uploading my most recent film. When I first uploaded it, youtube didn't register it as a widescreen file. So after 4 days, I FINALLY got the right render and youtube settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGRrXe48__o

Yeah, I guess you're right. But my films could speak for themselves. All I'm using YouTube for is a video host and not much else.

I suppose I could change it to my studio name; Downstairs Studios (the room I film in is called the "downstairs"; the kitchen, bedrooms, and all that stuff is on the second floor of my house). It's better than the studio name I first thought of; Minifigure Animations, which matched my username.
Not sure if I want to change my username or keep it as it is.

It's generic, I know. I came up with it right before I started brickfilming, back when I was into Lego Indiana Jones and Lego Star Wars (generic phase=generic username). The first account I made with that username was a Lego.com account. I like minfigures, some of my favorite numbers are 0, 5, and 1; so there you go.

Last edited by minifig051 (August 5, 2012 (05:54pm))

I want to change my channel name, so I'll use my G+ to do that. But should I change it to MightyWanderer or Mighty Wanderer. I am leaning towards MightyWanderer because most people won't think of typing in a space for a channel name, but I don't know how common spaces in channel names might get in the future. Any suggestions?

Wait.. You can change the username? How? Is it the full name thats in your G+ or the gmail. I dont actually know if G+ or gmail is the same thing.. Can anyone explain, please? xD

You don't say.

It's a mystery.

Honestly, I don't buy the whole "some people aren't creative" thing. Most people can come up with marginally original things easily- sometimes they aren't good ideas, but originality doesn't imply that they will be. I suspect the reason most sub-par filmmakers don't create their own stories is that establishing something coherent from scratch assumes a lot of risk.

People film what: a) they want to see, or b) they think other people want to see. A lot of folks don't see the merit in investing time into creating something new when they can build off of what other people have done and have a better chance of personal satisfaction.

Look at it this way- if I have two entirely new, previously undefined characters, it becomes my job to define them. In a short film (think average brickfilm length) there can't be much exposition. After all, we only have a few minutes to tell our story, and we can't waste it demonstrating every subtle nuance of every single character. The way most people who don't use pre-existing characters get around this is by employing caricature. Dynamic duos: you have the straight man and the zany friend. Action films get the badass loner, etc... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If the director neglects to add depth to the formula, the end result can be as bland as most franchise films. That said, when you're making short films, you don't really have any choice but to simplify your characters to some degree. There's nothing wrong with doing it if you've put the effort into making it work.

Now, imagine I want to make a movie about a good guy who fights villains, has neat-o powers and doesn't afraid of anything. I could make an entirely new universe for him to inhabit, spend time demonstrating how good he is and why he's fighting the villains... or I could just swap Luke Skywalker in there and voila! Anyone who has watched Star Wars will instantly know who he is and what he stands for. Mission accomplished! To a tween who likes everything Star Wars, this is a win-win scenario. It's the brickfilming equivalent of a coloring book; everything dangerous is already done for you.

Don't get me wrong, there are people who make amazing franchise films- they draw their own coloring books, so to speak, and I don't see any reason to berate them for wanting to expand upon something they love. There's room for creativity within these films, and I think as a site we have a tendency to dismiss them, focusing on what the creator didn't do (make a new universe) and ignoring what they did do (make everything else in the film). Note that this isn't directed at anyone in particular- it's just a common mentality I see around the site. I'm sure he'll appreciate my mentioning this, but one of Smeagol's early creations was an ambitious Star Trek film. I'd go so far as to say that I think making up an original story is not inherently more difficult than making up a plot for a franchise. The big difference is that people who choose to make franchise films tend to be the directors who don't want to define their characters, don't care if the story has plot holes, and aren't really bothered with the technical aspects of their film. They just want to make a film with their favorite characters. If they do that, good or bad, they've achieved their goal and will be satisfied.

TL;DR: Some people make movies based on existing franchises. They tend to be bad because the people who make them care more about the existing subject matter than how their film interprets it. Some people go the extra mile and make great films based on existing subject matter. We should respect that; it's not fair to dismiss the director of a well written film as being unoriginal simply because the characters and setting have been used before. Remember that every film (no matter how much you dislike it) took effort to create and keep that in mind when you critique. There's no point worrying about why WARMUVVIE 11 gets more hits than our thoughtful dramady. We can't blame the world for holding brickfilms to a different standard.

Well said, Squash.

sorta can fit here....
my webite, I made it all...