I'm fine with modding and using things like clay.  However I personally think Mega-bloks are pure evil.

Youtube
Facebook The Screenplay Challenge

Personally I'm not fond of it.  If you add another element to the scene, it often looks inconsistent with the LEGO bricks and disrupts the visual look of the film.  Having that consistency in the style of toy you are using is important.

However, if someone makes a custom print that look exactly like the sort of print the LEGO Company would make, then that's wonderful.  However, most people do not posses the capabilities to make such custom prints.  If someone tries to draw or paint upon a figure there are often many imperfections which show up really horribly in the close ups we often do of our tiny subjects.

I do, however, use a painted canvas background, but it says far out of focus and just looks like a consistent azure blue.

I do very much like the use of cloth paper and lights, though.  Printed paper stick on torsos are miserable, but having a paper sail or coloured paper background looks pretty nice.  LEGO itself often uses a sort of fabric that looks sort of papery on sails, so it seems fitting to me.
As far as lights go, you usually don't actually properly see the bulb itself, usually it's just the light from it shining through a brick which should ideally give it the look as thought the brick itself is creating the light.

As for harming actual LEGO bricks, for some reason seeing a LEGO brick that has been purposefully damaged makes me feel uncomfortable inside, much it the way one might feel uncomfortable from seeing someone will a bloody wound.

I used to be much more of a LEGO purist, the farthest I'd go was to switch out the "arm" pieces on torsos, and nothing more. However I've changed, as many people do, since I first started brickfilming.

Restricting yourself to just one brand is not allowing yourself access to the potential that the other sets/brands can offer you. For instance, I've always wanted to make an original Sci-Fi brickfilm, love Johnny Thunder and Egyptian sets, and, as I'm a bit of a fan of the Stargate series, I decided to buy a "Best-Lock" SG:1 spaceship set. Sure, the pieces are of the same quality of disposable army-men, and nowhere near the quality of LEGO products, but, I think it was worth the 15 dollars I payed for it; The set's big, and, it has pieces I know I'll use for both Johnny Thunder AND an original Sci-Fi brickfilm. - If I hadn't have gotten it, I would have been limiting myself, and thus, making some future projects of mine harder to fully realize with what was already available to me...

Another good example of a good opportunity brought about by another brand was this recent K'nex Yellow Submarine set I got. Not only am I a HUGE Beatles fan, but, I actually needed some of the pieces in the set, as, LEGO doesn't make anything similar/I couldn't find similar pieces on Bricklink. Thus, I took a chance, bought the set, and can say that I really enjoy it - Actually, I enjoy it so much, I actually like the K'nex figures more than LEGO minifigures!

To put things into perspective, would you ONLY eat at McDonalds for the rest of your life, or, do you think that you'll try some other fast food/home cooked meals ever again? ... Most people don't swear allegiance to one name-brand for their whole lives when it comes to food, clothes, or other appliances; so why do some brickfilmers refuse to animate with anything other than LEGO? - That's certainly a question in my mind that spawned just after reading Nathan's topic.

Onto the subject of altering/modifying LEGO:

Again, when I started out, I was much more of a purist. However, even back then, sometimes I'd opt for using a head that had teeth marks (courtesy of my little brother) for a villain minifig, rather than using a brand-new one. Sometimes, such things can really add to a picture, even if they are but small details.

I think that Doug Vandegrift did sort of the same thing for his "America: Outlawed" brickfilm; He choose not to dust-off his old western sets, as, the dust gave them more of a rustic and run-down look, something that an old western town would have had. When you watch his film, you don't really notice any of this, yet, just the fact that it's there did probably help inspire the filmmaker while making the film - and that's something truly special.

Just look at Vitruvius in "The LEGO Movie" - His staff is just a chewed up candy-stick. Not only does this give the character an abnormally large staff, something exclusive to only him, but it also just goes to show that the directors and animators really were thinking outside of the box when choosing props. I'd love to see more of that kind of innovation in brickfilms.

BTW, though I never plan on making a Lone Ranger brickfilm (at least, not at this present time) When I got some LEGO Lone Ranger sets, I realized that he looked so... old, compared to the Lone Ranger figure that comes with the Disney Infinity game set. The Infinity figure not only looks much more like the Lone Ranger, as seen in the recent film, but he also looks much younger, and not bald - just as the Lone Ranger should. So, I took one of these pieces, http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=62810 (which I have WAY too many of, as it is) sanded the top of it, and basically made it fit on the Lone Ranger's hat like this: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=16175pb01 Not only does it satisfy me for a display figure, If I even did decide to make a Lone Ranger brickfilm, I'd probably opt for using my custom one over the official LEGO minifig.

Again, I think that it all boils down to style and preference. I've edited pieces and done such things as I've described because I think it not only benefits the brickfilm, but, also makes the LEGO more aesthetically pleasing to me.

I'm pretty much a Lego purist.  I not only do not use off-brand blocks, in my main series, I do not allow anything to be seen that's not Lego, except a sky-colored wall that I sometimes use as sky, and sticky putty which I do my best to conceal.  Moreover, all special effects are done in-camera, without CGI or photoshopping/masking, chroma keying of any kind (except for captions).  I even wrote a chapter in my Brickfilming guide for people who wish to pursue a purist approach.

That said, I have no problem with special effects, clay, non-lego bricks, non-construction toy elements, or any other means to mix Lego with other media, even in any of my own projects that aren't "Holding Our Own".  Let's not forget that the godfather of Brickfilms, THE MAGIC PORTAL, uses clay, sneakers, live action footage, and common objects in conjunction with Lego pieces.

But I HATE those accursed MMmmm mnnnnnngngngnnnnnmmm....  Mega-Bloks!

I don't like custom elements much.  Things like BrickArms tend to look hyper-detailed and therefore incongruous next to official LEGO stuff (although I do like the look of a few custom elements, and things like the BrickArms U-clip would be fantastically useful for MOCs).  They also tend to be horrendously expensive and I don't have the money for that sort of thing.  As far as megabloks and their ilk go, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. 

As far as modifying LEGO elements themselves, I don't like it much either.  Unless you're really, really good at it, it invariably looks crude and amateurish, and ruins the look.  I shudder every time I see someone who deliberately damaged or "dirtied" a minifig to make it look "realistic" (modern military builders are especially egregious in this regard).  LEGO isn't realistic to begin with, and if you do that it just looks like a four-year-old chewed on it, then stamped it into the dirt.  Plus, LEGO is expensive, so scuffing it up and damaging it isn't really a good idea under any circumstances.

At the end of the day, it just feels like cheating to me.  In my mind, it feels a lot more creative to build, say, a weapon out of official LEGO elements than relying on a custom element.  To me, that has always been part of the fun and challenge of LEGO.  Besides, it usually looks better too in comparison to hyper-detailed custom moulds. 

However, using miniature lights or a non-LEGO background backdrop (for skies and suchlike) is a completely different kettle of fish to me, and I'd be perfectly OK with using those.  Miniature lights (such as LifeLites) are  beautiful if used correctly, especially in night-time scenes, and it often helps immerse one into the atmosphere and scenery of a brickfilm.  I myself am contemplating possibly getting LifeLites at some point in the future, and I'll probably need to get a sky background very soon.

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand this logic at all.  I feel your analogy would be more appropriate if a person only bought, say, Castle sets and considered all of LEGO's other themes inferior simply because they're different themes.  It's not as if LEGO and Megabloks are of equal quality; Megabloks is clearly an inferior knock-off brand that copies LEGO's system.  I mean, given the choice, would you rather buy a brand new Ferrari or a beaten-up Fiat Multipla?  Or would you pick a dubious unhygienic greasy diner with shady characters and food of mysterious origin (which possibly comes with complimentary "extra protein" and food poisoning) over a great restaurant with a good food-hygiene ratings, nice atmosphere and delicious food?

I would happily eat at the same resturant every day provided it had a large menu, healthy options, and wasn't a bad deal. Luckily, LEGO fits this bill.

Has anyone got the wine list?

I understand that nmmmmnnnngggnnnnngh... Mega Bloks have improved from the days that their bricks were inconsistently colored and the plastic was super-cheap.  But I follow what's going on inside the toy industry closely.  Mega-Bloks stole the tube coupling device that Lego invented and sold them as their own.  A court in Europe ruled (inexpicably to me) that Lego can not hold the patent to the tube coupling device, and Mega Brands won the right to use the stolen invention.  This led to other companies to follow suit and produce their own Lego knock-offs (Kre-O, C3, etc.)  You can't blame them for capitalizing on what is deemed legal, but it was because of Mega Brands' philosophy that I don't support them today.

I don't particularly have anything against the other brands, although Mega Blox has a negative connotation for me because I had one set when I was little that just refused to stay together, which bugged me to no end. I tend to stick to the purist path because of my love of LEGO. When I started brickfilming I had no interest in film at all, but I loved LEGO, and the thought of bringing it to life was enticing. It wasn't about the film I was making, it was about the LEGO, so there was no place for clay, other brands, etc. I've grown quite a bit now, and I'm totally okay with clay, custom bricks, and the rest, as long as it suits the film. Look at Coffee and Carnage, clay really enhances the film in a way that say, red studs, couldn't. Some films are best kept purist, while others are appropriate for, or even made better by, the inclusion of elements from outside of the LEGO system.

Youtube Channel

I don't mind LEGO knock offs, but it looks really weird if you use them with LEGO. I have a bunch of LEGO knock offs because my friends give them to me as gifts, since they are cheaper I guess. I'm fine with that because, believe it or not, these can be super useful. I don't have much LEGO so when it comes to adding unseen structural support I can use those! As for modified LEGO pieces, I don't do it myself unless I need to, since my lack of bricks. As for destroying bricks for brickfilms, I don't actually care about that. I just wouldn't do it myself because it would be a waste.

Youtube Channel Flickr #LoveWins