medium QT http://www.r023g075b158.net/video/blue_adicolor_medium.mov choose other sizes http://www.r023g075b158.net/

This digital flip book is the 4th installment in the adicolor video podcast series. In the coming weeks, more colored gems by: Neill Blomkamp, Roman Coppola & Andy Bruntel, & Saiman Chow. Previous films can be accessed through the colors at the top left of the page.

         

how is this a podcast?

         

cute track, cute piece. (some conceptual inspiration from fu pok yan's echopraxia, methinks?)

(luminal, it ain't, unless you've subscribed to the antcast)

         

cute piece?

more like a piece of crap. Put this side by side with Pink from Charlie White. Same budget, same brief. HUGE difference in product.

This just confirms that Psyops and most animated "directors" are simply a talented group of technicians. They are not "directors". Charlie White is a "director".

Nothing wrong with being a talented animator though... just a different ball game.

         

i second that motion

         

I third that motion. PSyop really blew it. Looks like they handed this job off to an assitant and pocked the 40k...What a let down...what a burp...fart...furp!

         

Apples and oranges, folks. I second progosk.

         

well, 40k is pretty hefty for this...

that notwithstanding, vido, you don't have a point here. (it would be interesting to know what the actual brief was.)

charlie's is an intriguing/disturbing short film. this is a fun/cute/light riff on some facets of blue. nver the twain shall meet.

the first two in the series, on the other hand? i'd agree with you...

         

Just wanted to add a thought. The point about director or animator is interesting, however I think its pretty non-conclusive in terms of importance. It just makes for a different approach. Some of my favorite "film directors" come from a graphic design background. I don't see any reason to segragate too much because in the end we are only talking about a title. I don't think most motion designers would consider themselves directors when it comes down to it. When we have people like Gwenyth Paltrow directing clips who really cares about the title anyhow.

For sure Adicolor is very much about creative comapnies and/or a creative person steering ship to make something. In really when you go to a commercially successful animation/design shop to make something, they are going to be working on numerous other projects. The ones with budgets very well may be the priority, so in a certain sense I don't think 40k on an adidas art commercial resulting in something simple is less than what we should expect.

         

progs

you've hit it on the head. The difference between crap and good shit. is right there in your comment.

Fun cute light riff? you mean TOTAL EMPTINESS..

Charlie's had a real concept. depth.. interest. Psyops had pretty much NOTHING.

There are too many videos lauded here that have NOTHING.

         

vido - it's an adidas promotional.

there's nothing chiselled in tablets that promotionals need be deep or really conceptual. psyop's piece has plenty of (purely) visual interest compared with 90% of videojunk (animated or otherwise) out there.

i'm surprised you insist on comparing the two.

         

Vido... I have to disagree with you here. Yes, there isn't any real depth to this piece, but lets not forget that this is a COMMERCIAL! Since when do spots need to have allegories to pubescent confrontations...THEYRE SELLING SHOES for damn sake! I mean I love the ad but how messed up is that! They are both effective visually which is all anyone expects or needs from a spot. And if we are talking about true 'DIRECTORS' I wouldn't even throw Charlie White in that category, he's a photographer/digital image manipulator if these people really need titles for creating anything...and director of what anyway? Theres very few cinema directors left on this planet if thats what you feel is needed for a commercial...The majority come from all backgrounds such as graphic design, animation, film, video, acting, photography, special FX etc...and both these 'directors' fall into these categories and have made entertaining pieces so that should be enough.

The real point should be that neither of these great spots remotely entices me to buy shoes...I do kinda feel like frantically running around downtown looking for blue and then embracing the beauty of a pink womens body though.

         

1. the brief was.... "blue"

2. given 1, to call these "commercials" is reductionist and unfair -- they're short films that have been branded by adidas -- the directors all shot with the brief (not the client) in mind

3. medium is the message -> psyop took over 18,000 digital stills for this project and ended up using something like 4,000. the idea was to make something that worked as a piece of eye candy and also served the platform (ie. ipod, internet, etc), so they made a short film ode to the lower east side that also doubled as a frame-by-frame slide show. it's hardly high-concept but anyone who caps locks to decry its 'TOTAL EMPTINESS' should probably just head over to chrismilk.com anyway