Hey Doc, how'd ya like some ice cream?

he's a helluva lot better than Absolut Vodka, no?

there's a doc idea! Absolut proudly presents a day in the life of Quentin drinking Absolut

@RottenCarcass Cause it pieced together shots that most on here would say are shit i.e. noisy, blown out, shaky and made something that looked good. My point was not its the best example of filmmaking since the dawn the man.

@Caveport, nice work, it feels very dated but thats always gonna happen with ads which were following a fashion at the time.

You might find the absolute clip unfashionable and dated due to your age, stuff always goes in cycles. I personally see a lot of 90's throwback fashion at the moment and also I'm seeing a lot of Black and White resurgence, examples include the The Artist, Frances Ha (pretentious shit), Nebraska and Escape from Tomorrow plus a lot of advertising......wait a bit and your Puma advert might become cool again. haha.

*Just to make clear I NEVER said copy another style, I was saying discuss work in a more elements way so we can talk about what works and doesn't and use ELEMENTS of great of work and use it when appropriate.

I have on tape(!) a copy of the MTV 10th anniversary show, where they commissioned a whole bunch of promos from film makers like Spike Lee. This Jay-Z film (whatever the brand connection) is almost indistinguishable from the stuff in the MTV show, which mixed up 35mm, 16mm and Super 8mm film. So to say it's dated is absolutely correct - but I still enjoy it stylistically.

I personally never used the word "dated" - we call something "dated" if it's identified strongly with a particular time where that style was fashionable and that's where it derived its impact, from fashion of the times rather than intrinsic artistic merit; therefore, once that fashion passes, it can no longer stand to scrutiny, since its intrinsic artistic value does not pass the test of time and from today's perspective we say it's "dated".

Let's be clear, just because something is old, does not mean it is "dated" - there is plenty of art that has stood the test of time and impacts us powerfully regardless of age and feels fresh and relevant. We wouldn't call that old art "dated".

I never said "dated" - I said "it was trite, broke no new ground, just more of the same" - that's the issue, not that it was "dated" in the sense of seeming "old", but simply lacking in originality. I see no vision here - when we see something that's described as brilliant, we expect some artistic innovation, some new ground being broken, something exceptional - otherwise the word "brilliant" stops having any meaning. It's like calling everything "genius" regardless of merit - the word soon loses its impact.

I'm still waiting to hear what was BRILLIANT about this trite, tired, same-old, same-old, breaking no new ground either technically nor artistically BRANDING PROMO VIDEO (no, not "documentary" and no, not "mini-doc"). But perhaps those who claim it as such have no respect for words and what they mean anyhow, like the whole "documentary" sorry mess showed.

no

@suresure123 if you think its brilliant that's your opinion and we respect that. For me it's not brilliant. It's not crap, but it's not brilliant. Putting together a sequence of lofi shots to establish locations in between clean talking heads clips does not push it to brilliant status for me. But that's just me. I could be wrong.

This guy's photography skills though are brilliant and he deserves to be one of the most well known photographers in the country. I'm sure he has made a video that will blow me away, it's just not this.

@suresure123 - well that explains everything... indeed my suspicions were 100% on the mark - you have no grasp of the fundamental meaning of the words you ineptly attempt to use.

The description of "dated" I gave, is indeed correct. My description was not of "retro" by any means - that you think so, merely proves you don't know what "retro" means either. Retro means "doing something in the style from the past" - which has NOTHING to do with "dated". My description was of "dated" not "retro" as you claim.

Here, for your education - "Dated": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dated

"outmoded, out of fashion"

Read what I wrote, and see how it matches - something fashionable at one time, but today no longer so etc.

Meanwhile, "retro": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retro

"fashionably nostalgic or old-fashioned"

which has NOTHING to do with what I wrote about "dated" - there is zero nostalgia about "dated". "Dated" is a negative descriptive, whereas "retro" is neutral (though can be positive). My description clearly referenced the negative aspect of "dated"... and there is NO negative aspect to just the term "retro".

With this, I leave this discussion. You are unqualified in the simple use of terms. Sloppy and wrong use of the language leads to sloppy and wrong thinking. You have now proven abundantly ("documentary", "dated", "retro", "brilliant") the quality of your discourse. There is no value in interacting with you any further. You can have the last word, I won't bother responding.

I guess we'll never learn what was "brilliant" about this "documentary". Ciao!

@suresure123 It seems that you may be in minority in thinking that this promo is brilliant. Don't try to convince everyone else that your opinion is more correct. It's a valid opinion, but so is everyone's opinion. To me it's a tired looking corporate promo. Why try to convince me otherwise? You did not ask for independent critiques, you asked if others shared your opinion of the video being brilliant. People change over time. I have really enjoyed movies in my youth that I now think are crap. Now I have a better informed view of what is truly important in a piece of work. However, your opinion is perfectly valid.... for you.

I will copy paste in verbatim everytime you said "MY POINT" and i will copy paste my reply to it verbatim from the responses here in chronological order. You will see that I pretty much tried to listen and read what you wanted to say and pretty much replied directly to it. Thats it man. It's a forum after all.

YOU: MY POINT was about the visual not some anti Capitalist rant that you seem to want....

AH! You liked the visuals! I like some of the shots too! MY REPLY since you pointed out it was about the VISUALS:

well, there are some nice shots. Is it a brilliant doc? No. But thats just me. It might be for you. For me it looks like a day in the life of Jay-Z, that's its....

YOU: I wish people would put some energy into discussing the clip and not the bloody title worded wrongly or not.

The images are very much possible with cheap cameras and limited resources which is MY POINT....

MY POINT is simply as filmmakers we should focus on what we do as an art form not as a technician.

AH! You want to say we can do this with cheap cameras and limited resources! This is art! We are not limited by money but by our imagination! Yes agree! But its not exactly a low budget/limited resources ad, MY REPLY:

Your example video or whatever you want to call it was just a bad example for us who don't have a big crew or access to every piece of equipment.We know they had a big crew and a big budget. Why not use a video/film that looks awesome but was shot on DSLRs and tell people doesn't this look awesome even though it was shot on 2 crappy 5d mark 2s like indie game the movie...

YOU: You argument against what I'm saying is I should of used only an example you like? .... MY POINT was about the art of filmmaking, about the craft,i.e. bringing together elements that collectively are worth more than the sum of the parts... not aping big budgets with shitty equipment. MY POINT is about being creative, yours is about being cheap when really you want the big budget. Not even the same conversation....

The problem I really am talking about is when you said oh there are a few great shots in that short. Its not about nice shots, thats where I think all these forums fall down.

AH! So now the point is not the visuals! Its not about the shots! Its about the art of filmaking making something greater than the sum of the parts. BUT I just told you this is a big budget ad with a gazillion people behind it. Something creative! I could not see the creativity in this jay-z vid, So I just ask you what parts should I sum up and what was so great about it by MY REPLY:

So what was great about it? What was brilliant about it?

What are the parts you are talking about? the parts that's go into this video are the people, equipment, actors/characters, money. They had unlimited people, equipment, and whole bunch of money. They had the most famous rapper maybe of all time as the subject and had access to MSG and the president of MSG. So was the video greater than the sum of the parts? Were they able to tell a compelling story?

YOU in reply to me and another poster: Cause it pieced together shots that most on here would say are shit i.e. noisy, blown out, shaky and made something that looked good. MY POINT was not its the best example of filmmaking since the dawn the man.

AH! So it is the visuals! You like the pieced together shots that were imperfect and it LOOKED good! Its not the art of filmaking since your point was NOT that it was the best example of filmaking! Or maybe it still is? Who knows by now? MY REPLY: if you think its brilliant that's your opinion and we respect that. For me it's not brilliant. It's not crap, but it's not brilliant. Putting together a sequence of lofi shots to establish locations in between clean talking heads clips does not push it to brilliant status for me. But that's just me. I could be wrong.

YOU: I do respect your opinion. The opinion that doesn't bat an eyelid at a music promo that is exactly what I'm talking about, crap shots pulled together to make even less than the sum of the parts. And I will also respect your opinion that you don't have good taste. haha

So I basically give up on getting any direction from your posts. MY REPLY: if you want to attack my personal preference and opinion that is fine with me. You were asking people if they think the jay-z ad was brilliant. i just thought it wasn't. I do really respect your opinion. beauty is in the eye of the beholder and something that is brilliant for you may not be for me.

anyone who does not think this is a brilliant documentary is a rotten egg.