|
Post by johngreen on Sept 5, 2006 17:17:22 GMT -5
Yeah, Mettle. That shot in particular makes me think it probably is current. Also, Daniel's hair looks somewhat longer to me. I think they just did that for the fans, to say, "Yes, we are still shooting." Which I believe they are.
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Mar 22, 2007 7:50:22 GMT -5
Hi, everyone,
First, thanks for starting this part of anchor-cove devoted to b2.0, and thanks for watching and supporting us. Even wixy likes us! We're honored. Covers are some of our best commenters, and have given us some of the best ideas in the show.
I'm hoping now you'll help us with more good ideas: Hank and I would really like to find ways to get Brotherhood 2.0 to a wider audience. This has been discussed a little in the "Sam Has 7 Friends" thread, but it's very hard for web shows to be noticed, because there are so many of them.
We don't really know how to use youtube to our advantage, but we'd like to have a bigger presence there and generally see if the show could sustain a broader viewership, or if we're just destined to stay where we're at.
We don't have commercial aspirations for this or anything. We'd just like to see the community grow, because we both find that part of things really enjoyable.
Do you, seasoned veterans of the first great web show phenomenon, have any suggestions?
Thanks very much, John
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 5, 2006 10:41:36 GMT -5
both blackjack and terryfic's movies are brilliant. Kudos!
The best thing about lg15, or one of them anyway, is how it has led to all these wonderfully creative responses, which in many cases have been both 1. the best things on youtube, and 2. better than lg15's videos. In that sense, at least, lg15 is a creative project in which we are all involved.
-John
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 5, 2006 9:56:50 GMT -5
Thanks for checking out the book. As for where I am: I live in New York City. Before that, I lived in Chicago for a long time.
And yeah, I think Virginia has been extremely helpful (the LA Times reporter has also done good work). Virginia has tracked down a lot of people and eliminated them as subjects, or else we'd still all be here thinking it might be youtube.
-John
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 4, 2006 22:48:47 GMT -5
Replete with emoticons and everything. Hopefully here we'll be better organized, and it will become popular and remain well-moderated. Cheers! -John www.sparksflyup.com
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 5, 2006 16:59:57 GMT -5
Audio file?
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 5, 2006 16:11:39 GMT -5
I don't think it's out of the question that it's an ARG (although for the record, aren't ARGs usually known to be ARGs? Like, "The Beast" was set in the future, for instance). But Flemming has re-denied it (to Virginia and other people) since Brian Clark made that comment, at which point Clark admitted that he had no idea who was behind lg15. I agree that there are some coincidences with Fleming, but if we've learned anything in the last week, it's that you can find a lot of coincidences if you look for 'em. -John www.sparksflyup.com
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 9, 2006 0:06:11 GMT -5
Shifty, if I'm not mistaken, in order for them to have logged in as "the_creators," they needed "the_creators" password, meaning the site has either been hacked, or that's them. Also, why would someone else post something that ridiculously defensive?
Also, they've edited the post four times. If it was fake, they would have just taken it down, instead of editing it.
-John
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 9, 2006 0:04:30 GMT -5
My response: I should say at the outset that I like the videos, and have always liked them, and think y'all write well. You have an exceedingly bright future, and I hope you don't worry too much about this stuff, because it's just the first of many nice things that will come your way. That said, you can't possibly tell your audience that you "expect" them to understand you, not when you've deceived them* about the nature of your creation, continue to hide your identity from them (for no good reason), and refuse to accept that some people might be offended by what they perceive as your manipulation. That's simply not fair. An artist can never ask her audience for anything except their attention. And you have our attention--that much is clear. An audience has every right to be disappointed, or offended, or negative. That's the nature of art for public consumption: You put it out there, and the public consumes it. We did not sign a contract at the start of this promising to always and everywhere love Lonelygirl15. That we may not like the work that you're doing, or may disagree with it, is our right as an audience. I can empathize somewhat. I write books, and they have gotten some bad reviews over the years, and those reviews are sometimes hurtful. But such is life. You still get to make the videos, and have them watched by people, which is all you can ever ask for. The rest is up to you, not us. I congratulate you for having the courage to create a film series that you believe in. But you shouldn't be so bold as to assume that your audience must innately share your faith. Best, John Green www.sparksflyup.com*admittedly by a sin of omission rather than comission, but still.
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 8, 2006 23:41:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 8, 2006 23:36:57 GMT -5
There's a new message from the creators at the other board: They identify themselves as DullGenius Inc. And they hate on this forum. EDIT: DullGenius, Inc has no google hits. Also, hilariously, they refer to it as the "lonelygirl16" saga, and then edited it when someone called it to their attention. I mean, really, creators. Are you idiots? -John www.sparksflyup.com
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 7, 2006 23:17:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 7, 2006 23:05:30 GMT -5
It's too old, imho.
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 7, 2006 22:54:55 GMT -5
West, I'd believe the agency would want its name in the papers if it wasn't CAA. When you represent Steven Speilberg and Tom Hanks, you don't need to get your name in the papers. I'm actually surprised they'd be associated with this just because it's so much hipper than they tend to be (nothing against CAA--they have great book-to-movie agents, and they're by far the biggest and most famous agency; they're just not generally very cutting edge). -John www.sparksflyup.com
|
|
|
Post by johngreen on Sept 7, 2006 22:40:33 GMT -5
Yeah, it's funny, because I'd heard the exact same story, but with the site being tracked to Mountain View, not to CAA. Anyway, it seems legit, because otherwise the agency wouldn't have refused to confirm or deny. After eveyone else having denied it, that's as good as a confession to me. I'm surprised no one could get word from CAA sooner. A funny thought, that everyone emailing Bree on myspace has been talking to some poor agent's assistant at CAA. Although admittedly, that's a hell of a lot more fun than most of what they do. I've got a friend there (one of those overworked assistants, in fact). I hope he isn't lonelygirl. -John www.sparksflyup.com
|
|