• 08 Oct

    Creativity and AI: my thoughts

    Been trying for a while to gather my thoughts about the AI revolution. It’s a lot to process. Having been politely coerced into using Chat GPT for well over a year now, I feel well versed in its abilities and limitations, and there are many on either side.

    To say AI has swindled many professional creatives out of work is an understatement. Very recently, un-coincidentally around the same time Ghat GPT was launched, my freelance writing jobs just ended, like someone flipped a switch. The kind of English copy most companies in Denmark require are functional, factual, dry and informative. Chat can deliver that in a heartbeat. No need for personality, nor expensive humans getting in the way. The churn will suffice. 

    99% of the time, the writing that Chat can spew out can be defined by two words that greedy stakeholders and timid clients love: “good enough”.

    The immediate fallout from AI torpedoing my freelance work notwithstanding, the AI revolution has led me to something of an existential crisis. I’ve dedicated over two decades of my life to be a creative writer. Grafting and honing and pushing and striving. To find out your services are now, for the most part, no longer required has been a gutpunch to say the least. 

    So now that I have all this spare time, here are my thoughts, in some sort of form. And to start with, I’ll let you in on a little secret: most professionally creative people aren’t that good at much else. 

    If they were, they would have been accountants, lawyers, bankers, sales reps or middle managers. You know, safe jobs that pay well, but which no kid ever wished they would be when they grew up.

    True creatives, however – and by that I mean those cursed to follow their urges to maintain their professional sanity – are compelled to follow their talent. Why else would they choose a profession that pays so badly, lacks security and is fraught with long hours and endless frustration? They have no choice. It’s a vocation that brings them joy, and that’s a prerequisite for creative folk to thrive.

    So they work hard to perfect their craft. For years, striving to improve. To feel fulfilled. To make magic. To become Harry Potter.

    But now these are dark times for magic folk. Because AI has let the muggles into Hogwarts. Flooding the classroom with people who don’t know how creatively average they are. AI lets the mediocre piss in the sandpit and their sheer numbers are flooding the whole damn playground.

    The magic folk are now drowning in the only space where they had always felt valued and safe. Where they could prove their worth, showcase their talent and earn their keep. And crucially, these witches and wizards understand the process in a way the muggles never will – and the latter’s wholesale embrace of AI is the proof.

    The muggles think AI can help all of us. They encourage the magic folk to join them in the sandpit. Condescending remarks like “relax, it’s only a tool” and “it helps you work faster and more efficiently”. This is only true if you couldn’t do it in the first place. And if you couldn’t do it in the first place, if you’re not prepared to put the work in, you shouldn’t be doing it.

    See, muggles have no clue that magic folk don’t play like this. Creativity has never been about speed, volume, efficiency or output. If you stop telling magic folk to use it and actually ask them what they think, most will tell you that AI gets in the way. That it actually makes them worse not better, because it removes the vital first and last stages of the creative process. That’s the magic part. Instead we now have a tedious race to the middle with zero joy or satisfaction.

    And there’s the rub. AI obstructs magic folk from capitalising on their innate creativity, while at the same time elevating the muggles, deluding them into thinking that the derivative slop the machines spit out has something to say and is worth saying.

    And if this all sounds like elitist gatekeeping, fucking right it does. It’s supposed to. Because right now, the hordes are at the gates. We need to push back. Swarms of pretenders, emboldened and enabled by what is at best an exercise in probability, and at worst blatant theft.

    We live now in a time where we are encouraged to pass everything through GPT to “make it better”. This effectively is us rolling over to the machines. We give up, you do your magic, because we can only go so far. To me, this is so utterly depressing. Because we are the magic.

    Handing over the process impart or whole to AI erodes trust and confidence in personal instinct. It dilutes originality and gives us an excuse not to learn or grow. Ultimately it instils doubt in the creative process. It replaces a singular vision with a back-dated amalgam of second-hand ideas, smashed together into something utterly unremarkable. We like it because it’s reassuringly familiar. A facsimile of achievement. But here’s the thing. AI never surprises us. And that’s what true creativity does. That’s the magic.

    By Adrian Mackinder Uncategorized , , ,
  • 23 Sep

    From the Archive: Comedy Central Subliminal Messages

    A while back, I was Head Writer for Comedy Central UK. It was one of the most creatively and professionally fulfilling jobs I’ve ever been lucky enough to call my own.

    One idea we ran for several years was scheduling subliminal messages that would flash on screen for a fraction of a second either side of the ad breaks. Blink and you miss them, you had to pause your live TV to read them. They were easter eggs for viewers to discover, read and enjoy.

    At the time no one else was doing this – using longform copy on air to play with the medium and speak directly to the audience in a way that was utterly unique, conversational, inclusive, human and totally on brand.

    In terms of content, I wrote about anything I saw fit. I had complete free rein and I used it! Rarely did I write about about Comedy Central programming. Mostly it was about whatever was in my brain at any given time.

    Sometimes I wrote messages that tapped directly into complaints the viewers were writing to us about the channel. Other times it was satire on current events, or even parodying films and other shows.

    From the Pope joining Twitter or a new coffee machine in the canteen, to the decline of linear tv and western civilisation, all messaging was cheeky, funny and original.

    For the casual viewer they were most likely overlooked, but those who caught them shared their discovery online. Here you can still see videos of viewers who had uploaded them onto You Tube.

    What were they? What did they mean? Were they harmless fun or sinister mind-control techniques to brainwash the viewer?!

    These messages causes a bit of a stir, industry attention and were incredibly liberating and fun to create. I’m very proud of them. Below are a few examples (if you’re on your phone, pinch, zoom in and enjoy).

    By Adrian Mackinder Uncategorized
  • 09 Aug

    It’s time for comedy to reclaim its cinematic throne

    Against all the odds, and to the astonishment of many – me included – the new Naked Gun reboot starring Liam Neeson and Pamela Anderson is a hit. Positive critical response and word of mouth has teased people off their sofas and down to their local cinema to watch this silly, nostalgia-filled comedy romp. This is surprising for several reasons. 

    Liam Neeson and Pamela Anderson in The Naked Gun

    One friend of mine said he couldn’t remember the last time he heard so many people laughing so loud in a cinema, which got me thinking about how comedy has evolved in Hollywood and its relationship with cinema goers. Because you simply don’t see all-out comedies in cinemas these days. What happened?

    Growing up in the 80s, comedy was a surefire bankable cinematic mainstay. For instance, out of the top twenty grossing films of 1984, comedies repped over a quarter, including Ghostbusters, Spinal Tap, Beverly Hills Cop, Sixteen Candles and Police Academy

    The following year, the top twenty films boasted a similar roster: Axel Foley’s debut rolled over to be the second highest grossing film of 1985, followed closely by Police Academy 2, Fletch, National Lampoon’s European Vacation, The Breakfast Club, Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Brewster’s Millions and Spies Like Us. This pattern continued through the decade, proving that big screen comedy was big business. 

    This trend continued somewhat through the 90s. In 1994, six of the top twenty draws at the US box office were unapologetic laughfests, including The Santa Clause, The Flintstones, The Mask and Mrs Doubtfire. In 1999, there were five, notably Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, Big Daddy, Notting Hill and American Pie

    Now before you dismiss this as one of those “middle-aged bloke moaning that things were better in the old days” articles, I’m well aware that not all of these films were great. I’m also aware how we consume entertainment has changed. I’m just pointing out that there was a time when we got a wider choice of genres duking it out at the box office than we do now. That is objectively a good thing by any metric, and might even encourage more people back into the cinema.

    Flash forward to 2024, and laughs could still be found topping multiplex charts, but they were few and, more significantly, wrapped up inside other genres: Deadpool v Wolverine, Despicable Me 4 and Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, a brand once guaranteed to fill seats and screens with laughs, only broke in at twenty. So far in 2025, all but five of the top twenty US box office films are either superhero, animated or franchise instalments. And of those five outliers, none are straight comedies. So why is this?

    Well to a large extent, you can blame Disney. It’s a cliché to gripe that today’s Hollywood is fearful, reactionary, unimaginative and risk averse, chasing the bottom line with merch-ready tentpole franchises, diminishing sequels and cynical reboots, but clichés exist for a reason. A vital Marvel ingredient has always been humour. It’s the magic spice that Stan Lee and his team sprinkled over the comics from the 1960s onwards. Decades later, the beating heart of the Disney’s MCU was always Robert Downey Jr’s arch but effortlessly witty Tony Stark, which is why killing him off in Avengers Endgame inflicted fatal injury to the franchise.

    Robert Downey Jr in Iron Man 3

    Nearly twenty years since 2008’s Iron Man kickstarted this cinematic leviathan, it seems that recipe has finally turned sour and is increasingly falling out of favour; turns out there’s only so much smug wisecracking we can handle. But this is the point. For decades, this is where cinema goers have been going for their comedy fix. Endless snarky banter between squabbling heroes, dry knowing asides to let the audience know this is all a bit silly.

    In an increasingly timid industry, Hollywood only strives to create blockbusters first and then conceal the comedy within. And as a result, the genre in itself seems to have fallen by the wayside. 

    This is, of course, not a new tactic. Steven Spielberg has always included warm humour in his blockbusters. Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park spring to mind, as do his executive-produced efforts like Gremlins, Back to the Future, The Goonies and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. But back then there was also ample room for pure comedies. Towering alumni of SNL and SCTV owned both Hollywood and the box office.

    The 1980s belonged to performers such as Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Steve Martin, John Candy and Eddie Murphy. They were the draw. Today, with few exceptions, no star is bigger than the franchise.

    When funny owned the big screen.
    l-r: Rodney Dangerfield, John Candy, Billy Murray and Chevy Chase, Michael McKean, Leslie Nielsen, Jame Lee Curtis

    What frustrates me so much about this is that while comedy may historically be high risk – “funny” is obviously subjective – it’s cheap to make. So much cheaper than your average superhero film. While I’ll always cherish my beloved Ghostbusters, comedy doesn’t have to be high concept. It doesn’t have to cost a fortune. All you need is a great script, actors with funny bones and a director with comic timing. Even as a proud Marvel and superhero fan, I’d take Withnail & I over The Fantastic Four any day.

    The new Naked Gun cost a fraction of a Marvel or DC film, as did Wes Anderson’s The Phoenician Scheme, Tim Robinson vehicle Friendship, the underrated Ballad of Wallis Island and, I’m sure despite the star-studded cameos, the upcoming Spinal Tap sequel. I don’t expect them all to be superhits, but in a time when the once all-conquering Marvel and DC films are now struggling, maybe it’s time Hollywood at least took a punt on comedy. It’s done them very well in the past. 

    Back in 1988, the original Naked Gun was made for just shy of $15 million but went on to earn just over $150 million and launch two sequels. While not being the ultimate smash, that’s a solid performance. Two years later, Home Alone had a budget of $18 million. It made $476.7 million. Now THAT’S a hell of a return.

    Compare it to James Gunn’s admittedly great Superman reboot. That needs to make more than this latter figure just to break even. Oof. I would argue that these days, inflated production, talent and marketing costs means comedies are a much safer box office bet than your typical, modern-day blockbuster.

    This is not to say comedy is a genre that has died per se. Those recent films I mentioned above are strong contenders within their field. It’s simply that you’re more likely to encounter them at home on Netflix than in the cinema. And that’s fine. You don’t need an IMAX screen to enjoy a great comedy. I just think it’s a shame we no longer fill our cinemas with the kind of mirth my friend experienced when he went to see Liam Neeson and Pamela Anderson joyfully deadpan for 90 minutes. 

    Because we all know the magic of cinema is that it is a shared experience – and a room full of people laughing as one is the most magic shared experience of them all.

    Hopefully this is the start of a resurrected trend. Right now, big-screen comedy is not enough in itself to warrant Hollywood studio investment. It has to be wrapped up in something bigger. Which is a shame. Because I believe there will always be a market for balls-to-the-wall, all-out comedy films. Mileage will always vary, but it’s a genre that has earned and deserves a place in cinemas alongside the usual carbon-copy juggernauts. Because when comedy is done right, this scrappy, subversive, disruptive and much-needed underdog can more than hold its own.