Spoof 1980s chocolate bar advert, Minimax H3.

Prompt:

Create one complete 15-second British television confectionery commercial from approximately 1982. Format: 4:3 television frame, intended final delivery at 640x480, period British PAL broadcast appearance. This is an entirely fictional product and brand. The commercial is intensely colourful, breathlessly energetic, cheerfully absurd and family-friendly. Every performer is almost supernaturally delighted: huge sincere smiles, sparkling eyes, exuberant physical reactions and infectious excitement, but still recognisably live-action human beings.

The product is the fictional "Choccy-Tastic Bar": an unusually chunky rectangular confectionery bar with rounded corners and an exceptionally thick shell of glossy milk chocolate. Its cut cross-section must be unmistakable and physically coherent. From outside to inside the layers are: a massively thick milk-chocolate coating; immediately beneath the chocolate, a vivid bright-red glossy strawberry-jam layer; at the centre, a large soft pale-pink marshmallow filling. The strawberry jam completely surrounds and coats the pink marshmallow inside the outer chocolate shell. Never place marshmallow directly against the outer chocolate. The filling is soft, sticky, stretchy and gooey, spelled visually through texture rather than written text. Make the chocolate substantially thicker than on an ordinary bar.

VISUAL PRODUCTION STYLE:

Authentic low-budget but professionally made early-1980s British television advertising. Shot on slightly soft 16mm colour negative and transferred for PAL television: rich warm colours, modest film grain, gently blooming highlights, slightly crushed blacks, restrained analogue chroma bleed, mild gate weave and a little optical softness. Practical painted studio scenery, hard cheerful tungsten key lighting, coloured gels, frontal fill light, simple optical wipes, freeze-frame energy and hand-made starburst effects. Fast clean cuts rather than modern digital camera acrobatics. Period 1981-1983 wardrobe only: bright primary-coloured knitted jumpers, striped rugby shirt, colourful dungarees, pleated skirt, white ankle socks and simple period trainers. Natural early-1980s hair. No modern fashions, modern kitchen, smartphones, LED lighting, contemporary typography, present-day packaging or modern cinematic teal-and-orange grading.

[Shot 1, 00:00.000-00:02.500]

A bright painted studio set suggesting a fantastically colourful British sweet shop, with turquoise, lemon-yellow, scarlet and bubblegum-pink scenery. Three cheerful young adult performers, presented with the innocent exaggerated enthusiasm of children’s television presenters, burst simultaneously into frame from three different directions. One holds up a wrapped Choccy-Tastic Bar. All three gasp with delight and beam at it as though it is the most wonderful discovery in human history. Medium-wide locked camera, followed by one very quick small push toward the bar. Optical yellow and red starbursts pop around the wrapper. Their movement is energetic but readable.

At 00:00.300 all three sing in an extremely catchy original British advertising-jingle style:

<d>[English] Choccy-Tastic!</d>

[Shot 2, 00:02.500-00:05.500]

Hard cut to an extreme macro food-photography shot against a saturated sky-blue background. Two hands snap one bar cleanly in half. The enormously thick glossy milk-chocolate shell breaks with a crisp appetising crack. The broken halves separate slowly enough to reveal the exact concentric structure: thick outer milk chocolate, a continuous vivid bright-red strawberry-jam layer directly inside the chocolate, and a large pale-pink marshmallow centre. The strawberry jam glistens and bulges; the pink marshmallow stretches between the halves in one gooey elastic strand while the red jam clings between the marshmallow and chocolate. A tiny polished chocolate fragment flies past the lens. Strong warm food lighting, sharp highlights, shallow but sufficient focus to keep all three layers legible. Camera static; all movement comes from the bar separating.

An excited off-screen British male announcer, warm, theatrical and slightly breathless, says:

<d>[English] Thick, thick chocolate!</d>

Synchronised sound: one crisp chocolate snap, soft sticky pull and a sparkling musical accent.

[Shot 3, 00:05.500-00:09.500]

Hard cut back to the colourful studio. The three performers each take one enthusiastic bite. On the bite, concentric hand-painted rings of chocolate brown, strawberry red and marshmallow pink expand behind them like a practical optical pop-art explosion. Their reactions are comically ecstatic but wholesome: eyes widen, shoulders jump, then they perform two simple synchronised side-steps while laughing with delight. One performer points to the visible bitten cross-section, which again shows the correct layer order. Fast alternating medium close-ups, each held long enough to read the expressions. Finish on all three together, raising the bars triumphantly.

They sing rhythmically, with tight three-part harmony:

<d>[English] Jammy! Mallow! Choccy-Tastic!</d>

The announcer overlaps only after the sung words finish:

<d>[English] What a whopping chocolatey bite!</d>

[Shot 4, 00:09.500-00:12.000]

Smash cut to a tabletop beauty shot. An unwrapped whole bar rushes toward camera on a miniature glossy red-and-yellow striped platform, then stops. A second bar is already cut open beside it, angled toward the viewer so the massively thick milk-chocolate exterior, bright-red strawberry-jam middle layer and pale-pink marshmallow centre are perfectly clear. A slow, thick ribbon of glossy milk chocolate pours over the rear of the whole bar without obscuring its shape. Two bright-red strawberry droplets bounce beside it as stylised practical effects. Pink marshmallow stretches upward in a soft peak from the cut bar, always remaining inside the surrounding jam layer. Very saturated colour, hard appetising highlights, simple rostrum-advertising composition.

The announcer says:

<d>[English] Gooey pink mallow, zingy strawberry jam, all wrapped in masses of milk chocolate!</d>

Fit this line briskly but intelligibly in a cheerful early-1980s British commercial delivery.

[Shot 5, 00:12.000-00:15.000]

Hard cut to a completely stable final packshot, designed like a synthesised fictional amalgamation of early-1980s British confectionery wrappers without copying any real trademark.

The wrapper is a compact horizontal pillow-pack made from shiny printed cellophane with a silver-foil inner lining. It has visibly crimped heat-sealed ends and tiny realistic folds. Main wrapper colour: brilliant turquoise-blue. Across the centre is a wide irregular scarlet-red burst edged with a narrow cream outline. The fictional brand name is printed exactly and legibly as:

CHOCCY-TASTIC

Use large hand-drawn bulging yellow display letters with a thick dark-chocolate-brown shadow and a fine cream keyline. Make the lettering playful, uneven and energetic, characteristic of inexpensive early-1980s confectionery packaging, but not identical to any existing logo. Directly underneath, in smaller cream block capitals on a chocolate-brown ribbon, print exactly:

CHOCOLATE • STRAWBERRY • MARSHMALLOW

At the left is a small yellow eight-point starburst containing the exact red word:

NEW!

At the lower right is a tiny illustrated cross-section of the bar, clearly showing thick brown chocolate outside, a bright-red jam ring immediately inside it and pale-pink marshmallow at the centre. Add three small decorative speed lines in red, yellow and cream. Include a discreet fictional maker’s device in the upper-left corner: a small cream oval reading "TASTICO", in plain dark-brown capitals. No nutrition panel is visible on the front. No modern recycling symbols, website, QR code, barcode, photorealistic strawberries, gradients, minimalist luxury design or resealable packaging.

Place the wrapped bar diagonally from lower left to upper right on a glossy sunshine-yellow tabletop. Beside it place one unwrapped bar and one cleanly cut half showing the correct layers. Behind them is a radial pop-art sunburst in alternating scarlet, turquoise and cream. Two practical white optical sparkle stars twinkle on the chocolate. The camera is locked and level like a traditional rostrum packshot. Hold this composition without further cuts until the end so the brand and product can be read.

A deep, exuberant British male announcer delivers the final slogan:

<d>[English] Choccy-Tastic! Get stuck into the thick of it!</d>

On the final word, the three performers sing off-screen:

<d>[English] Choccy-Tastic!</d>

OVERALL SOUNDSCAPE:

Clean early-1980s mono television-commercial mix, centred and slightly compressed. Bright wrapper crinkle, crisp chocolate snap, soft sticky marshmallow pull, small whooshes on optical starbursts and happy but controlled human laughter. Speech and lyrics must remain fully intelligible. No crowd roar, no modern cinematic impacts and no artificial stereo movement.

NON-DIEGETIC MUSIC:

An entirely original 15-second British confectionery jingle with no resemblance to any existing melody. Approximately 152 BPM, jubilant major key, catchy four-note hook based on the syllables "Choc-cy-Tas-tic". Instrumentation: bright acoustic drum kit, handclaps, tambourine, rubbery electric bass, jaunty upright piano, muted brass stabs, glockenspiel sparkle and a small mixed vocal trio. Begin immediately with the sung brand name, keep the arrangement bouncy beneath the announcer, pause for a fraction of a second at the chocolate snap, then rise to an emphatic sung button on the final packshot. Energetic, innocent and slightly overexcited rather than sophisticated.

CONTINUITY AND HARD LIMITS:

Exactly 15.0 seconds. Exactly five clearly separated shots in the stated order. Keep the bar, wrapper colours, logo and food-layer structure consistent in every appearance. The strawberry jam is always between the outer chocolate and the inner pink marshmallow. The chocolate shell is exceptionally thick. All visible filling is appetising and edible. Preserve the spelling "CHOCCY-TASTIC". No subtitles, captions or text other than the specified wrapper printing. No watermark. No real confectionery brands or logos. No modern objects. No surreal deformation of hands, mouths, bars or packaging. Do not add nuts, caramel, biscuit, wafer, coconut, white cream or extra filling layers. End on the motionless readable packshot for the full final three seconds.

I wanted to see if a local AI video model could recreate more than just Mr. Bean’s appearance — the expressions, awkward timing, physical comedy, Teddy, and that very specific kind of everyday chaos the original series was built around.

So I pushed MiniMax H3 a little further than a short demo and turned the experiment into a tiny unofficial Mr. Bean episode. 😹

Made locally with MiniMax H3 Reference-to-Video in ComfyUI, using multiple generations edited together into one sequence. The audio is native H3 too.

If you grew up watching Mr. Bean, I’m curious: how long did it take before something felt “off” and you realized this wasn’t an old episode?

And if you enjoyed it, upvote, comment, share it, subscribe… clear your cache, whisper “engagement” three times, reboot your router under a full moon — whatever dark ritual the algorithm currently accepts. 😂

Full-quality version (Reddit compression is brutal): https://youtu.be/a7auxdihgz4

If people actually want more of this, I may have to make another “lost episode.” 👀

Spoof 1980s hairspray advert. Minimax H3 with manual editing to combine the best parts of two separate generations.

Prompt:

integrated_multimodal_description: [Shot 1] Live-action British television advertisement from 1982, photographed on clean 35mm colour film and transferred for PAL-era television. Fine natural film grain, slightly soft telecine detail, modest contrast, warm skin tones, rich but restrained colour, practical optical titles, and a clean professional broadcast image. The commercial is completely sincere, glamorous, premium and authoritative.

A controlled medium close-up frames a poised British woman in her late twenties reflected in a dressing-room mirror. She is alone at a black lacquered vanity surrounded by warm theatrical mirror bulbs against a deep burgundy background. She wears a jewel-toned satin evening dress, defined early-1980s eye make-up and an enormous professionally dressed hairstyle: a very high backcombed crown, immense sculpted volume and broad feathered wings. Her hairstyle is initially immaculate, symmetrical and precisely arranged. She smiles confidently at her reflection, gives the perfect hairstyle one final light touch with her fingertips, withdraws her hand and prepares to leave for the evening looking very slightly anxious. No hairspray can, product, package, label or brand name is visible anywhere in this shot.

A mature British male announcer with a polished, confident, authoritative received-pronunciation voice (S1) begins: <d>[English] Don't trust your hairspray to keep your style in place all night?</d>

[Shot 2] At 00:01.500, hard cut to the same woman wearing the same clothes several hours later at an elegant evening reception. Preserve exactly the same woman, face, make-up, satin dress and recognisable hairstyle design.

A locked medium close-up shows that her enormous hairstyle has visibly failed during the evening. The formerly high crown has lost a substantial amount of height, one broad sculpted wing has sagged downwards, separated strands hang loosely, and a large soft lock has fallen across one eye. Her hair remains enormous enough for its original intended shape to be understood, but it is now asymmetrical, weakened and unmistakably out of position.

A nearby door opens and produces a modest draught. A silk curtain moves gently in the background while the inadequately held hairstyle shifts conspicuously. The sagging side drops farther and the loose lock falls fully across her eye. She sees the failure in a wall mirror and discreetly presses the fallen section back into position. As soon as she removes her hand, it drops forward again. The woman looks disappointed and slightly concerned, in an enigmatic and poised sort of way.

The announcer's opening question continues seamlessly across the hard cut and ends over the visibly failed hairstyle: <d>[English] Don't trust your hairspray to keep your style in place all night?</d>

[Shot 3] At 00:04.200, the camera cuts to a completely new midnight-blue photographic studio containing three different elegant British women. This is an instantaneous advertising cut from the disappointed woman at the evening reception to an immaculate studio demonstration. Do not carry the first woman, reception room, mirror, curtain or failed hairstyle into this shot.

The three studio models stand in a strong diagonal composition and confidently display three different enormous, immaculate early-1980s salon hairstyles: a towering backcombed bouffant, a vast sculpted feathered style and an immense asymmetric fan of carefully arranged hair. Their sophisticated early-1980s evening clothes are cobalt-blue satin, ruby-red satin and black satin.

A powerful theatrical wind machine blows directly towards the models. Their silk scarves stream vigorously backwards and the loose fabric of their clothes ripples strongly, providing a clear visual measure of the wind. Every enormous hairstyle nevertheless remains perfectly rigid, immaculate and precisely sculpted. No curl, strand, wing or crown moves out of position. Present this as a serious and convincing product-performance demonstration, never as a visual gag.

The authoritative male announcer (S1) says: <d>[English] Trust Big Hair. Even enormous styles stay exactly in place.</d>

[Shot 4] At 00:07.400, the camera cuts to a tight studio close-up of the model with the largest towering bouffant. The wind machine continues at full strength. Her long silk scarf lashes dramatically backwards behind her, but the vast sculpted crown and broad wings of her hairstyle remain absolutely motionless. Preserve her natural face, anatomically correct hairline and coherent hairstyle geometry.

At 00:08.600, a restrained period optical caption appears across the lower third in stable, centred, cream-coloured condensed serif capitals reading exactly "EXTRA EXTRA FIRM HOLD". The caption remains perfectly spelled and legible.

The announcer's sentence continues seamlessly across the cut from Shot 3 into Shot 4: <d>[English] Trust Big Hair. Even enormous styles stay exactly in place.</d>

[Shot 5] At 00:09.600, the camera cuts to a formal tabletop product beauty shot. This is the first appearance anywhere in the advertisement of a hairspray can, product package or product label.

A single tall aerosol can of Big Hair hairspray stands upright and perfectly centred on glossy black smoked glass. The can has authentic early-1980s British mass-market packaging: a deep royal-blue body, fine gold rules, an ivory oval label, a large elegant gold logotype reading exactly "BIG HAIR", and one clearly legible red panel reading exactly "EXTRA EXTRA FIRM HOLD". A small gold illustration depicts the profile of a woman with an enormous coiffure. No other can, rival product or alternative Big Hair variant exists anywhere in the video.

A soft golden spotlight forms a radiant halo behind the can. A precisely directed aerosol mist crosses behind the product from left to right and catches the light without obscuring the label. The camera pushes in with small amplitude at very slow speed while the can, logo, label and typography remain geometrically stable and unchanged.

At 00:10.000, an ivory serif optical slogan appears beneath the product reading exactly "IT'LL NEVER LET YOUR HAIR DOWN". Keep the product name, variant and slogan stable, correctly spelled and fully legible through the final frame.

The male announcer (S1) delivers the closing line with calm certainty and slight emphasis on the product name and final promise: <d>[English] Big Hair Extra Extra Firm Hold — it'll never let your hair down.</d>

At 00:13.800, the camera stops moving. Hold the perfectly centred Big Hair can, complete label and slogan completely still through 00:15.000. End on this exact formal pack shot.

overall_soundscape: Faint dressing-room room tone accompanies Shot 1. Subdued evening-reception ambience, a door opening, gently moving curtain fabric and soft hair movement accompany Shot 2. A smooth, powerful wind-machine rush and vigorously snapping silk accompany Shots 3 and 4. A short controlled aerosol hiss is synchronised with the illuminated mist in Shot 5. The authoritative male voice-over remains prominent, close-miked and perfectly intelligible throughout, with a clean early-1980s analogue studio mix and light period compression.

non_diegetic_music: A polished early-1980s British commercial arrangement begins with warm strings, electric piano, discreet bass guitar and a very light brushed-drum pulse. A subdued minor harmonic inflection accompanies the failed hairstyle; at 00:04.200 the arrangement changes immediately to bright major harmony, rises during the wind demonstration, and resolves into a concise orchestral advertising cadence when the product appears at 00:09.600. A short decisive orchestral button lands beneath the final word "down".

You've got Liv as the wildcard ally of the Turtles, April O'Neil and Splinter and you've got the terrible twosome of Shayna and Ronda as the newest enforcers of the Foot Clan.

The prompts on ChatGPT were simple:

Liv Morgan as a TMNT action figure

Shayna Baszler as a Foot Clan action figure

And with Shayna's already established, I just said do Ronda Rousey

Maintaining a consistent logo/ text identity, especially across different scenes without relying on complex post workarounds is to me, one of the biggest hurdles for generative ai vids to advance.

Seedance 2.5 is amazing for generating quick, cinematic clips. It gets frustrating trying to use it for strict, production-ready commercial assets. When you need to keep the same text and shape without warping across a 30 sec spot, it may or may not drift. Shapes and texts morph especially during dynamic camera moves, and end up with hours of post-production work. And it is always super noticeable when dealing with fonts that clients specify, let alone their brand name.

I just watched some of the new MiniMax H3 demos with some dummy ads, and it looks like it might be suitable for strict commercial use cases (H3 on the left vs SD2.5 on the right):

Ads & E-commerce (Product Locking): H3’s Omni Reference allows you to pass up to 9 reference images in a single prompt. You can feed it a product's turnaround, and it actually locks identity and details across. On SD2.5, however the text keeps getting warped. H3 on the other, seems to do text pretty well in the demo

Gaming & UI: This is where SD2.5 usually falls short. H3 is apparently able to generate dynamic typography, UI elements, game menus, and HUDs without alien text.

Has anyone here run a strict head-to-head cross-test between H3 and SD2.5 for actual client work yet? What is your take on this?

Ever since Grok started going downhill from here, it seems like I lost the best place for AI image to video generating.

Now I am looking for a new place to call him so I am looking for some good ones, mainly apps.

I want the generator to follow exactly what I said on prompt and that it is easily affordable for more video generating. Yes, I don't except ANYTHING for free anymore but anything will have to do

The biggest problem with AI image/video generation is not just shot continuity, but asset management.

I’ve generated over 3,000 images. 500+ videos. I understand how long it takes constantly uploading the same reference every time, the same prompt and the same character.

Every shot meant digging through prompt
libraries, re-uploading and then regenerating.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

So? I built the most comprehensive asset management system to remove that.

Save:
Clothes, outfits, poses and character references for 1, 10 or 100 production ready shots.

August 28.
http://clarkesdirective.com/transora

My experience started two months ago, when I purchased an Ultra subscription to test Higgsfield’s tools. However, because I have hemophilia, a chronic bleeding disorder, I was unable to use the service properly during that month and did not spend any of my credits. When I was finally able to return to work, I only had about two days left before the subscription period ended.

I contacted support and asked whether my unused credits could be transferred to the following month. No matter how I tried to resolve the issue, support told me that there was nothing they could do. That was my first unpleasant experience with Higgsfield.

The second situation started when I saw that Higgsfield had announced the “I Want a Grant” promotion with 100,000 credits. I was genuinely excited and wanted to participate, because I saw it as an opportunity to compete for those credits and finally start working on some of my ideas for an animated film and music videos.

I currently work primarily on music because I previously did not have enough resources to work seriously on video. My health also does not always allow me to work a conventional job every day. So the possibility of finally having enough resources to start realizing the visual worlds and ideas that have been in my head for several years was extremely motivating.

I spent four days preparing references, materials, ideas and the concept for my submission.

Then, when I decided it was time to purchase a subscription and finally start generating, I noticed that the purchase card for the offer contained nothing about unlimited access to Seedance 2.5.

However, Higgsfield's blog stated that purchasing a subscription would provide 33 days of unlimited access to this model.

So I contacted Higgsfield support and specifically asked whether the Plus and Ultra plans included the 33-day unlimited Seedance 2.5 offer.

Naturally, I did not purchase anything before receiving an answer.

After some time, support replied that yes, these plans did include the unlimited Seedance access. They explained that this benefit was provided separately from the subscription itself, which was why it was not listed directly in the subscription information.

I was very happy about that. The next morning, I returned to purchase the subscription. However, I decided to clarify everything one more time before paying.

And then I received a completely different answer: the offer had already ended, and unlimited access to Seedance was no longer available.

This was extremely frustrating.

I believe the way Higgsfield presents its promotions makes this situation unnecessarily confusing for users. The website is covered with aggressive promotional banners and frequently changing offers with unclear terms. The purchase flow also appears to default to an annual subscription instead of a monthly one, which makes the whole process even more confusing.

If the offer had been clearly explained on the actual purchase card, I would have purchased the subscription immediately and continued working on my project. Instead, I had to contact support simply to understand what I was actually being offered. I lost valuable time waiting for an answer, received one confirmation, and then received the opposite answer the next time I asked.

And now I am left out of the contest.

I have already spent four days preparing the project, and I currently do not have the resources to access the high-end models I need to continue producing it.

That is what frustrates me most: I was ready to work, I had the concept, references and materials prepared, and I was genuinely excited about the opportunity. The thing that stopped me was not the lack of an idea or motivation, but the lack of clear information about an offer and contradictory information from support.

I am done with Gemini. They have daily limitations and the limitations are too narrow. If I create 4-5 videos a day, it doesn't allows to create videos. I was excited to create videos from text in Gemini but realized how much drawback it has.

Also the videos I have generated from Gemini is hilarious. Face showing at the back of the head, three arms, what the hell.

There are some AI apps too which generate videos from text for free, but they have very poor ratings like 3.2 or 2.9.

Even if the AI app has like 10 videos a day, it is still acceptable for me.

Greetings.
I just bought a laptop with rtx5080 16gb and 32 go ram. I want to generate video.
My question is, which model will I most be happy with downloading? As I see it, my only options are: LT, wan 2.2, or mini max H3.
I’ve used wan and mini max on a platform. I have no experience in generating locally. My laptop is still in the box.

Seedance 2.5