I replied to say that it’s just another bloomin’ film franchise (which I still find odd that the public still likes and tolerates it) and “Death to Bond” (I really would like somebody to kill the character and be done with it – perhaps if they still wanted the franchise to continue they could concentrate on Bond’s babies in which Bond’s illegitimate children try to track down their dad).

Moffat’s response:

Get out.

So having grabbed my virtual Twitter coat and scarf, I reflected on what I thought was a valid opinion (I wasn’t saying to him that he was a fool for supporting Bond, merely that I was opining that I thought it was an overused franchise and it’s about time to was put to bed).

The what really irks me about Bond is that he has had some pretty damn nasty adversaries in the past, many of them with superior weaponry. And yet Bond still defeats them. (facepalm)

Shrugs. Moves on.

These people spammed me (through Gmail – but using a different From: address, whose domain was registered with 123-reg.co.uk) and included links to their web sites (hosted by Rackspace US), a link to the Facebook page, and a Vimeo trailer. So all these people now have abuse reports filed – politely asking them to hold the people responsible to the individual company acceptable use policies.

The first thing I’ve noticed is that Facebook’s abuse system is appalling. Dreadful. While they accept abuse@ email, they send you back an auto-reply with links to a help page which has absolutely no bloody relevance to what it is you’re complaining about. Want to complain about a page? Sure – visit the page and click the Report Abuse button – which doesn’t give you any means to tell you WHY you’re reporting that page. Facebook worth $100 billion? I wouldn’t piss on it if it were on fire.

So to these people that spammed me: find some other way of marketing your film.

He suggests the following:

STEP 1: CONTACT Revolver Entertainment, and tell them what you think of their plans to release Iron Sky for just one day to cinemas in UK. Please email to info@revolvergroup.com.

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Attempts to email Revolver end (apart from one email with just one word in the subject and body) result in the awful:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.7.1 Message rejected as spam by Content Filtering. (state 17).

REALLY? Here’s an independent result from a mail server that’s configured to check RBL lists, SPF records and DKIM – in short, it’s a spam checker extraordinaire:

SpamAssassin Score: -0.801
Message is NOT marked as spam
Points breakdown:
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
trust
[209.85.215.47 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author’s
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

So it makes me think that Revolver are doing keyword filtering on all incoming mail. Which is bloody stupid – they publish a list of email addresses on their web site (covered with Iron Sky banners, etc.) – or at least did when I last looked before their web server was returning Internal Server Errors.

If they’re not filtering mail by keywords and it’s because their mail server isn’t coping with everybody asking them to extend the release – the SMTP banner is misleading. They should perhaps look for a better email hosting provider if that’s the case.

STEP 2: LET THEM KNOW what you think also on their Facebook page – www.fb.com/ironskyuk – and on their Twitter feed – @ironskyuk

Their Twitter feed is mere PR – they don’t attempt to engage AT ALL. Who knows if Revolver are even bothering to read anything sent to them.

STEP 3: DEMAND to see Iron Sky in your local film theaters. Go to www.ironsky.net/demand and place your Demand.

Done. But in real terms – what effect is this going to have on Revolver, really?

STEP 4: SPREAD THE WORD and machinate your friends to join the campaign also. Share this link everywhere on the Internet; let’s make sure Revolver hears your voice.

Yep – indeed.

I know it’s expensive to distribute movies to cinemas. I can appreciate the difficulty in film distribution and marketing. But to have made a film (note the word film – emphasised) using high quality kit and for a limited number of people to be able to watch it in the cinema and it not being a bloody film festival is .. stupid.

On the other hand, the filmmakers should now have learnt not to do deals with distribution companies that don’t distribute properly. That’s the job. To distribute. While I have a HD TV, the experience of watching a film as intended is not the same as going down to the local cinema (except no bloody mobile phones being pulled out and tinkered with during the movie, or people nearby offering free commentaries about their life).

As a consequence: if Revolver does not extend distribution of Iron Sky to cinemas – nationally – not necessarily by the time next week comes around, but at least a few weeks or a month later – then I’m not going to watch this film – or any other film that Revolver distributes (which is a shame – I wanted to watch Werner Herzog’s Into the Abyss as his documentary series, which leads up to this film, on Channel 4 about prisoners was excellent). I won’t rent their stuff. I won’t buy their stuff. I won’t (not that I would anyway – remember I used to work in film for 6 years) pirate their stuff.

That said: do you know how much of an impact me boycotting Iron Sky will have on sales figures? To paraphrase a Mr. Prossor from HHGTTG – none at all. Only if others did the same might it have some impact. But one person? Never. At least I won’t have to bother with cinema -> home entertainment windows, etc

Distribute Iron Sky as it was intended, Revolver. And sort out your bloody email problems.

Six years to go before the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Meanwhile my step sister turns 18 – oh, to be 18 again and full of the joys of youth.

So, it’s ahead grump factor 10 for me:

Life: the final frontier. These are the voyages of that old bugger Drake. Its (mumblebitchcomplain) mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly complain about them like no man has gone before.

Soaps? Lest we forget the BBC lost the popular Neighbours to Channel 5.

Gameshows? Oh Gods, I could cry.

Sports? REALLY?

Documentaries and lifestyle programs? There’s a billion other channels that cope with that matter well enough. Also: the Beeb has l

I’m guessing remakes of Charles Dickens novels. Or Mary Norton novels. Or possibly Rupert and James Murdoch’s Variety Hours in which they both laugh at BBC executives for three hours.

Murdoch has won all TV. All Hail the Murdochian Empire. I, for one, do not welcome our new overlords. You may think of Murdoch as a bumbling old fool from that superb TV and radio comedy show, The Leveson Inquiry, but given the current state of the BBC unless YouView and the remainder of terrestrial digital broadcasters can get together to thwart BSkyB – the game is lost.

A Paddy Power spokesman said the company was disappointed with the ASA’s ruling.

Ah, diddums. Deal with it.

He added: “This decision is especially frustrating given that the commercial was pre-approved by British television advertising clearance body Clearcast, who then considered the humour in the advert, while not to everyone’s taste, fell short of causing offence.

Doesn’t mean that Clearcast makes the right decision every time, and I’m interested to know how many people that reviewed the Paddy Power advert were transgendered or at least had some connection to the transgendered community. That said: stop trying to blame others for your mistakes.

“Additionally, we reached out to leading UK transgender group, The Beaumont Society, for feedback on the script.

Oh, COME ON! Scripts and final outcome can vary greatly. At what stages of the did The Beaumont Society see? Final shooting script? Did they see any rough cuts of the advert prior to airing?

“Furthermore, we exclusively cast members of the trans community in the various transgender roles in the commercial.

And they were these people aware they were going to be taking the piss? Be the butt of jokes? How did Paddy Power’s agency approach them for the their roles? I’d be interested to hear what they say on this.

“Finally, it is worth pointing out that the commercial has almost 600,000 views with twice as many ‘likes’ than ‘dislikes.”‘

Oh, that’s OKAY then? Judging whether something is okay solely based on Facebook and other social media ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’. Pathetic.

The Beaumont Society told the ASA that the script it was given did not include the scene in which a woman left a men’s toilet and was referred to as a dog.

There we go – they either didn’t see the final shooting script and/or final cuts of the advert prior to it being aired. Anybody can write a “humorous” script that specifically targets certain sectors of the community, show it to them, and then completely change it before the shoot goes ahead (or during the shoot).

Absolutely bloody useless defence, Paddy Power. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

It also said that it was not happy with the manner in which the terms “stallions” and “mares” were used in the finished advert.

Oh ho!

In short: Paddy Power attempting to backpedal and make up excuses for their poor sighted position. Even more of a reason now to avoid them.

BTW – this sort of thing applies to any and all media agencies (and their clients) that exercise poor judgement. Do the right thing, admit you’re got it completely wrong, apologise profusely and SHUT UP. Don’t even TRY to justify your decisions, you useless pile of donkey droppings.

DON’T MAKE ME PRESS THE OK BUTTON 2,557 TIMES TO GET RID OF THAT MESSAGE

#UI #Usability #DRM #FAIL

I am quite disappointed in our Culture Secretary. I am also disappointed in the BFI, and before that, the UK Film Council. Why are we continuing to pour National Lottery funding into skills and financing British filmmaking when films are – by nature – commercial enterprises designed to make money. I’ve yet to come across any philanthropic investors who have contributed money to filmmakers; have given money out of the goodness of their hearts and not expecting to gain any financial recompense in return (i.e. money back + interest). Unless it’s a charitable film or documentary, of course.

I’d hardly call the likes of UK Film Council-funded/Lottery funded films such as Slumdog Millionaire, The King’s Speech, Harry Brown and their ilk to be charitable films. They are commercial properties that happen to be artistic. As such, why is money from gambling (the National Lottery) being used to fund these enterprises as a consequence?

Why isn’t this government and the BFI working harder to attract private commercial investment instead? Why doesn’t this country do more international co-productions like our European counterparts (especially the French – my goodness, you see so many countries and production companies involved in some of the bigger French and Italian releases that you think why the hell isn’t Britain getting some of that attention?).

Financing movies – partly or entirely – from National Lottery funds is not a good scheme. I want to see British movies made from people who actually believe that we can make good movies without the need of being propped up by the Lottery. I want to see entrepreneurs, the rich, anybody with a bit of spare cash to contribute and trust in both new and established talent. Why are the banks not investing in British filmmaking (or indeed ANY business these days – the banks seemed to have developed cold feet)?

British film and filmmaking isn’t a charity – and nor should it be seen to be. With our grants here and there, it rather makes us look rather poor in comparison to our American counterparts and to Hollywood who seem to finance anything and everything with such ease (are we ready to see Warner Bros. invest another £100 million in another “Titans” movie – just by clicking their fingers?)

I don’t know. I can see why some of our finest filmmakers pledge allegiance to the American movie making machine and will happily take their money. But it really shouldn’t be like that.

Come on rich folk – support our film industry with your cash – and make some money in return.

Now, I used to work for Imagineer Systems that provides Adobe with Mocha. I have NEVER used Mocha myself. I built the OS X build platform (an Xserve running Parallels Server) that was used to build Mocha, but have never actually sat down for any period of time to figure out how it works. Don’t get me wrong – I’m aware of how trackers work – previously to Imagineer I worked at MPC and we used Boujou (and apparently it’s still around) and fell immediately in love with tracking software. I thought (and still do think) that it’s remarkable that software can be used to calculate and track positions in film/video in order to generate 3D camera data. Or to be used to stabilise shots.

So I spent much of Sunday (after trimming the grass and filming a small cute robin that was eagerly awaiting me to finish so he/she could get at the little worms) tinkering with Premiere Pro, After Effects and specifically Mocha AE. I love Mocha and what it can achieve. I’m just gutted that I perhaps did not appreciate this as much at the time of working for Imagineer than I do now.

As for Premiere Pro – hoorah for everything! Proper, proper, proper, proper GPU support is wonderful (previously – and in particular CS4 – it was somewhat meh). Adjustment Layers for FX is wonderful (FX all the clips!). I couldn’t be more delighted with this release. Lots of stuff to learn, but otherwise I’m looking forward to editing like a loon. BTW, Premiere Pro now shares After Effects Warp Stabilizer. It’s not bad – it can still give the impression of being sea sick if the original footage is very, very bad – but otherwise with a bit of tweaking you can achieve quite a nice steadicam effect.