silentflute

Author: Amo

  • BBC interviews the wrong guy, but what happened next?

    BBC Interviewed Guy Goma

    BBC Interviewed the wrong guy

    Recently the BBC interviewed Guy Goma, a graduate from the Congo, about the recent Apple vs Apple court case. Except, it was the wrong guy. It was a real mix-up. The real expert, Mr Guy Kewney, editor of Newswireless.net was still waiting in reception when he saw the taxi driver being introduced under his name. Anybody would have been fascinated to see me introduced live on air, as the expert witness in the studio, he wrote on his weblog. Me? Not fascinated; astonished! What would you feel, if, while you were sitting in that rather chilly reception area, you suddenly saw yourself not sitting in reception, but live, on TV? He added that it was especially surprising because the man, who spoke with a French accent, looked nothing like him. I’m not black. I’m not-black on a startling scale; I’m fair-haired, blue-eyed, prominent-nosed, and with the sort of pale skin that makes my dermatologist wince each time I complain about an itchy mole.

    This vicious and vindictive attack was continued on his blog. He criticised both the BBC and Guy Goma for being “black”, and “French”. (note, the guy WAS NOT a cab driver as early reports indicated).

    He’s missed a golden opportunity. This story has been reported all over the IT world for a few days now, bringing more traffic to his site than anything he could ever write normally would. However he’s chosen to put up a spiteful, bitter, some say racist piece about it when he could have put something stunning or good natured and REALLY propelled himself to being a respected IT name. Mentioning the black/pink thing once in passing, OK … but repeating it 3 or 4 times … sad bigot.

    He even goes so far as to call visitors to his discussion forum “idiots“.

    “I know who is the bigger idiot in all of this, and it’s not the guy the BBC interviewed!” As someone on that discussion forum says, sit the real Kewney on French TV with no notice and ask him in French about the width of the white lines or something just as technical about their motorways … I bet he would be even more stumped.

    One of the biggest complaints of blogging, be it corporate or personal, is that it is inheritantly narcissistic, an exploration of one’s own importance, arrogance or in some cases, self-loathing.

    Jodie Marsh’s online blog is held as the highest example of the worst example of online blogging. Her blog is basically an online form of bullying, which is ironic considering her stance on bullying.

    But it’s not just her. Millions of bloggers try to get attention by being overtly controversial, be it via podcasting, video or traditional typing. Whilst being controversial can draw visitors and comment, I find it morally dubious.

    Using blogging as a church to preach internal, controversional or even blatant racisim for the sake of getting a few comments is pointless and fruitless because you will always try to outdo yourself and probably end up like Richard Littlejohn.

    Kewney’s outlandish, childish, punitive blogging should nail the death bed of his “expert” credentials, and I hope that the BBC never hires this buffoon again. Meanwhile, I really hope that Mr Guy Goma gets the job he wanted… and if not, I’m sure they’ll bring him onto the next episode of Have I got news for you.

    Links:

  • Titanic 2 (yes, I’m joking!)

    I saw this fan-made trailer for Titanic 2… Fortuently, it isn’t real!

  • Was UK Apprentice Series 2 fixed?

    According to The Times, the “produceers of The Apprentice have rejected claims that Wednesdays final was fixed after viewers complained that Michelle Dewberrys moment of triumph was a sham.

    However, viewers were not told that both finalists (Dewberry and Badger respectively) had been working for Sir Alan for six months before the final result was revealed to them. “.

    What really narks me about this is that the finale was pre-recorded well over 6 months ago. Unlike the American version where the finale was done ‘live’, the UK version has opted to do it 6 months before it was due to air.

    Although I don’t think the “moment of triumph” was a sham, I do think the whole situation stinks. Why was both competitors given a job? Why even bother having a contest?

    The problem I had with series two of the UK version of the Apprentice was that it became increasingly derivative – by week 4 I was already bored with Sir Alan Sugar’s overtly aggressive “managerial” style. Sure, I accept it’s been done for entertainment (that’s why Sayed was kept until the end), and sure they need poetic licence, but for me Sir Alan and the Apprentice highlights and encapsulates everything that is wrong with entrepreneurship.

    Alan’s style is stuck in the mid-80’s, when it was all “dog eat dog”. In the Apprentice world, no-one helps you, there is no team, it’s all about me, me, me. Qualities other than sales do not matter. Sir Alan is quite obviously looking for someone he can control, someone who can do the job. This ain’t the army, this ain’t the 30’s, and your workers aren’t soldiers for you to bark, belittle and berate for your own personal amusement.

    “But this is business! — You gotta be hard, tough and roughless” I hear you say.

    If business is about Machiavellian plots and stabbing each other in the back, and doing dodgy deals that a car salesmen would utilise, and if business is about you or indeed if business ain’t about the customer, then entrepreneurship can f–k itself.

    One of the reasons I hate this myth of entrepreneurship is the ideal sold by shows like the UK apprentice where it’s all dodgy deals, where it’s all fake smiles and even faker people. This is where the UK version of the Apprentice is so far behind the American one. The American version has the flavour, sure it still has its Machiavellian plots, but Trump doesn’t belittle you or get easily frustrated just because you couldn’t sell.

    The ideals of entrepreneurship aren’t shown in the Apprentice, rather it’s the ideals of the ideal salesperson, the ideal “team player” (in the Sir Alan Sugar world that could mean anything!)… and the ideal, willing slave.

    But it’s not just me…

    Sir Alan Sugar’s leadership style has been criticised by Professor Graham Jones. He’s worried that other entrepreneurs will copy the millionaire businessman’s abrasive style. He reckons good leaders “encourage and inspire” staff, rather than bullying them. Nearly 19 million working days are lost every year due to bullying, accounting for around 10% of firms annual profits. Professor Jones says Sir Alan’s style should be seen as entertainment, not a master class in leadership for entrepreneurs.

    Applications for Series Three of The Apprentice is starting. The applicants will be asked questions including (I’ve included a SPOOF application, this isn’t me, honest!)

    • Why do you want to work for Sir Alan? (Because I like being talked down to, like I’m a kid that can’t make decisions by myself)
    • Have you ever lied or cheated to get what you want? If yes, when and why?(Sure, doesn’t every Apprentice TV-wannabe pre-madonna do this? Why? Well it won’t be good tele if I didn’t lie now would it?)
    • How do you deal with conflict at work?(By constantly shouting down my peers and blaming them for all failures, thereby allowing Sir Alan the courtesy of firing them. And anyway, who really cares about the team when I can make a SALE)
    • Describe something you would do if you knew you wouldn’t get caught?(Sell second cars to their previous owners, I mean you’re gotta have a challenge on selling, right?!)
    • How do you react when you don’t get what you want?(Shout louder than the previous person, making them burst into tears.)
    • Is there any one business ethic that you would never break?(All of them. Well okay, I lied)
    • Have you been on television before? If yes, please give details(No, much like the ‘much loved’ Chantelle of ‘Celebrity Big Brother’, I intend to fool everyone with my dashing looks and rather lack of brain cells. This will endure me to the newspaper buying public and I will be able to write a 300 page autobiography of my life at the tender age of 22)
    • Have you ever started or run your own business?(Yes. Please contact Del Boy of Trotters Independent Traders (T.I.T.))
    • What was it and what was the outcome?(Last time, last year we became millionaires. Then Del Boy blew the lot, but I can’t remember on what on, nor why. Sadly, old Del Boy is stuck in some French Prison)
    • In what way is money important to you?(In every way I guess)
    • Have you ever been fired?(No. But the kudos I will acquire from Sir Alan Sugar firing my ass will be a noteworthy thing to have on my CV, sorry I mean resume (urgh!))
    • Describe how you intend to make sure that YOU become The Apprentice?(By lying, cheating, defrauding, belittling, shouting down, being forceful and by selling more than everyone. Also, I intend to shoot the other candidates)

    Will I be applying for UK Apprentice 3? Hell no. The UK version of The Apprentice stinks. And it stinks royally!

    Original Article:
    BBC denies triumph of Sir Alan’s apprentice was a sham

  • History according to Hollywood.

    According to Hollywood, the Americans practically won World War II on their own (which is probably true), they retrieved and decoded the German Engima encryption machine before the British, and now it seems that Tom Cruise will be making “The Few”, a film which will, according to the IMDB, be about “…the true-life story of American pilot Billy Fiske, who ignored his country’s neutrality rules in the early days of WWII and flew Hurricanes against the Germans. ”

    I still remember that old “Richard, Not Judy” sketch from the BBC a few years back where Stewart Lee was ripping into Braveheart because it was so historically incorrect.

    I wonder if this film will be about how one sole American turned the tide and won the Battle of Britain himself, rescued Prime Minster Winston Churchill from Hitler’s personal unpenetrable fortress whilst developing the world’s first nuclear bomb and dropping it (and riding it) on the way down towards Berlin singing the Star-Spangled banner?

    Sorry, I really couldn’t come with anything more original, which is kinda ironic considering we are talking about Hollywood here.

    At least it won’t be as bad as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier where it was basically “Kirk vs God – Kirk wins!”

    Ah well.

    Link:
    IMDB site on “The Few”

  • Is Chris Tucker really worth $20m?

    According to themovieblog.com, Chris Tucker is getting “$20 million for the movie PLUS 20% of the box office gross”.

    The thing is, I don’t think he’s worth it. He’ll be paid more than Chan and will probably have his name above Chan’s on all the posters. Is Tucker’s ego really THAT big, or is it just him?

    As one poster correctly points out “$20 million for this ‘name’ who has NEVER opened a movie on his own as *the main draw*. He is either a supporting player (Fifth Element, Friday) or he is in a buddy film (Rush Hour films). What other gilm, **besides the Rush Hour films**, has this guy been in within the last SEVEN years? Name one. Just one. I don’t care what it is just spit it out. You can’t do it; no one can!”

    Tucker isn’t worth $20 million, but seeing as they’ve already splashed the money out on this ego-trip clown, we might as sit back and await the overhyped trailer showing every stunt in the movie so that we don’t have to go watch it!

    Yey!

  • Action movies were better in my day!

    I was watching 80s nostalgia trip Mannequin the other day (dont ask!) and Im convinced after seeing the cheese-fest that when I look at the CGI filled action adventures movies of today, I somehow get the feeling that action movies of my generation were just better.

    Whether it was the stunts, the danger or just the overall fun factor, the movies of today still dont get what action is all about. 10 years ago (1997) Hollywood was just coming to the end of what I call its action cycle.

    Sure, back then it was all die-hard clones. But for some reason I just think those movies were just plain better. The stunts were better done, they didnt rely on CGI and the plots were okay. There was none of that overplayed emotional content that didnt connect with the audience or there just to fill out the time.

    Here are ten great movies that prove why I think action movies of my generation were just better than the ones we have now.

    1) Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) A classic then, a classic now!
    2) Die Hard (1988) Defined action for well over 10 years
    3) Robocop (1988) Verhovens classic still is great, even though its starting to show its age
    4) Total Recall (1990) Perhaps Schwarzeneggers best movie bar Terminator
    5) Scarface (1983) – Yeah, I know… it’s over the top.
    6) Blue Jean Cop (1988) Before there was Die-hard, there was Blue Jean Cop.
    7) Commando (1985) Schwarzenegger hits our screens in an utter cheese fest!
    8) Hard Boiled (1992) Caused the whole two-gun pandemic in action movies that you see in movies such as Equilibrium and Underworld. But it did it far, far better!
    9) The Killer (1989) Some argue this as being better than Hard Boiled. If you are a member of Blockbuster and want real action, Id hire both Hard Boiled and The Killer and watch them over the course of an evening. Just make sure they are the subtitled uncut versions!
    10) Police Story (1985) Sure it might look incredibly ropey for todays standards, but Jackie Chans Police Story totally broke the mould in terms of Hong Kong action movies and most of the action sequences were lifted verbatim by Hollywood, including the Bus stopping scene and the part where Jackie drives a car down and through a shanty town and remains my favorite Jackie Chan movie.

    The Matrix has cool fights and a complex story, but the action just isnt as good as any of the above. The over-reliance of CGI in action movies just makes films unbelievable and in some cases, such as Die Another Day, just plain unbearable.

    Will stunts make a comeback? Will fun make a comeback, or are we all doomed to watch stunts where the hero is in no mortal danger, or threat and does impossible feats, feats that even Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd probably wouldnt do, regardless of their dexterity.

  • Casino Royale Trailer

    The latest James Bond movie, Casino Royale has now got a small teaser trailer, which looks very interesting.

    It would appear that Bond is taking a leaf out of The Bourne Identity, and is downsizing on the CGI, and increasing visual stunts such as the “free-running”.

    It looks like it will be very interesting. But will Royale be the end, or the begining of a new Bond? Only time will tell.
    http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/

  • Mission:Impossible III – Review

    Tom Cruise returns as IMF agent Ethan Hunt in Mission:Impossible III. Billed as this year’s adrenalin-filled action of the summer, the movie doesn’t disappoint either on action, stunts or story-line.

    Directed by JJ Abrams, whose many credits include “Alias” and “Lost”, the film follows Hunts pending marriage to his wife and trying to move on, away from IMF when he is drawn back into the merky world of espionage by bad guy Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

    The movie starts dark and moody and utilises a non-linear storyline and steals (or copies) ideas from other movies such as not revealing what the object that Hunt is trying to retrieve, or using a opening which is much like Pulp Fiction (ie: starting at the end).

    During the movie, MI:III makes light reference of the “langley” mission. Earlier, a lady proclaims that Hunt has no dad or mom – but I remember them! They were in the first movie and were set up as drug dealers or something.. what happened to them? Who knows, it’s never answered! There are a lot of holes in this movie, but not enough to ruin the whole movie. Other things do that…

    The movie then moves to being all about Hunt being the great married man, who is so in love with his wife. The fawning is well done, but was a bit heavy handed. Was this really about Hunt, or was it a call from Cruise directly to his audience (and critics) saying “Hey, I love my wife”, “See how much I love my wife”…

    There was a scene in the movie where vicious bad guy Hoffman asks who Cruise is dating and for a moment, albeit a brief one, I was expecting an exchange such as;

    Cruise: But how do you know I’m not gay?
    Hoffman: Are you?
    Cruise: (Long pause) No

    This didn’t happen — but I was expecting it to, I kinda got the feeling that the producers suddenly brainstormed (probably with himself) “that, hey, you know – Cruise — well, he’s married! Let’s show a movie where he’s constantly fawning over his new wife, overplay the sentimentality and overempthaise just how much Cruise, I mean Hunt, is really in love with his wife!”

    I mean, com’on — we get it! He loves his wife! The movie isn’t about Hoffman, his plot, or the villians, or the team, or (unlike the first part of this trilogy, Hunt) — it’s about his god-damn wife!

    Apart from this “fourth wall” factor, MI:III is impressive. It is a resounding and definite improvement over John Woo’s collection of tired action clichs that made up Mission:Impossible II and is on a par with the first one, with much a much better arsneal of action, stunts and impressively used CGI.

    Hoffman just isn’t in this movie enough for me. What were his motives? Money, power, glory? The main bad guy of the movie is introduced as a “turncoat”, but you can spot him within minutes of seeing him on screen.

    There’s a crucial scene where Hoffman “kills” Hunt’s wife and makes Hunt think he’s won — but what REALLY ruins this whole part is that the turncoat comes into the room and starts blabbing about everything. BUT Hunt never suspected him, Hoffman made Hunt believe he had won — THERE IS NO REASON for the turncoat to be even in the same room, let alone talk to him about how the death of his wife was staged!

    The thing is the whole thing was built up, and built up and then they wrap everything up within 20 minutes. It was really frustrating for me as a viewer because this whole film felt like Cruise was just on cruise control and nothing really happened in the movie, except “Cruise loses wife, Cruise rescues wife. The end”.

    JJ Abrams may be an accomplished director, but the movies are a totally different medium. The movie felt like it was the first part of a trilogy, or maybe Abrams thought he could slap on a “to be continued” and continue it in the next episode… except there can’t be a next episode Abrams!

    Hoffman’s demise was very “slapped-on” for me, and I just didn’t connect with the movie.

    In my opinion the storyline seems to be very thin, coupled with that is a cast of surplus characters with no background or history. This all gives the feeling that you are watching a selection of clips from other plots that really don’t seem to flow.

    Take out all the stunts that we’ve already seen hundreds of times over in the trailers and TV spots and you essentially have a 2 hour episode of Alias.

    My problem with MI:III isn’t that it’s a summer blockbuster, but that it seems so … we’ll unforfilling. Sure, the stunts are great, the action is brilliant and some of the intimate scenes between Hunt and his wife are well done. The thing is they all just didn’t connect.

    Another problem I had with MI:III is that it reeks of a Hollywood-type ending, and you can smell it a mile away. Why can’t Hollywood have the guts to say “let his wife die, this will give him reason to find Hoffman and kill him. Moreso, we’ll make it so that the whole mission is actually impossible because even if he wins, he actually loses”… but instead, we just get the same old Hollywoood action adventure yarn that although good, lacks the sparkle, the edge, the wow factor to make it great.

    Overall: Leave brain at door.
    My Rating: 6/10.
    IMDB: http://imdb.com/title/tt0317919/

  • 28 day Slater

    28 Day Slater

    So, your a child of the early 90s, and most probably; you were most probably a fan of Saved by the Bell. Yes, the one with the kid who kept saying “Zoinks” all the time for no real reason that I can think of.

    I found this video, just by accident, called 28 day Slater, a parody of the AC Slater character. Be sure to check out the sequel to!

    Just another reason why virals work!

    Check it out:
    Youtube: 28 Day Slater Video

  • Drive-by yelling doesn’t make you cool

    Why is it that idiots think they are big, cool, hip when they do a drive-by yelling ego trip at me? Listen up jackass… you’re a jerk!

    I don’t care if you *think* you know me, or that it’s somehow cool or okay to yell, spit or try to shoot ballbearings at me (that did happen once, fortuently the guy was a really bad shot and got pulled over by the cops!)… or try to dump lucozade over me…

    Enough ranting…