Digital Revolution Short Film Competition - the shortlist announced
Post categories: announcements
| 17:30 UK time, Friday, 8 January 2010
The Digital Revolution short film competition has closed for entries and we have spent some fantastic hours watching and short-listing the entries to present to the judges next week to deliberate and find two winners.
We have to extend a huge thank you to all those creative and skilled individuals who put forward their films for the competition. We provided the rushes, but you have all provided a tremendous amount of effort and imagination to create a superb collection of films to genuinely enjoy viewing.
The shortlist of people whose film entries are going forward to the final judging stage are as follows:
Dimitra Nikitaki - Young People and Social Media
Alexander Urazov - Digital Revolution Trailer
Richard Adamson - Press Play To Start
Tom Dixon - Trailer for Digital Revolution
Naomi Desautels - The Internet: How It Is Planning To Overthrow The World And Kill Us All
Tamsin Comrie - Internet as Religion
Alex Hudd - The Digital Revolution
Matthew Keats - Future Web
Paul Wright - 01010010011001010111011001101111011011000111010101110100011010010110111101101110
Paul Carpenter - Digital Revolution Trailer
Steve Dean - Trapped in a Web
Tero Hiltunen - Craving Communication
Edward Sludden - Digital De-evolution
Mayowa Ojo - Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú The Web Promo
The shortlist will be taken to a judging panel consisting of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Factual Executive Producers Nick Mirsky and Dominic Crossley-Holland, and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Factual Multiplatform Executive Producer Julian Phillips, who will assess each film based on the judging criteria.
Winners will be contacted on 12 or 13 January 2010. If a selected entrant cannot be contacted after reasonable attempts have been made to do so, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú reserves the right to offer the prize to the next best entry.
Update
Our competition winners have now been contacted. If you were shortlisted and haven't heard from us, unfortunately you are not one of the winners. However, thanks for entering the competition, and do watch this space - all the shortlisted films and trailers will be published on the blog in due course.
We have to extend a huge thank you to all those creative and skilled individuals who put forward their films for the competition. We provided the rushes, but you have all provided a tremendous amount of effort and imagination to create a superb collection of films to genuinely enjoy viewing.
The shortlist of people whose film entries are going forward to the final judging stage are as follows:
Dimitra Nikitaki - Young People and Social Media
Alexander Urazov - Digital Revolution Trailer
Richard Adamson - Press Play To Start
Tom Dixon - Trailer for Digital Revolution
Naomi Desautels - The Internet: How It Is Planning To Overthrow The World And Kill Us All
Tamsin Comrie - Internet as Religion
Alex Hudd - The Digital Revolution
Matthew Keats - Future Web
Paul Wright - 01010010011001010111011001101111011011000111010101110100011010010110111101101110
Paul Carpenter - Digital Revolution Trailer
Steve Dean - Trapped in a Web
Tero Hiltunen - Craving Communication
Edward Sludden - Digital De-evolution
Mayowa Ojo - Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú The Web Promo
The shortlist will be taken to a judging panel consisting of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Factual Executive Producers Nick Mirsky and Dominic Crossley-Holland, and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Factual Multiplatform Executive Producer Julian Phillips, who will assess each film based on the judging criteria.
Winners will be contacted on 12 or 13 January 2010. If a selected entrant cannot be contacted after reasonable attempts have been made to do so, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú reserves the right to offer the prize to the next best entry.
Update
Our competition winners have now been contacted. If you were shortlisted and haven't heard from us, unfortunately you are not one of the winners. However, thanks for entering the competition, and do watch this space - all the shortlisted films and trailers will be published on the blog in due course.
Comment number 1.
At 18th Jan 2010, U14179821 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 22nd Jan 2010, luoluo wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 22nd Jan 2010, luoluo wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 25th Jan 2010, alex wrote:So who is the winner???
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 25th Jan 2010, alex wrote:I wonder how many people took part in competition?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 31st Jan 2010, Philip wrote:Saw the first episode and it was great.
Remembered me a bit of 1996 documentary " Triumph of the Nerds " which was a really good series by Bob Cringely!
Looking forward to the other episodes and hope Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú shop will sell these as a DVD
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 31st Jan 2010, Ken Johnson wrote:I've been trying to find a place to post this comment on Episode 1 and this is the only place I can find.
I'm disappointed by your coverage of file sharing. Firstly, file sharing and breach of copyright are not crimes. They are not "theft" as you claimed. That is pure, untrue propaganda by the "music" industry. Breach of copyright is a tort, a purely civil matter. It is illegal, but it isn't a crime.
The analogy, which you broadcast uncritically, between copying a file and forcing a plumber to work for nothing is nonsense. A better analogy is this. Suppose you had a machine which could make an exact copy of any object at all, for nothing. Suppose there were people who wanted some food and you had the machine and you also had a loaf of bread. Why would it be wrong to use the machine to make some free bread? Is it unethical to use the machine under any circumstance at all? (I owe this argument to Richard Stallman.)
The recent success of RATM in getting to the "Christmas Number One Slot" with a download-only recording proves that the music industry can find a business model which will succeed even though free file copying is common. Indeed, several such business models are apparent already. The "music industry" is a classic legacy industry which believes that technology should be put on ice so that they can make a nice profit.
Ken Johnson
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 31st Jan 2010, Chris Smith wrote:It's interesting to see that this programme perpetuates the cult of personality so prevalent in the Unix & Open Source world. And yet the presenter used the term Cyberspace without acknowledging that this was a term coined by William Gibson in one of his many books. Also I find it amusing that they trot out Bill Gates who famously once said that the Internet, let alone the Web, would come to nothing! All the same it was interesting and I look forward to the rest of the series.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 1st Feb 2010, Robin Rowlands wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 1st Feb 2010, Michael wrote:I really enjoyed the show on Saturday, esp when banging on about it on Twitter @ the same time. The philosophical debate about the Internet, open or closed etc (libertarianism etc) was a different perspective - I just went with the flow TBH. Am pleased its part of a series designed not only as a standalone program but with an apparent larger remit - it talks to me not at me. And I can respond which is always nice :)
A bit off topic but I love the fact that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is getting more and more involved in online and don't feel it should be interfered with. The Internet is increasingly becoming a home for modern broadcasting, its only when you narrowly define broadcasting (which I guess MPs would prefer to do to make legislating a bit simpler for them). In all honesty the broadcasting of the World Service has had great benefits for the entire world and continuing down this path with digital media seems, to me, a logical step.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 1st Feb 2010, Dan Biddle wrote:Hi there,
Many thanks for your comments - I realise we should have put up a blog post specifically for the episode to provide a better place for them; I've rectified that with a new post. Please make any further comments on the blog post for episode one.
Without wanting to then perpetuate this unideal location for comments, I still thought I'd address a couple of your points above.
@Ken Johnson - I'm going to ask one of the production about your points raised about the programme to see if they can comment. In the meantime though, I will say that personally I agree that Lars Ulrich's plumber analogy is flawed (which I think others will see), however, I don't think your analogy returns a perfect logic either. Your (Richard Stallman's?) 'free resource' machine is entirely imaginary (and can we agree will always be so?), and bread saving a starving life is hardly the same as an album of music - to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever died because they couldn't afford a Metallica album. The hypothetical machine turns everything on its head: everything becomes free after its first instance if we're so inclined and the world economy is exploded. That, or someone controls the free replication resource and the allocation of free things to some but not others; or does everyone get a device to make free things? What does the world's population do then if manufacture is effortless and free?
If the hypothetical device changes everything in the system, can it be used to make sense of a situation within a system it could not exist in? The internet may change many things but it will never create bread (or any matter) from nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I think your comment hits upon one of the most exciting and disruptive aspects of the internet, but (as will be considered in future episodes of our series), this 'freeconomy' championed by some is seriously challenged by others - and not just rock stars (who I assume pay their plumbers royalties whenever they run a bath...)
@Chris Smith the presenter used the term Cyberspace without acknowledging that this was a term coined by William Gibson in one of his many books'
I'm currently carrying a copy of Neuromancer in my travelbag for train journeys - wonderful stuff.
We had a lot to get into one episode and couldn't get too molecular with all things; someone on Twitter wished we'd explained what URL stood for... You both may have a point, but we couldn't dedicate too much of the series defining and attributing every piece of terminology in use.
Re competition entries. We will put up a blog post with the winners and runners up asap.
Many thanks,
Dan
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)