Aardman Animations Releasing New Animations Online

michael writes "Apparently, Aardman Animations, who made the Oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit films will be releasing their latest work over the Web rather than through cinemas or television. They also mention that the company 'will encourage viewers to distribute the animated films by e-mail.' " It'll be using the new character, Angry Kid, who will /not/ be at all like Wallace and Gromit. May 7 is the first release date.

Comments

Not through email, pwweeetty puuweeez

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely *hate* it when people forward me stuff through email that isn't text. Even html emails Tick Me Off Royally. All it takes is a link to where i can d/l whatever it is someone wants me to see. Then I can choose to view it when I have spare time. it Sucks Goat Horns having to wait 10 minutes to d/l some lame video or game or shockwave crapola through email instead of reading my email.

/*end rant*/

Re:Not through email, pwweeetty puuweeez

[SkullOne]

I know how you feel, people used to forward me stupid movies like a monkey drinking its own urine. While I find that sort of stuff funny as hell, it couldnt have come at a worse time, I was in the school library, and a teacher caught me wtaching it. You can imagine what a teacher would think about a kid who has movies of monkeys drinking urine. Needless to say, Im not welcome at that school anymore :)

Systems Administrator
Servu Networks
http://www.servuhome.net

The web gets uglier with each passing day...

[pb]

Yes, this is slashdot, where the trolls get more rabid and the moderators get more irrational, but remember, folks, it isn't just you: the whole WWW gets uglier with each passing day.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the creators of all cool-looking animated movie files for their work, because I'd rather be watching their movies than reading their HTML.

What inspired me, in my baseless ranting? I'm glad you asked! Not only does the story linked from slashdot look horrible, but so does its HTML--it's really broken. The HTML tag is commented out, the ads are in JavaScript, so not only are they annoying, but they output broken HTML if Java/JavaScript is not turned on; the commenting looks like some of the joking in the polls (this is the TITLE tag...), and the background and page layout doesn't scale at all.

Beyond that, their Terms & Conditions are also a travesty. First, the whole thing is invalid because condition #1 is false!

(I have no User Account with them, and I wish I didn't have to have one for *EVERY* frickin' web site I ever visit. That isn't the answer. A universal ID isn't, either, but I'm sure we could use some sort of common challenge/response method, at least...)

Let's hope our friends at Slashdot don't have an account, because you're not allowed to link below the main page of their site without express written permission from the webmaster. Oh, and you can only display the page on the screen or on paper, so you'd better delete that netscape cache...

You also need their express written permission to use the trademarks "The Times" and "The Sunday Times". So can I say "My grandfather likes to read The Sunday Times"? Can I write it? Sue me already, I'd love to see it.

Oh, and my favorite: we reserve the right to add or change this agreement, so if you do something we don't like, we can change that contract you agreed to, and sue you under the new one. Yeah, that's fair.

Summary: Screw corporations. Take back the web. If you need to have a DISCLAIMER on a web page, feel a need to sue your client base, or don't want to learn how to write HTML correctly, leave. If you'd rather make pretty pictures and movies, and let everyone see them, stay.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Re:The web gets uglier with each passing day...

[at-b]

No offense, friend, but your reply was both hasty and misguided.

Yes, the HTML on The Times' website is fairly pathetic. Yes, it doesn't scale well. No, the 95% of web users who will ever look at it don't give a crap, and so it doesn't affect the webmasters who respond to customer needs, rather than complaints at Slashdot. Your ranting would've found a better place as a friendly email to the Webmasters. It probably would've been ignored, but then that's life if you try to be one of The Good Guys.

But now, on to the real issue.

the whole WWW gets uglier with each passing day

No shit. We're posting this on SLASHDOT, remember? The site that makes the HTML Validator choke and throw up dozens and dozens of errors in disgust. We're supposed to be the guys who fight for good code, open source, and the One True Way of Life, but what have WE, as a group, done to improve the Slashcode to be HTML4 compliant?

..because I'd rather be watching their movies than reading their HTML.

..or don't want to learn how to write HTML correctly, leave. If you'd rather make pretty pictures and movies, and let everyone see them, stay.


Did I miss something? The FIRST link is to Aaardman Studios, the makers of Wallace and Gromit, and the announced new films. What you are in fact ranting about is the website of The Times, one of Britains Conservative and corporate-owned broadsheet papers. Their terms and conditions are two years old as well, by the way. So please check what you're bitching about first, and then mention two completely unrelated companies in the same breath. Thanks.


Let's hope our friends at Slashdot don't have an account, because you're not allowed to link below the main page of their site without express written permission from the webmaster.


Oh, come on now. The rules and conditions were written in 1998, and even though the site resides in the UK, we know all about deep linking and its now established legality in the US. After all, the Slashdot servers reside in the US, so all complaints would be moot.


You also need their express written permission to use the trademarks "The Times" and "The Sunday Times". So can I say "My grandfather likes to read The Sunday Times"? Can I write it? Sue me already, I'd love to see it.


I assume you really enjoy exaggerating completely obvious points. 'The Times' and 'The Sunday Times' are registered trademarks. Which means they have to DEFEND them, otherwise their trademarks are lost. What this means, in detail, is that you're not allowed to use their trademarks for your own profit, or in a libellous or slanderous context, which is what the limitations to Free Speech(tm) in the US are.

So yes, you can go on about your Grandpa and The Sunday Times, but no, you can't create a newspaper, call it The Sunday Times, and sell it, or use the trademarked item to promote goods of your own. Is that so hard to understand?


Oh, and my favorite: we reserve the right to add or change this agreement, so if you do something we don't like, we can change that contract you agreed to, and sue you under the new one. Yeah, that's fair.


Duh, yes, it is. Terms and Conditions the world over include this clause. It doesn't mean that they're allowed to sue you for something you did BEFORE they changed the conditions. Re-read them. What they're doing is to protect themselves from having people exploit possible loopholes in the the rules. It's a normal clause, and that's it. All it means is that they reserve the right to fix any problems and patch rules loopholes, without the miscreant being able to complain 'since he used to do that when the rules were different so he should be able to continue doing that since the rules said - way back then - that it was legal. Ok?

Now, come on. I know you've got a lot of karma lately, but isn't this pretty much just pointless flaming? It doesn't help anyone to vent in this forum, all we're getting are just extended flamewars about bad HTML, etc, that lead nowhere. It's really a better idea to complain straight to their webmasters if you have any issue with the way their website works.

And finally - if you really need to bitch, you can find a great target in the owners of The Times, News Corp. Also owners of 20th Century Fox, Fox TV (aka Crappy TV 90210), innumerable TV and news publications, and a global media giant who's been cozying up with mainland china, has allowed their TV to be censored, and has had their chairman, Rupert 'Mogul' Murdoch openly criticise western media response to the Tiannanmen Massacre, so the Chinese dictatorship would allow his dubious media enterprise to operate in China.

See, now you have a much better target than crappy HTML :-)

Alex T-B

Re:Please, oh please...

[rodbegbie]

Atomfilms usually allow you to choose between Real or Windows Media. You can view existing Aardman stuff there now at http://aardman.atomfilms.com.

rOD.

--

Aardman Animations Already Online

[wenzi]

Aardman Animations i already releasing films over the web. angrykid.com is not the first thing on the web, just the latest.

They were already sold on the web BEFORE angrykid.

MPAA

[Signal 11]

I represent the MPAA/AOL/Time-Warner/US Government/Sun/Echelon super-mega-international conglomerate, and I am hereby suing you. By giving away your work, you are encouraging other people to do the same, and hurting the consumer (actually, our profit margin, but that's our story and we're sticking to it!). We'll have nothing of it, and effective immediately we're filing lawsuits in 32 states, 3 canadian providences, and a few other countries. The President in a high-level summit assured us Congress will pass legislation making it illegal to distribute legal video and the UN has called a special convention to discuss the use of tactical nukes on the deviant artists. We'll have no deviant artistic talent in this country!

By reading this post, you consent to be bound by it's terms. TERMS: You must moderate this +1 if reading on slashdot, or reply saying something posititive if viewing on another medium or do not have moderator points. You further agree with the poster in all respects and will not visit the site, or download any video not MPAA Approved. Failure to do so will result in your monitor exploding and your speakers melting (thanks intel!).

Your compliance is appreciated,

~ The MPAA

Aardman characters

[angst_ridden_hipster]

It'll be using the new character, Angry Kid, who will /not/ be at all like Wallace and Gromit. May 7 is the first release date.

Actually, Aardman has a whole history of great characters from before Wallace & Grommit. They did a series of claymation lip-synch portraits of people telling their stories or of office scenes, including an incredible one of this rough kid who'd just been released from jail ("Going Equipped," from 1985). There was also the one of the social security office ("Down and Out," 1977) which was an early one but really incredible.

Their homepage http://www.aardman.com has details on these and many other great shorts. Well worth the visit!

Distribute movies by email?????

[Manaz]

IMHO, this is a *bad* thing to encourage users to do.

Email was never intended to be used for file transfers, and is poorly suited to this task. Message attachments, or the ability to make attachments, is a hack of the system - if you've ever read an email without decoding the "attachment" all you see is a rather large amount of seemingly meaningless text.

It's also important to note that the majority of people connected to the Internet are still connected with analogue modems - and to download even a 2MB file can cause timeouts on a 56k (or 33.6k) line.

I cannot recount the number of times I had to clear a "blocked" mailbox in my 5-odd years of working in the ISP industry, mainly due to the presense of a message with a large (2MB or above) attachment.

Re:ok, if not email... what?

[znark]

Plenty of people are complaining about people distributing this kind of stuff via email. I agree, it sucks. but what is a better grassroots, universally accessible kind of way to share?

Defining a way to send the e-mail attachments as pure 8-bit data (instead of fluffy encoded garbage that inflates the data size by one third for nothing) would be a good start...

Web has the problem that 1) not everyone has/can use a web page and 2) servers get overloaded (like when they get /.ed).

As if the overloading problem wouldn't be bigger with large e-mail attachments...

--znark

Not like this!

[ScottMaxwell]

For the love of [insert deity name(s) here], please do not encourage people to redistribute these films by email -- do not encourage people to redistribute anything by email, especially large binaries. Am I the only one who expects to get about 500 copies of the damn things at 5MB apiece? This is what mirror sites are for.

Next thing you know, they'll release an animation of Craig Shergold taking a date rape drug and waking up in a bathtub full of ice -- MISSING A KIDNEY -- and comforting himself with cookies made from his $250 Nieman Marcus recipe while he sends a message to the FCC protesting their impending modem tax ....

--

This is what we need

[fluxrad]

This is the kind of stuff I like to see on the net. While it's ridiculous to speculate that commercialism is dead, or even struggling. I believe distribution of films/shows on the internet is a viable means of entertainment. The quality is there - and it's DEFINITELY worth what you pay for it. I only wish we could see more of this - with shows that are already mainstream, such as south park, or anythin on the cartoon network. It's allready out there, but when corps like Comedy Central get wind of it...they throw a veritable shit-fit. Why? It actually raises interest in the product.

on a side note, one solution could be a marriage between capitialism and 'net' distribution, to course to leave commercials in. We're constantly arguing about no one does anything for free. Well - why is network telivision free? Because of commercials. I for one am willing to deal with a few minutes of advertising on my Mpeg in order to obtain freely distributable media that i actually WANT to see, and can see whenver i want to boot.


FluX

Not without my handbag!

[Anomalous Canard]

As much as I like Wallace and Gromit, Nick Park has dome some /very/ different kinds of stuff. Lok for the video Creature Comforts. Highly recommended.

I just hope that the video is *not* in Quicktime.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected