We sit. Twenty or so people hushed in a small, low lit room. We’ve been lured here with promises of entertainment, of prizes, but for now we wait. Someone nervously shifts a few aisles down. Then, like a bolt of lightening, it occurs to me:

The Star Wars universe is one COMPLETELY devoid of OH&S.

This thought is probably inspired by the DVD menu screen projected in front of me showing the cast of Family Guy dressed as the cast of Star Wars and standing on a cartoon rendition of a Bespin landing platform, complete with no handrails. This is why we’re here - the special preview screening of Something, Something, Something, Dark Side, the second installment in the Family Guy remakes Star Wars saga.

I’m serious about the OH&S thing - occupational health and safety is no laughing matter, and under the Republic, the Empire or the New Republic, this is a universe that seemingly yearns for large, governmental bodies. Surely there is someone, somewhere, saying “maybe we should put a railing there, don’t people keep falling off things all the time in this Universe?”

This actually leads me nicely to talking about the film itself. To get an idea of the humour and love of the source material, one need look no further than R2D2, played by Cleveland, rolling through the base on Hoth: “I like how you’ve just nailed these electrical cables to the ice. I’m sure that’s safe.”

If you saw the first Family Guy effort in this series, Blue Harvest, then you really should know what to expect, although over all I think this is actually the superior film, as is, of course, Empire itself (sound off in the comments if you prefer New Hope or Jedi, with reasons. If you like the prequels best don’t comment just return to your cell and wait for the next round of meds…)

Don’t take it from me though, why not watch the trailer?

I will say this: the film is actually funnier than the trailer makes out. I’m serious. I know, I was asked along to the premier which might colour my judgment - I was also at the Sydney premier of Watchmen, and I wasn’t that kind then. When I say Something, Something, Something, Dark Side is a lot of fun it’s because I mean it.

Sure, it’s Family Guy, so you get those long, repetitive jokes occasionally. Yes, some of the jokes weren’t as funny as they obviously thought they were. No, it’s not a masterpiece. What it is though is a really fun take on a beloved film series, and something which breathes new life into Star Wars in many ways. I’ve seen those films so many times that I know them almost by heart - what this, and the Robot Chicken Star Wars specials, do is let me remember how much I love Star Wars while seeing it in a new light.

I did like the FOX representative at the beginning who talked about how FOX is lucky enough to have Family Guy, which reminds me of a father who has twice tried to kill his kids saying he’s so lucky to have them when they grow up to be doctors or lawyers. Family Guy of course picks up on this as well, dedicating a large part of their opening Star Wars crawl to teasing the parent company.

It’s irreverent, hilarious and, at times, just plain wrong - but most importantly, it’s Star Wars. If you like Star Wars, see it. If you like Family Guy, see it. If you like Mint Choc Chip ice cream, go buy yourself some. This is pretty much the extent of my advice on life.

The film drops late this month on DVD and, in what is meant to be a big deal, Blu-Ray (my cries for a Laser Disc edition, however, went unheaded).  I’m unsure as to whether it will be shown on U.S. television, but my gut says that regardless of that it will be awhile before we see it on Aussie TV, if at all. So, if you want to see it, buy it, OR…

Tune into this blog, and my Twitter, later this month where I’ll be giving away two big prize packs including a copy of the film and lots of other goodies!!

I know you have questions: What’s in the prize packs? How do you win these prize packs? Is Warlach wearing pants as he writes this review? Unfortunately, just like the film that Something, Something, Something, Dark Side is based on, I must leave you with more questions than answers…

In Conclusion:

Something, Something, Something, Dark Side is a pretty funny film and one that, if you’re its target audience, is definitely worth the time to see. I’d say don’t bother seeing it if you haven’t seen Star Wars, but I’d also say don’t go sky diving without a parachute - some things shouldn’t need clarification. This isn’t like a new Charlie Kaufman film - there’s no need to pick apart it’s delicate, original plot lines, characterisation or score. If you’re a fan of TV Tropes be assured that this is “Exactly What It Says On The Tin” - for everyone else, just know it’s a fun ride.

I’ve often abandoned this blog except when I want a large rant, like yesterday’s retweet discussion or my look at the VAustralia promotion. If you want my day to day thoughts, there’s my Twitter account after all. That said, I want to make an effort to update this more often and am working on a redesign. (Yes, I know, it’s ugly as sin. So is your mum. Back off)

Today I just want to highlight what continues to annoy the crap out of me: the misconception of what social media is. I’m not taking a high and mighty view, just simply stating a fact. I’m increasingly sick of people thinking it begins with Facebook and Twitter and ends with Flickr and YouTube, if you’re feeling adventurous.

It’s like going to a party. Yes, I can help you set up a Twitter account and company Facebook profile just like I can help you pick out an outfit for the party. The thing is, unless you want to learn more, you risk getting dressed up and then not going anywhere. Just sitting at home, alone, in the dark, wearing a (currently) trendy outfit.

If this is all you want , fine, but you’ll miss all the cake.

We’ve all been there. It’s Christmas day and a relative has told you they got the present you’ve been craving. You rip the paper with your teeth only instead of the latest video game, Bonestorm, you find a copy of Lee Carvallo’s Putting Challenge. Everybody’s watching so you smile awkwardly and say how it’s exactly what you wanted. Worst thing is they think they got it right…

I’ve just finished reading Evan Williams post on “Why Retweet works the way it does” and felt the need to get some ideas down on why I disagree with some points. You should read it – it’s worth it, and a great outliner of Twitter’s reasoning.

(As a disclaimer, I don’t yet have the retweet functionality turned on on my account, but being a Social Media Douchebag, I’ve read countless blogs and tweets about the service. Hell, I’ve watched a video. Of a new feature. On a microblogging site. And now I’m writing about that feature at 3 AM. Someone shoot me now.)

On topic though, and as hinted at by this posts heading, I have some reservations regarding Twitter’s native implementation of the Retweet. I’m going to focus on two main points from Evan’s post.

Redundant redundancy

“Redundancy. If five people you follow retweet the same thing, you get five copies, which can be useful but is a lot of noise. This comes up even more in search. Popular users can get retweeted enough to saturate a search query … because they’re [now] trackable, we can take care of the redundancy problem: You will only get the first copy of something retweeted multiple times by people you follow.” - Evan Williams

I understand Evan’s point on this. I also understand that Twitter, and certainly search results, can become cluttered when there is a popular message that is being retweeted. Yes, it can be a pain, and yes it’s annoyed me at times.

However, what this solution does is take away one of the benefits from retweets. People new to Twitter often ask me how I follow so many people. The answer is I don’t. I don’t read everything, and I’m happy to tell people to let Twitter wash past you – if you miss something it doesn’t matter, because if it’s important you’ll likely see it later.

The problem is that the way you’ll often see something of import that scrolls by too quickly is by retweets. Many times when I catch news, links or just an funny message it won’t be because I saw the original message, or the first retweet, but rather the second, third or twentieth. Each increases the chance of that tweet reaching more people.

Does this sometimes lead to increasing the noise in the signal/noise ratio? Sure, sometimes, but I think if you’re following people who benefit your experience the good will outweigh the bad. I know that, as it stands, I’m more likely to miss messages I would like to see if people adopt the official retweet function over the current RT/Via/Hat Tip system.

Attribution smattribution

“The attribution problem: In order to get rid of the attribution confusion, in your timeline we show the avatar and username of the original author of the tweet—with the person who retweeted it (whom you actually follow) in the metadata underneath.” - Evan Williams

Much as with the redundancy, the new system, which will have retweeted messages appear like regular tweets in your timeline with the retweet info below in the metadata along with “posted at” and “in reply to”, ignores one of the benefits of the retweet, which is discovering new people.

If I see one of the people I follow who I like and trust retweet someone in the old “RT @ExampleGuy” style, there’s a high chance that, if I like what I see, I’ll click through and check out the person’s profile and possibly follow them.

I think that, as it currently stands and unless apps make it very clear through colour coding etc, that we’re more likely to miss, unless we look much more closely than before, how a message appeared in our timelines. This means we’re less likely to pick up on that tweet as a ‘gateway’ to other users, rather accept it as something that belongs naturally in our timelines. Evan discusses that having the profile pic of the user who is retweeting is irrelevant to the message, but I disagree – due to the fact I’m guaranteed to be following the retweeter this is an endorsement of the message, meaning I’m much more likely to read it.

This now strays into personal branding. I often advise people that, if they want to engage on Twitter, to have a noticeable avatar and change it as little as possible – the avatar of someone I don’t follow will not likely set off any recognition in my mind, certainly not enough for me to peer closely at the metadata.

What does this mean?

The long and the short of this is that Twitter have NOT added Retweet functionality – they’ve added a microcommenting system akin to Facebook’s ‘Like’ option.

At the Social Media Club Sydney before last Russ Weakley (@russmaxdesign) spoke about integrating microcomments into the redesign of the Australian Museum’s site. One of the best comments of the night, which I hope people took away, was Russ’ discussion on levels of commitment – those who won’t write a comment will participate in a microcomment which will often lead to deeper interaction.

That is to say, I like microcomments. I think they’re neato. I think they’re just swell. What I don’t think they are are retweets. Sure, it’s a nice addition to look at a tweet you wrote and see all the people who liked that update, and I’m sure many people will use the new function more than they would normally retweet due to the lower commitment and the fact that retweets won’t double up. Hell, I’ll be much more likely to throw my two cents in, knowing that it won’t clog up my follower’s timelines with blue Batman logos.

While this is all good, it does however ignore, as I covered above, the functionality which retweets currently serve. If you follow me you’ll know I most often use the “(Via @Example Guy)” structure, and often rewrite/add to the message before the link or important info – this removes the redundancy issue, while still achieving the things I like about retweets.

Microcomments work on Facebook as it’s a site one explores. Facebook remains an active, destination type experience while Twitter has become a more passive, companion type service that many people have always open through an app. People don’t dig back through their Twitter stream, meaning endorsements of a message Twitter has determined you must have already seen are redundant.

I have two final points:

1) There is lots of things I like about he way Twitter are integrating retweets – making them trackable and finding a way around the quickly expanding tweets is a great idea.

2) I’m not worried – all the current retweet structure, like the @ replies before it, came from the community deciding on standards and solving issues without Twitter’s help. If people don’t like this, I’m sure the users will come up with the solution.

In short (and I realise the foolishness of writing that at the end of what is now a two page blog post) I think it’s great that Twitter is constantly looking to upgrade it’s service – the addition of Lists, Connections and now retweets show a great commitment to improving the experience. I just think that, like when we’re handed a brightly coloured package from an elderly relative who really tried their best, we need to prepare ourselves for the fact – the ball is in the parking lot.

And they’re like, hey do you want to see me naked? And I’m like, no. No I do not.

Twitter accounts filled with scantily clad women asking you to come look at their profiles are nothing new. A few weeks back I was actually getting really annoyed by these kind of accounts as a new breed, which steals tweets containing trending topics and reuses them so they appear legit and generate interest, was driving me nuts. An actual follower replied to me saying they were “in need of a True Blood fix,” a message I received in my Replies column a few times a day for the next month.

This has, however, seemingly dropped off, or maybe I’ve just been lucky to not be mentioned in any of the targeted tweets.

This morning however, something I said has clearly got the sexy ladybots of Twitter all excited:

How can I resist, eh?

What weirds me out the most is they’re all different messages, it’s not carbon copy accounts that are just mentioning me, each is an individual phrase, seemingly original (if, albeit, transparent spam for anyone with 10 minutes of experience online.)

This been happening to anyone else?

Yesterday, bored out of my mind, I posted this on Twitter:

This resulted in the very funny @Nightwyrm and I trying to one up one another, which got a little silly:

Yes, it was silly, but as the title said, we amuse ourselves.