The last movie you saw...

[spudthedestroyer]

I was going to post this yesterday but my connection was frelled/fracked/fucked.

Seems sky1 has started showing Season 2 now, must be the end of SciFis exclusivity hence why universal and sky1 are now getting in touch.

Its pretty much clear sailing to the end of the series now i hope, no more friggin breaks

[dinky]

yesss! excuse me. I have a heathen to slay.


oh...and spud: huh? universal and sky1 = ?
universal is a company. sky1 is a uk channel owned by...fox? sci-fi is a us channel owned by universal. I know universal hd is reairing s2 eps 1-10 for the next month+ in us (fuckez!). sky1 is catching-up with sci-fi? this is so fecking confusing.

[spudthedestroyer]

confusing? only if you forget what you said previously, about universal hd airing episodes.

you just said universal was airing eps 1-10 next month, sky has also just started airing series 2. Because these two channels are now showing it it means that its no longer exclusive to scifi us like it used to be and the secondry bidders can now show the programme (sky 1 partially pays for BSG)

Your thinking about companies not distributions and channels. Even though a company owns the rights, if they've only paid for distribution on one channel, they can only show it on that one channel. Channels also work as cells, they sell or transfer programmes between each other by contract. Sky1 has to pay for fox shows, just as much as it has to pay for its own viewing. Its because fox us can make profits on uk distribution (or they may not have distribution rights in the uk), so there's a bid for programming in the uk. They normally show bias towards sky, but for example, simpsons and futurama are shown on Sky1 first, then they go to terrestrial tv, both are/were on channel 4 when sky one looses exclusivity after the contract runs up. Channels are very autonomous, the parent company is the benefactor but they are usual independant and have certain budgets and control over scheduling and programming.

A lot of the time its like Sony and the GTA games, sony buys the rights, but eventually it gets to the point where Rockstar can release it on other platforms (6-8 months later).

Universal owns Scifi, Fox owns Sky1, but all four are totally independant (that is the universal channel and the fox channel) and have to pay for, or at least negotiate, the transfer of programmes.

Sky has far more spending power than any other channel. We have a scifi uk channel that's also owned by universal, but they can't afford bsg so they didn't get it, even though though the parent companies do.

All to do with distribution and contract, Scifi us has paid for the first series exclusively, now that that times over, universal can repeat them and sky1 can now show BSG. I also assume sky1 has waited because in england, we don't break and they hadn't completed the series when it started. BSG will be on every week for 22weeks without pause now on sky 1 i'd imagine. Whether sky1 gets to the end of its run who knows...
remember Farscape, well it started in the states first (series 4) and then the BBC took over and we actually got the last episode first because the bbc just showed it every week without break. It all depends on whether scifi pause or break during the run of the last half of the series or not.


So back to my comment, scifi is no longer exclusive owner of airing rights, the fact that sky 1 is now airing the programme and so is universal hd suggests that the period of exclusivity is over. Sky 1 may have just been waiting for them to complete (or get into the position where filming would be by the end of the run) filming of the series, but i doubt it. So now there's a clean run for sky1 to air the programme. Its happened with buffy, angel, farscape, etc. that the uk has got the last episodes first, and because sky1 is far better quality picture than scifi, that might be a good thing, since there'll likely be some decent widescreen rips with far smaller watermarks by the end of the series. That is if they have any more breaks in scheduling.

[dinky]

right then. so they remain 2-3 months behind sci-fi us. and the only way to see actual NEW eps is on sci-fi us in std cable.


watched AoD in HD. noticably better. I'd like to get my hands on an analog/component capture card...ideally with optical audio capture as well.

[maxpayne2409]

watched latest eps of the usual stuff, surface (getting really good now), scrubs, family guy, american dad etc etc

[spudthedestroyer]

Damn hd tv is looming, there's been 3 rips of movies released on dead-donkey recently... seems more and more evident that its taking over.

This is despite its total absense in the uk as far as i'm aware.

[dinky]

from digital spy (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15752.html):

ake-up of high definition services is accelerating in the USA and in other countries, including Australia. With Sky's recent announcement that it is examining technical details for a launch of HD services in its lineup by 2006, it now appears that HDTV will become a reality in the UK over the next few years.

BBC "considering" HDTV distribution
Monday, April 26 2004, 13:45 BST -- by Neil Wilkes

The BBC is "considering" rolling out High Definition TV (HDTV) in the UK.

In a report on the state of progress towards digital switchover, the corporation said it was looking to take a key role in launching the service, which provides viewers with an extremely high quality picture.

read more from the april '04 article: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds14311.html

the first article is obviously more up-to-date, and I have no idea how reliable digitalspy.co.uk is, but bleah. seems accurate enough.

just got me xbox360. must - get - games now....

[spudthedestroyer]

yeah, sky have said they are doing hd but then mention bugger all since. Actually getting it is a completely different matter to intention with these companies

I already cancelled sky for being totally shit.

[maxpayne2409]

sky is shit, anyway who needs sky when we can get all the actually decent shows months earlier on the net without all the crap

[spudthedestroyer]

exactly, but i was thinking about using that as a distribution method over tv, obviously its all about money.

Have you seen:
The Future of Bit Torrent: The day that tv died?

Exactly about this kind of thing. There's one thing he doesn't mention, that they can still have the tv show distributed by territory too, it can work ontop of the current model, all they have to do is lower the price when selling it to the networks. Branding an episode sounds neat though, they can still make dvd sales too because who wants branded episodes when they can have it unbranded... and i bet its less annoying than the scifi banned on bsg

[maxpayne2409]

scifi channel actually left the scifi logo on bsg dvds? fucking morons

and no i havent seen that future of bit torrent thing, ill do a search for it

[spudthedestroyer]

Scifi doesn't make bsg, how could they put a logo on the dvd? and why? I think you must have skipped a few words and got muddled

There's only the logo on the tv episodes, and if you watch the lecture he poses the question why don't they replace the tv network logo with a sponsor and then release the tv episode electronically instead of tying it down to a network. ie. miss out the middle man. The revenue for the series makers will be more than they would get selling it to a tv network. I then extended this to say, just because its been released electronically, networks can still pick the shows up at a cheaper price and make money off of advertising too.

What i said which probably has you confused is:

Branding an episode sounds neat though, they can still make dvd sales too because who wants branded episodes when they can have it unbranded... and i bet its less annoying than the scifi banner on bsg

Which says what it says. Releasing a high quality advertisment-branded episode on the internet won't encroch upon dvd sales because who wants a branded episode when you can buy your favourite show on dvd without it, and I bet its less annoying than the scifi banner on the bsg episodes.

This is in response to the arguement that releasing a high quality branded episode onto the internet will undercut dvd sales, they won't.

To save you the search:
viewtopic.php?t=1923&highlight=future+bit+torrent

[dinky]

tristan & isolde
twas decent. nothing to write home about. I tend to gobble up anything like this. it's more first knight</i> than romeo & juliet though. in fact, it's pretty much exactly first knight</i> on a smaller scale. and for once, ireland is more powerful than britain, which was kinda funny to try and follow since I know fuckall about ireland or scotland before 1600, but it's always an english monarch terrorizing the others in the movies.

[maxpayne2409]

tristan & isolde
twas decent. nothing to write home about. I tend to gobble up anything like this. it's more first knight</i> than romeo & juliet though. in fact, it's pretty much exactly first knight</i> on a smaller scale. and for once, ireland is more powerful than britain, which was kinda funny to try and follow since I know fuckall about ireland or scotland before 1600, but it's always an english monarch terrorizing the others in the movies.

oh piss off and go watch bareback mountain or whatever its called , we all know you love that shit

[dinky]

anything about cowboys is an instant turnoff in ever sense of the word.

[maxpayne2409]

what would john wayne (as much as i hate him) have said "i remember back in my day a cowboy was a real man and wantin' a nice new pair fo chaps between your legs did mean you were rockin' for some cockin' and bein saddlesore meant it'd been a damn busy day out on the dusty trail chasing after varmints and critters and them damned rustlers not sore from some young cowpokes brandin' iron gosh damn darn nabbit"

[spudthedestroyer]

John Wayne would admit he's a nonce and that he's never had an ounce of acting ability, then everyone would sit down a watch a good Western movie not some piece of shit you too ass clowns have associated with the genre.

Still can't believe neither of you like Once Upon a Time in the West, or The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly... That's so bent, they are like two of the best films ever made.

No gays tigers, or the incredible crouching hulk either

[dinky]

erm...I don't like the historical backdrop. I never said they were bad movies. only mention it cuz I am, in general, a fan of historical stuff. I can even stomach most of the jane austen drivel. guess that's beside the point: I don't like cowboys, the idea of cowboys, or the traditional western setting(s). it strikes me as cheap and gay (before brokeback mountain</i>). there are those I like. mostly for style points or whatnot, like val kilmer's doc holiday. it also doesn't help that most 80s & earlier westerns seem 'overexposed' somehow. like it's always so bright and you can see everything. I mean, they're in a desert half the time, so I don't know what I'm complaining about, but I don't like it.

anyway, just to completely contradict myself in every possible way, I bought butch cassidy and the sundace kid</i> today (along with guinevere</i> and constant gardener</i>). then I got home, opened each one, and started cursing left & right cuz I bought the FS fucking version of gardener</i>. wtf??? why would they even RELEASE a FS (at all but also...) for a mutha-fuckin' independent movie (Focus Features)?!?

there was a fist full of dollars boxed set for $40. the other eastwood set (with outlaw josie wales, etc.) was same list price but on sale for $28. might've gotten yer trilogy if it was $28 too.

watched man on fire</i> (denzel version). chronnicles of riddick</i> has been making its rounds. think I watched it two nights in a row.

think I already mentioned having seen the latest smallville, but anyway...that was yesterday. BSG is on the dvr and waiting for me to finish typing. cheers.

[spudthedestroyer]

I watched a whole host of "My Name of Earl" episodes and enjoyed them, its some really good light entertainment, and light humour. You may have noticed I used light twice, and that's really my point. I was recommended it with the guise of being the best thing since sliced bread and being really histerical. It isn't, its very good and I enjoyed it, but it is not hysterical. its funny but there's a real gap between what its made out to be and what it is. Take a look at the filehaven thread to see what I mean.

Its not very original (subject and plot isn't new) but i have no problem with this because its well crafted and the characters are appealing, and well its a good programme. I'll continue to watch it and recommend it.

I'm not a subscriber to it being hysterical or the best comedy since xyz though, Its funny don't get me wrong, but there's better stuff out there. Someone mentioned how 'no other prime time programme would do a joke like that' referring to a particular joke it had done but if you watch a lot of comedies, you'll know that most of them have been done before (the particular one in question had been done by League of Gentlemen some 5 or whatever years earlier, and i don't think they'll have made it up either).

Its an american style show, which means its got the same quirky style as the rest of the comedies, but the jokes are a lot less effective and a lot less frequent that a sitcom.

[maxpayne2409]

i'll never watch it because of the twat who plays earl, i really fucking hate that guy