The Thieves Win Again: CrunchyRoll Adds More Licensed Titles of Dead Brands
darkst...@gmail.com
and ADV?? Yeah...)
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-08-09/crunchyroll-to-add-new-gonzo-titles-12-adv-titles
CrunchyShit has added more legitimate titles to its thievery, as they
have added Kaleido Star, Chance Pop Session, Best Student Council,
Angelic Layer, and a host of mostly Gonzo and ADV titles to its
service.
A complete list is provided in the linked article.
===
More and more, I am almost left to admit that buying anime at all has
become a passe anachronism, and that the thieves will win out. I
believe the bastard who heads CrunchyShit has got to be no worse than
about the third most powerful person in North American anime (Fukunaga
IS #1, the dispute is whether Mr. CrunchyShit or Mr. Shonen Jump is
#2...).
Mike
Antonio E. Gonzalez
our own little Napster!:
<http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-08-09/crunchyroll-to-add-new-gonzo-titles-12-adv-titles>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/6hnmw2>
Some of the actual titles . . .:
* Angelic Layer 26-episode animated series (pictured at bottom
left)
* BASToF Syndrome 26-episode animated series
* Best Student Council 26-episode animated series
* Chance Pop Session 13-episode animated series
* Lady Death animated feature
* Magical Play 22-episode animated series
* Martian Successor Nadesico: The Motion Picture - Prince of
Darkness animated feature
* Nurse Witch Komugi 6-episode animated series
* Parasite Dolls animated feature
* Saiyuki 50-episode animated series
* Sin: The Movie animated feature
* Yesterday live-action film
* Girl's High 12-episode animated series
* Ramen Fighter Miki 12-episode animated series
* Kite: Liberator animated video
* Flesh For The Beast live-action feature
* Shadow: Dead Riot live-action feature
* Machine Girl live-action feature
It's great how technology eventually wins over; some might still
remember when Betamax and VHS were suppossed to wreck the movie
industry . . .
Relic
> It's great how technology eventually wins over; some might still
> remember when Betamax and VHS were suppossed to wreck the movie
> industry . . .
>
>
>
On that note I have a lengthy article from Life magazine that
talked about the new emerging technology of being able to
tape TV programs and concerns about piracy. The issue was
printed in 1970 (I would go and look at it to find out what
month it came out, but it is in the other room and I am
feeling lazy ^_^).
ender
> On that note I have a lengthy article from Life magazine that
> talked about the new emerging technology of being able to
> tape TV programs and concerns about piracy. The issue was
> printed in 1970 (I would go and look at it to find out what
> month it came out, but it is in the other room and I am
> feeling lazy ^_^).
Once you're not so lazy anymore, I'd be very interested in the article :)
--
< ender ><><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>< e at ena dot si >
Because 10 billion years' time is so fragile, so ephemeral...
it arouses such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness.
darkst...@gmail.com
Why expect people to be able to _make_ anime anymore, if we are to
believe you???
I mean, it's not like it's worth anything anymore -- and you have
shitheads like CrunchyShit to thank.
Mike
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>Why buy anime at all, if we are to believe you??
>
Yeah, and how *do* TV stations stay on the air?! Money from cable
subscriptions just can't be enough! What *did* they do before cable?!
Seriously, it's amazing how ignorant some people can be to modern
revenue raising; to think it all still comes down to advertising money
at the core . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
darkst...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:01:08 -0700 (PDT), darkstar7...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Why buy anime at all, if we are to believe you??
>
> Yeah, and how *do* TV stations stay on the air?! Money from cable
> subscriptions just can't be enough! What *did* they do before cable?!
>
> Seriously, it's amazing how ignorant some people can be to modern
> revenue raising; to think it all still comes down to advertising money
> at the core . . .
If what I saw today (CBS "golf coverage") is any indication, the
answer to your question is continually jamming more and more
commercials into every program. What used to have about 6-10 minutes
of commercials an hour now fully exceeds 20!
This is causing more and more people to tune out network television
completely, essentially defeating the purpose of jamming more and more
ads into every hour.
And this doesn't work to begin with for anime: The only way that
anime can continue to be made in this environment is as a secondary
element to a massive merchandising campaign. No longer are anime
going to be able to be made (as the Japanese studios are going to die
out en masse once they can no longer get the advances that Gen talked
about in his interview -- advances which are necessary to have kept
the studios in business to begin with) without basically being
conduits to selling other product. The anime itself is now worthless
as a consumer product, and now will have to be conduits to selling
something else.
As such, we're probably heading down the road to more lowest-common-
denominator anime until consumer spending on discretionary things
becomes essentially a thing of the past -- then the whole thing goes
kaput and kiss anime (as well as most other forms of entertainment)
goodbye.
New revenue streams?? Only for those who wish to throw good money
after bad, at this point? If one were smart, they wouldn't touch
anime with a 10-foot loaded bazooka. The "client base" is not
interested in paying for it, even when presented with the costs of
creation of the product. Paying for anime has become an anachronism
of the past -- and if you really want to believe con attendance is
going up, fine -- but I can assert that 80% of the people who go to
cons steal most of their anime, and hence have no right to be
attending these events.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
The problem is, essentially, that the only reason that that hasn't
manifested itself like it has with the dying anime industry is that,
bluntly, networks got other revenue streams to pay for the shows.
The anime shows have, largely, been getting paid for by revenue
streams which piracy is killing. Now, one would have to think that
buying anime on DVD (Hell, buying anime in any form...) is useless and
rather obsolete.
That's what the studios in Japan have been relying on, and, as a
result, there is no "road to the future". There is NO FUTURE to
anime.
That's one of the reasons that ADV's "big Otakon announcement"
basically consisted of a partner who is taking them, to almost
complete exclusion, to live-action (Switchblade Films).
Mike
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Aug 10, 1:33 am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:01:08 -0700 (PDT), darkstar7...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Why buy anime at all, if we are to believe you??
> >
> > Yeah, and how *do* TV stations stay on the air?! Money from cable
> > subscriptions just can't be enough! What *did* they do before cable?!
> >
> > Seriously, it's amazing how ignorant some people can be to modern
> > revenue raising; to think it all still comes down to advertising money
> > at the core . . .
>
> If what I saw today (CBS "golf coverage") is any indication, the
> answer to your question is continually jamming more and more
> commercials into every program. What used to have about 6-10 minutes
> of commercials an hour now fully exceeds 20!
>
I dunno about 20 min, but we haven't had 6-10 min ads/hr for a long time;
the average for years has been around 15 min.
(And I was watching the PGA Champ too.)
Laters. =)
STan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
darkst...@gmail.com
By later on, they were only showing 3-4 golfers at all, it seemed.
Mike
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>Antonio E Gonzalez wrote on [Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:33:03 -0700]:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:01:08 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Why buy anime at all, if we are to believe you??
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, and how *do* TV stations stay on the air?! Money from cable
>> subscriptions just can't be enough! What *did* they do before cable?!
>
>OTA Broadcast channels don't get money from cable subscriptions.
>
>> Seriously, it's amazing how ignorant some people can be to modern
>> revenue raising; to think it all still comes down to advertising money
>> at the core . . .
>
>It is from Ads and sponsorships.
Yup, just like YouTube, Crunchyroll, and just about the entire
internet . . .
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Aug 9, 6:07 pm, Relic <relic1...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> > It's great how technology eventually wins over; some might still
>> > remember when Betamax and VHS were suppossed to wreck the movie
>> > industry . . .
>>
>> On that note I have a lengthy article from Life magazine that
>> talked about the new emerging technology of being able to
>> tape TV programs and concerns about piracy. The issue was
>> printed in 1970 (I would go and look at it to find out what
>> month it came out, but it is in the other room and I am
>> feeling lazy ^_^).
>
>The problem is, essentially, that the only reason that that hasn't
>manifested itself like it has with the dying anime industry is that,
>bluntly, networks got other revenue streams to pay for the shows.
>
>
Phooey. Anime shows have the exact same revenue streams any other
broadcast TV show has. If anime is going out of business, so are all
the other movies and TV.
darkst...@gmail.com
> Antonio E Gonzalez wrote on [Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:21:08 -0700]:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:58:00 -0500, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Antonio E Gonzalez wrote on [Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:33:03 -0700]:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>Why buy anime at all, if we are to believe you??
>
> >>> Yeah, and how *do* TV stations stay on the air?! Money from cable
> >>> subscriptions just can't be enough! What *did* they do before cable?!
>
> >>OTA Broadcast channels don't get money from cable subscriptions.
>
> >>> Seriously, it's amazing how ignorant some people can be to modern
> >>> revenue raising; to think it all still comes down to advertising money
> >>> at the core . . .
>
> >>It is from Ads and sponsorships.
>
> > Yup, just like YouTube, Crunchyroll, and just about the entire
> > internet . . .
>
> They also get some money from sponsorships of specific channels. The
> entire internet gets their money as marketing, ads and other similar
> methods. Very few top tier sites get their money any other way.
>
> What that has to do with TV I don't know.
The problem with Antonio's thinking: He thinks this money is
eventually going to find its way back to the anime companies and
studios -- and I assert that they won't get nearly enough to make up
for the billions they've theoretically lost and the hundreds of
millions they've actually lost over the course of the last few years.
R1 is gone within 12 months. There will be no more anime made within
5 years. It's too expensive, and the Japanese are already near-
starving their animators _as it is_.
Mike
Relic
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:07:19 -0400, Relic wrote:
>
>> On that note I have a lengthy article from Life magazine that
>> talked about the new emerging technology of being able to
>> tape TV programs and concerns about piracy. The issue was
>> printed in 1970 (I would go and look at it to find out what
>> month it came out, but it is in the other room and I am
>> feeling lazy ^_^).
>
> Once you're not so lazy anymore, I'd be very interested in the article :)
>
Okay, I found it. It's the Oct. 16. 1970 issue of Life (has Spiro T.
Agnew's ugly face on the cover ^_^). It is referred to as "Cassette
TV" and several manufacturers were going to have models on the market,
projected for mid-'71 to late-'72, ranging in price from 400-600
dollars, with the exception being AVCO Cartrivision, which would have
a color TV component, for 800-900 dollars. Media would be between
10-30 dollars each.
Apparently CBS was worried about boot-legging, which could, according
to the article, "become a major headache for cassette TV in the
future". Oh they had no idea...
The cartridges themselves appear to be larger versions of the
carts that are more familiar nowadays (the Avco cart is more
reminiscent of an 8-track, and seems to insert into the player
in a similar fashion (the player is attached to the side of the
TV console).
The article itself reminds me of most of the bright, shiny
future tech articles that popular mags tend to run, though
VCRs didn't really start to take off til' the early 80s
(I saw my first one when I was in 11th grade, in 1979; a
cassette the size of a book, a machine built for King Kong
^_^). Interesting reading. I would love to find an article
from 1969 or so talking about Arpanet or whatever it was
called then ^_<.
darkst...@gmail.com
> >The problem is, essentially, that the only reason that that hasn't
> >manifested itself like it has with the dying anime industry is that,
> >bluntly, networks got other revenue streams to pay for the shows.
>
> Phooey. Anime shows have the exact same revenue streams any other
> broadcast TV show has. If anime is going out of business, so are all
> the other movies and TV. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the amount of advertising I've been seeing increase is any
indication, broadcast TV might well become obsolete (in favor of
_official_ Internet media) in very short order. What used to have 10
minutes of ads an hour is now well over 20.
Between the disgust for commercials in general and the lack of
creativity (as well as a number of television viewers completely
dropping off the grid next February), one has to wonder how long the
current model of broadcast TV has left.
So I wouldn't be so flippant about TV not "going out of business", at
least to a major extent. The only thing which might prop _it_ up is a
matter of keeping the masses complacent, but that's a political
statement more than a financial one.
As for movies... As the economy disintegrates, one has to wonder when
the movie theatres will start dropping like flies (and, to do
otherwise, theatres probably are not going to show movies that appear
not to be making money).
And, of course, the kicker is that you (collectively) completely
ignore several aspects of the anime economy:
First, you ignore that the anime studios pay for the time, unlike the
US networks paying to make these programs. This would be like the
creator of Survivor paying CBS for the time slot, _AND_ absorbing all
costs of creation -- only later to attempt to recover those costs.
Which gets to the second thing you ignore: You all laud that
licensing prices were far too high and they are coming down. The
problem with this (on the Japanese end) is that much of the money
which was part of the licensing fee was actually to cover the creation
of either that anime (in cases like Kaleido Star and Full Metal Panic)
or future anime projects. We already know that gen Fukunaga is trying
to cut out that "advance" (which, for some series, can be upwards of
$300,000 to a half a million, per 13 episodes) -- when doing so will
result in Japanese studios going under.
You all salute Gonzo and GDH for this new "road to the future". Gonzo
is officially insolvent (or, at bare minimum, negative cash flow for
the last "reporting period), in case you guys forgot! They have about
nine months to clear a significant sum of money or they risk being
delisted from the Japanese stock market -- a move which cost them over
half their share price in just 45-60 days earlier this summer.
Now that things have largely shaken out over here, Japanese studios
are going to die out in massive numbers. They aren't going to have
the money to shell out the $100-150K an episode that it's going to
take to create anime anymore. It's just not -- going -- to -- happen.
And you can blame that on the fact that buying anime is rapidly
becoming a thing of the past. If anything, the disc is now only a
form of merchandise, and not a very effective one anymore.
Mike
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>Youtube gets its money from Google, who get their money from ads.
>They also get some money from sponsorships of specific channels. The
>entire internet gets their money as marketing, ads and other similar
>methods. Very few top tier sites get their money any other way.
>
>What that has to do with TV I don't know.
>
Ummm, you just answered it yourself; they're basically the same
revenue model . . .
selaboc
wrote:
> Sun, 10 Aug 2008 9:28pm-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 1:33 am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:01:08 -0700 (PDT), darkstar7...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Why buy anime at all, if we are to believe you??
>
> > > Yeah, and how *do* TV stations stay on the air?! Money from cable
> > > subscriptions just can't be enough! What *did* they do before cable?!
>
> > > Seriously, it's amazing how ignorant some people can be to modern
> > > revenue raising; to think it all still comes down to advertising money
> > > at the core . . .
>
> > If what I saw today (CBS "golf coverage") is any indication, the
> > answer to your question is continually jamming more and more
> > commercials into every program. What used to have about 6-10 minutes
> > of commercials an hour now fully exceeds 20!
>
> I dunno about 20 min, but we haven't had 6-10 min ads/hr for a long time;
> the average for years has been around 15 min.
I think the standard for a one hour programme is roughly 43 minutes,
meaning the other 17 is filled by ads, station identifiers, and public
service announcements. And it's been that way for atleast 10 years. So
not quite as bad as 20, yet.
Farix
> Okay, I found it. It's the Oct. 16. 1970 issue of Life (has Spiro T.
> Agnew's ugly face on the cover ^_^). It is referred to as "Cassette
> TV" and several manufacturers were going to have models on the market,
> projected for mid-'71 to late-'72, ranging in price from 400-600
> dollars, with the exception being AVCO Cartrivision, which would have
> a color TV component, for 800-900 dollars. Media would be between
> 10-30 dollars each.
>
> Apparently CBS was worried about boot-legging, which could, according
> to the article, "become a major headache for cassette TV in the
> future". Oh they had no idea...
>
> The cartridges themselves appear to be larger versions of the
> carts that are more familiar nowadays (the Avco cart is more
> reminiscent of an 8-track, and seems to insert into the player
> in a similar fashion (the player is attached to the side of the
> TV console).
>
> The article itself reminds me of most of the bright, shiny
> future tech articles that popular mags tend to run, though
> VCRs didn't really start to take off til' the early 80s
> (I saw my first one when I was in 11th grade, in 1979; a
> cassette the size of a book, a machine built for King Kong
> ^_^). Interesting reading. I would love to find an article
> from 1969 or so talking about Arpanet or whatever it was
> called then ^_<.
Heh, that reminds me of an argument that my dad and I got into about
getting a VCR.
DAD: So what do you want a VCR for?
ME: So I can record TV shows and watch them later.
DAD: Why can't you watch them when they're on?
Now, dad records far more then I do. ^^;
Farix
Farix
Didn't the FCC or Congress limit the amount of commercial time several
years ago?
Farix
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Aug 11, 11:24 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:32:04 -0700 (PDT), darkstar7...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >The problem is, essentially, that the only reason that that hasn't
> > >manifested itself like it has with the dying anime industry is that,
> > >bluntly, networks got other revenue streams to pay for the shows.
> >
> > Phooey. Anime shows have the exact same revenue streams any other
> > broadcast TV show has. If anime is going out of business, so are all
> > the other movies and TV. - Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If the amount of advertising I've been seeing increase is any
> indication, broadcast TV might well become obsolete (in favor of
> _official_ Internet media) in very short order. What used to have 10
> minutes of ads an hour is now well over 20.
>
It's usually around 15-17 min ads/hr, but definitely not well over 20.
>
> Between the disgust for commercials in general and the lack of
> creativity (as well as a number of television viewers completely
> dropping off the grid next February), one has to wonder how long the
> current model of broadcast TV has left.
>
Well, some people may not absorb the $40+ cost to buy digital converters
(although there are $40 government coupons for that) and just turn off TV,
but TV is so much part of people's lives that it'd be insignificant.
Of course, satellite and cable households (which make up the majority
of American households) need not do anything.
>
> As for movies... As the economy disintegrates, one has to wonder when
> the movie theatres will start dropping like flies (and, to do
> otherwise, theatres probably are not going to show movies that appear
> not to be making money).
>
On the contrary, theaters tend to do well during economic downturns,
probably because people need an occasional escape from the real world.
Laters. =)
Stan
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> The coverage for that was pushing half commercials.
>
What's a half commercial?
>
> By later on, they were only showing 3-4 golfers at all, it seemed.
>
Of course, they concentrate on the ones in contention.
Rob Kelk
<LostRu...@UofR.SlamSpam.net> wrote:
>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:27am-0700, darkst...@gmail.com <darkst...@gmail.com>:
>
>> The coverage for that was pushing half commercials.
>>
>
>What's a half commercial?
A 30-second commercial, as opposed to the full-length one-minute
commercial. Almost nobody makes them any more; the current trend if for
quarter commercials (or shorter).
--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"Aggresive killfiling. I highly recommend it. It isn't personal;
there's just a limited number of hours in the day."
- Russ Allbery (<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>), in message
<yl66l68...@windlord.stanford.edu>
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>> If the amount of advertising I've been seeing increase is any
>> indication, broadcast TV might well become obsolete (in favor of
>> _official_ Internet media) in very short order. [...]
>>
>
> It's usually around 15-17 min ads/hr, but definitely not well over 20.
>
>> Between the disgust for commercials in general and the lack of
>> creativity (as well as a number of television viewers completely
>> dropping off the grid next February), one has to wonder how long the
>> current model of broadcast TV has left.[...]
>>
>
> Well, some people may not absorb the $40+ cost to buy digital converters
> (although there are $40 government coupons for that) and just turn off TV,
> but TV is so much part of people's lives that it'd be insignificant.
> Of course, satellite and cable households (which make up the majority
> of American households) need not do anything.
>
>> As for movies... As the economy disintegrates, one has to wonder when
>> the movie theatres will start dropping like flies (and, to do
>> otherwise, theatres probably are not going to show movies that appear
>> not to be making money).
>>
>
> On the contrary, theaters tend to do well during economic downturns,
> probably because people need an occasional escape from the real world.
Oh, Stan, stop trying to change Starky's mind. I think it's cute that
he's gone from predicting the death of the anime industry, which is at
least small enough and new enough that one could imagine it
disappearing, to dark predictions about the future of TV and movies.
It's clear that his one joy in life is to predict gloom, despair, and
agony for us, and here you are trying to take that away from him.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
selaboc
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
> > Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:56am-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
well, since chicken little believes that the Anime Industry really
will be dead by this time next month (according to his his post on Mar
18th "I really should give it only 6") he won't have the Anime Industy
around to predict gloom for, so he just has to find something else to
prdiect gloom for. I just wonder how many months he "really should"
give Film and TV. ;-)
darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > If the amount of advertising I've been seeing increase is any
> > indication, broadcast TV might well become obsolete (in favor of
> > _official_ Internet media) in very short order. What used to have 10
> > minutes of ads an hour is now well over 20.
>
> It's usually around 15-17 min ads/hr, but definitely not well over 20.
The shows we've been watching -- it's been over 20 for a while, and
beginning to push toward 25!
One of the reasons we watch less and less of network television in any
real respect.
> > Between the disgust for commercials in general and the lack of
> > creativity (as well as a number of television viewers completely
> > dropping off the grid next February), one has to wonder how long the
> > current model of broadcast TV has left.
>
> Well, some people may not absorb the $40+ cost to buy digital converters
> (although there are $40 government coupons for that) and just turn off TV,
> but TV is so much part of people's lives that it'd be insignificant.
> Of course, satellite and cable households (which make up the majority
> of American households) need not do anything.
That[s one of the reasons that I state it more as a political
consideration that TV will only be around to placate the masses (there
are those (and I can provide one cite for you -- Michael Piotrowski
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19941.htm) in an
article called "With Contempt" -- who believes that the shutoff of
analog TV will be the last straw, since many won't be able to afford
it with skyrocketing costs for everything...). It's the fact that
such TV _is_ so much a part of people's lives that I can't quite say
it'll completely die out.
> > As for movies... As the economy disintegrates, one has to wonder when
> > the movie theatres will start dropping like flies (and, to do
> > otherwise, theatres probably are not going to show movies that appear
> > not to be making money).
>
> On the contrary, theaters tend to do well during economic downturns,
> probably because people need an occasional escape from the real world.
Maybe _now_, but, as the economy disintegrates, one does have to
wonder when they will in the future, as I said.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
> > Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:56am-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
It is, unfortunately, true that I have, more and more, become what is
called a "secular apocalyst" -- essentially, believing that TEOTWAWKI
(The End of the World As We Know It) is imminent.
I'd just like to know how some of you can maintain the delusion of
otherwise, especially given the increasing prices of everything. I
guess you must be rolling in dough with those book deals and just hope
the poor go away without rioting...
You don't study history, and, hence, are doomed to repeat it.
You seem to operate on the principle that "discretionary income" will
not become such a thing of the past for enough people that these
industries built on them can survive.
I don't.
Mike
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
I gave it 18, by the quote you gave. I should have, though, given it
6. And, with the legitimization of CrunchyShit, I think that's a
pretty good read on things.
To answer your other question would probably require taking more
political aspects into account than you might be comfortable handling
-- but, as more than a vehicle to keep the masses quiet, the current
model is already dying (which see, at least for TV, the explosion of
Internet official channels for the major networks).
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:27am-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
>
> > The coverage for that was pushing half commercials.
>
> What's a half commercial?
Half of the coverage was pushing commercials.
> > By later on, they were only showing 3-4 golfers at all, it seemed.
>
> Of course, they concentrate on the ones in contention.
Not to the abject exclusion of _EVERY OTHER GOLFER ON THE COURSE_...
(And, until Padraig pretty well locked up the tournament, Stentson was
still in it (in fact, the bogeys on 16 only left him 3 out with the
two of the hardest holes on the course left to play), and we hadn't
seen him for the last at least two hours of coverage!)
Mike
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Aug 11, 11:46 pm, "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <LostRune+...@UofR.SlamSpam.net>
> wrote:
> > Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:27am-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > The coverage for that was pushing half commercials.
> >
> > What's a half commercial?
>
> Half of the coverage was pushing commercials.
>
And what half of the coverage was that?
>
> > > By later on, they were only showing 3-4 golfers at all, it seemed.
> >
> > Of course, they concentrate on the ones in contention.
>
> Not to the abject exclusion of _EVERY OTHER GOLFER ON THE COURSE_...
>
It kinda is. The ones not in contention in the back 9
don't usually get air time unless they do something special,
like a good birdie or a horrible miss.
There are usually 70+ golfers making the cut;
ya can't cover them all in the Sunday back 9.
>
> (And, until Padraig pretty well locked up the tournament, Stentson was
> still in it (in fact, the bogeys on 16 only left him 3 out with the
> two of the hardest holes on the course left to play), and we hadn't
> seen him for the last at least two hours of coverage!)
>
Unfortunately, the relatively unknown (i.e. not popular) golfers
still in the bubble may be left out**, but really,
unless and until something catastrophic happened,
it was a 3-way race (and it had to happen to all 3).
As Tiger Woods always say, it's not as much the stroke difference
as the number of names between him and 1st place in the leaderboard.
Stentson hardly stood a chance at that point, IMHO;
the leaders were just playing more than well enough.
[** That's what the Golf Channel is for.]
Laters. =)
Stan
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Aug 11, 11:36 pm, "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <LostRune+...@UofR.SlamSpam.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > If the amount of advertising I've been seeing increase is any
> > > indication, broadcast TV might well become obsolete (in favor of
> > > _official_ Internet media) in very short order. What used to have 10
> > > minutes of ads an hour is now well over 20.
> >
> > It's usually around 15-17 min ads/hr, but definitely not well over 20.
>
> The shows we've been watching -- it's been over 20 for a while, and
> beginning to push toward 25!
>
> One of the reasons we watch less and less of network television in any
> real respect.
>
Which network shows are those, may I ask?
>
> > > Between the disgust for commercials in general and the lack of
> > > creativity (as well as a number of television viewers completely
> > > dropping off the grid next February), one has to wonder how long the
> > > current model of broadcast TV has left.
> >
> > Well, some people may not absorb the $40+ cost to buy digital converters
> > (although there are $40 government coupons for that) and just turn off TV,
> > but TV is so much part of people's lives that it'd be insignificant.
> > Of course, satellite and cable households (which make up the majority
> > of American households) need not do anything.
>
> That[s one of the reasons that I state it more as a political
> consideration that TV will only be around to placate the masses (there
> are those (and I can provide one cite for you -- Michael Piotrowski
> (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19941.htm) in an
> article called "With Contempt" -- who believes that the shutoff of
> analog TV will be the last straw, since many won't be able to afford
> it with skyrocketing costs for everything...). It's the fact that
> such TV _is_ so much a part of people's lives that I can't quite say
> it'll completely die out.
>
I don't think the switch is costing people that much.
(And like I mentioned, there are even free government coupons for that.
Anybody can get and use those coupons. The switch may as well be free.)
And again, satellite and cable households need not buy anything at all.
>
> > > As for movies... As the economy disintegrates, one has to wonder when
> > > the movie theatres will start dropping like flies (and, to do
> > > otherwise, theatres probably are not going to show movies that appear
> > > not to be making money).
> >
> > On the contrary, theaters tend to do well during economic downturns,
> > probably because people need an occasional escape from the real world.
>
> Maybe _now_, but, as the economy disintegrates, one does have to
> wonder when they will in the future, as I said.
>
I'm talking about historically; I didn't even consider "now."
selaboc
> On Aug 12, 6:44 am, selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > well, since chicken little believes that the Anime Industry really
> > will be dead by this time next month (according to his his post on Mar
> > 18th "I really should give it only 6") he won't have the Anime Industy
> > around to predict gloom for, so he just has to find something else to
> > prdiect gloom for. I just wonder how many months he "really should"
> > give Film and TV. ;-)
>
> I gave it 18, by the quote you gave. I should have, though, given it
> 6. And, with the legitimization of CrunchyShit, I think that's a
> pretty good read on things.
Yes, you "generously" gave it 18 but you made it clear that 6 was what
you actually "really" believed, and here you are reiterating that 6
was the "real" number, despite the fact that that 6 is up next month
and the Anime Industry is no closer to being dead than it was when you
first made that 6 month prediction.
darkst...@gmail.com
> Yes, you "generously" gave it 18 but you made it clear that 6 was what
> you actually "really" believed, and here you are reiterating that 6
> was the "real" number, despite the fact that that 6 is up next month
> and the Anime Industry is no closer to being dead than it was when you
> first made that 6 month prediction.
WHAT????
Have you been paying any degree of real attention???
(Of course you haven't, so don't even try to answer otherwise...)
The legitimization of CrunchyRoll rockets the anime industry toward
the end. Read what Gilles just said in the other thread about his
friend from Japan and how they have to get their money from
merchandising, _DVD Sales_, and _foreign contracts_. You already know
that licensing fees are essentially plummeting, and you act as if
that's a good thing -- completely forgetting that a lot of that money
is what sustains the companies, which is why they have to ask for the
kinds of advances that Gen Fukunaga is trying to cut out.
Sometimes I really begin to wonder if most anime fans even really want
new anime to be made anymore... I assert that they don't care, as
long as they get their anime for free and on their own terms.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Tue, 12 Aug 2008 1:13pm-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
> > The shows we've been watching -- it's been over 20 for a while, and
> > beginning to push toward 25!
>
> > One of the reasons we watch less and less of network television in any
> > real respect.
>
> Which network shows are those, may I ask?
The Price is Right, for one example.
I already mentioned the PGA Championship.
> > > Well, some people may not absorb the $40+ cost to buy digital converters
> > > (although there are $40 government coupons for that) and just turn off TV,
> > > but TV is so much part of people's lives that it'd be insignificant.
> > > Of course, satellite and cable households (which make up the majority
> > > of American households) need not do anything.
>
> > That[s one of the reasons that I state it more as a political
> > consideration that TV will only be around to placate the masses (there
> > are those (and I can provide one cite for you -- Michael Piotrowski
> > (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19941.htm) in an
> > article called "With Contempt" -- who believes that the shutoff of
> > analog TV will be the last straw, since many won't be able to afford
> > it with skyrocketing costs for everything...). It's the fact that
> > such TV _is_ so much a part of people's lives that I can't quite say
> > it'll completely die out.
>
> I don't think the switch is costing people that much.
But, when everything else does...
That's one of the reasons, as I just got done telling Sea Wasp
yesterday, that I believe that, for most Americans, discretionary
income will be a thing of the past. I think that's also what's being
looked at here.
> (And like I mentioned, there are even free government coupons for that.
> Anybody can get and use those coupons. The switch may as well be free.)
> And again, satellite and cable households need not buy anything at all.
You seem to think that everybody has cable or satellite these days.
> > > On the contrary, theaters tend to do well during economic downturns,
> > > probably because people need an occasional escape from the real world.
>
> > Maybe _now_, but, as the economy disintegrates, one does have to
> > wonder when they will in the future, as I said.
>
> I'm talking about historically; I didn't even consider "now."
No, you didn't, because we're entering a very different phase than
most in our history.
Read up on it.
Mike
Derek Janssen
> On Aug 13, 3:50 am, selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, you "generously" gave it 18 but you made it clear that 6 was what
>>you actually "really" believed, and here you are reiterating that 6
>>was the "real" number, despite the fact that that 6 is up next month
>>and the Anime Industry is no closer to being dead than it was when you
>>first made that 6 month prediction.
>
>
> WHAT????
>
> Have you been paying any degree of real attention???
To you? No. :)
Derek Janssen (any other questions?)
eja...@verizon.net
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Aug 13, 2:38 am, "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <LostRune+...@UofR.SlamSpam.net>
> wrote:
> > Tue, 12 Aug 2008 1:13pm-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > The shows we've been watching -- it's been over 20 for a while, and
> > > beginning to push toward 25!
> >
> > > One of the reasons we watch less and less of network television in any
> > > real respect.
> >
> > Which network shows are those, may I ask?
>
> The Price is Right, for one example.
>
> I already mentioned the PGA Championship.
>
I haven't watched The Price is Right in years,
but the PGA Champ definitely wasn't 20+ min ads/hr
because I was watching it too (like I do the majors every year).
Golf is strange that way, in not being too ad dependent,
not just because it's a sport (sports, unlike scripted shows, can't just
go to ads at anytime, because watchers want to see stuff happen live).
In fact, for a couple years not too long ago,
the Masters was broadcasted with no ad breaks whatsoever
(though the reason was more political, the economics afforded them that).
>
> > > > Well, some people may not absorb the $40+ cost to buy digital converters
> > > > (although there are $40 government coupons for that) and just turn off TV,
> > > > but TV is so much part of people's lives that it'd be insignificant.
> > > > Of course, satellite and cable households (which make up the majority
> > > > of American households) need not do anything.
> >
> > > That[s one of the reasons that I state it more as a political
> > > consideration that TV will only be around to placate the masses (there
> > > are those (and I can provide one cite for you -- Michael Piotrowski
> > > (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19941.htm) in an
> > > article called "With Contempt" -- who believes that the shutoff of
> > > analog TV will be the last straw, since many won't be able to afford
> > > it with skyrocketing costs for everything...). It's the fact that
> > > such TV _is_ so much a part of people's lives that I can't quite say
> > > it'll completely die out.
> >
> > I don't think the switch is costing people that much.
>
> But, when everything else does...
>
> That's one of the reasons, as I just got done telling Sea Wasp
> yesterday, that I believe that, for most Americans, discretionary
> income will be a thing of the past. I think that's also what's being
> looked at here.
>
But the switch is pretty much a wash, regardless of everything else.
When it's a wash, people tend to pick things up just because
(kinda like free fansubs).
>
> > (And like I mentioned, there are even free government coupons for that.
> > Anybody can get and use those coupons. The switch may as well be free.)
> > And again, satellite and cable households need not buy anything at all.
>
> You seem to think that everybody has cable or satellite these days.
>
Because the majority of American households already have it,
and that's where the trend is going for years.
(Kinda like the trend from dial-up to broadband internet.)
Also, those households tend to be the heavy TV watchers
and thus more significant to the TV business.
>
> > > > On the contrary, theaters tend to do well during economic downturns,
> > > > probably because people need an occasional escape from the real world.
> >
> > > Maybe _now_, but, as the economy disintegrates, one does have to
> > > wonder when they will in the future, as I said.
> >
> > I'm talking about historically; I didn't even consider "now."
>
> No, you didn't, because we're entering a very different phase than
> most in our history.
>
> Read up on it.
>
People always say it's going to turn out different,
but it always turn up more similar than different.
And didn't you just say (in another post)
those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?
I'm quite sure the theater business will do just fine,
as past history has shown.
Laters. =)
STan
Invid Fan
<LostRu...@UofR.SlamSpam.net> wrote:
> Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47pm-0700, darkst...@gmail.com
> <darkst...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Aug 13, 2:38İam, "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <LostRune+...@UofR.SlamSpam.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Tue, 12 Aug 2008 1:13pm-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com
> > > <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > > The shows we've been watching -- it's been over 20 for a while, and
> > > > beginning to push toward 25!
> > >
> > > > One of the reasons we watch less and less of network television in any
> > > > real respect.
> > >
> > > Which network shows are those, may I ask?
> >
> > The Price is Right, for one example.
> >
> > I already mentioned the PGA Championship.
> >
>
> I haven't watched The Price is Right in years,
> but the PGA Champ definitely wasn't 20+ min ads/hr
> because I was watching it too (like I do the majors every year).
>
> Golf is strange that way, in not being too ad dependent,
> not just because it's a sport (sports, unlike scripted shows, can't just
> go to ads at anytime, because watchers want to see stuff happen live).
> In fact, for a couple years not too long ago,
> the Masters was broadcasted with no ad breaks whatsoever
> (though the reason was more political, the economics afforded them that).
>
Golf tournaments like the Masters can get one corporate sponsor,
meaning fewer ad breaks but at some point the current CO gets screen
time :)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 3:50 am, selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Yes, you "generously" gave it 18 but you made it clear that 6 was what
> >>you actually "really" believed, and here you are reiterating that 6
> >>was the "real" number, despite the fact that that 6 is up next month
> >>and the Anime Industry is no closer to being dead than it was when you
> >>first made that 6 month prediction.
>
> > WHAT????
>
> > Have you been paying any degree of real attention???
>
> To you? No. :)
That's why I made it a general question, not a specific one to myself.
Mike (Not that you've been paying any general attention to the anime
situation either, so your answer is correct either way...)
darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47pm-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
> > > Which network shows are those, may I ask?
>
> > The Price is Right, for one example.
>
> > I already mentioned the PGA Championship.
>
> I haven't watched The Price is Right in years,
> but the PGA Champ definitely wasn't 20+ min ads/hr
> because I was watching it too (like I do the majors every year).
I was too. It was like, literally, three shots, commercial. Three
shots, commercial. Three hole-outs, another commercial. I mean, MAKE
IT FREAKING STOP!!
> Golf is strange that way, in not being too ad dependent,
> not just because it's a sport (sports, unlike scripted shows, can't just
> go to ads at anytime, because watchers want to see stuff happen live).
> In fact, for a couple years not too long ago,
> the Masters was broadcasted with no ad breaks whatsoever
> (though the reason was more political, the economics afforded them that).
And this was the fourth major of the year, no less -- should it not
get the same treatment??
> > > I don't think the switch is costing people that much.
>
> > But, when everything else does...
>
> > That's one of the reasons, as I just got done telling Sea Wasp
> > yesterday, that I believe that, for most Americans, discretionary
> > income will be a thing of the past. I think that's also what's being
> > looked at here.
>
> But the switch is pretty much a wash, regardless of everything else.
> When it's a wash, people tend to pick things up just because
> (kinda like free fansubs).
The problem is that what happens when the economy finally breaks and
one can't even afford to do anything but house, sleep, and eat (if
they can even do all three of those things)? That's where we are
headed.
> > You seem to think that everybody has cable or satellite these days.
>
> Because the majority of American households already have it,
> and that's where the trend is going for years.
> (Kinda like the trend from dial-up to broadband internet.)
> Also, those households tend to be the heavy TV watchers
> and thus more significant to the TV business.
But you make it sound like every TV-viewer has it.
> > > I'm talking about historically; I didn't even consider "now."
>
> > No, you didn't, because we're entering a very different phase than
> > most in our history.
>
> > Read up on it.
>
> People always say it's going to turn out different,
> but it always turn up more similar than different.
> And didn't you just say (in another post)
> those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?
> I'm quite sure the theater business will do just fine,
> as past history has shown.
Only if the same political considerations (keeping the masses quiet
and entertained -- as was done in past downturns) are repeated.
Mike
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Aug 13, 3:46 pm, "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <LostRune+...@UofR.SlamSpam.net>
> wrote:
> > Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47pm-0700, darkstar7...@gmail.com <darkstar7...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > > Which network shows are those, may I ask?
> >
> > > The Price is Right, for one example.
> >
> > > I already mentioned the PGA Championship.
> >
> > I haven't watched The Price is Right in years,
> > but the PGA Champ definitely wasn't 20+ min ads/hr
> > because I was watching it too (like I do the majors every year).
>
> I was too. It was like, literally, three shots, commercial. Three
> shots, commercial. Three hole-outs, another commercial. I mean, MAKE
> IT FREAKING STOP!!
>
Well, it may seem that way (though it didn't seem to me),
but do you realize how long it takes them to take a shot
when the championship is on the line?!
It's like a Japanese martial arts preparing for a battle!
>
> > Golf is strange that way, in not being too ad dependent,
> > not just because it's a sport (sports, unlike scripted shows, can't just
> > go to ads at anytime, because watchers want to see stuff happen live).
> > In fact, for a couple years not too long ago,
> > the Masters was broadcasted with no ad breaks whatsoever
> > (though the reason was more political, the economics afforded them that).
>
> And this was the fourth major of the year, no less -- should it not
> get the same treatment??
>
The Masters was the decision of the Augusta chairman, not the network.
Besides, you know not to compare the PGA Championship to the Masters....
>
> > > > I don't think the switch is costing people that much.
> >
> > > But, when everything else does...
> >
> > > That's one of the reasons, as I just got done telling Sea Wasp
> > > yesterday, that I believe that, for most Americans, discretionary
> > > income will be a thing of the past. I think that's also what's being
> > > looked at here.
> >
> > But the switch is pretty much a wash, regardless of everything else.
> > When it's a wash, people tend to pick things up just because
> > (kinda like free fansubs).
>
> The problem is that what happens when the economy finally breaks and
> one can't even afford to do anything but house, sleep, and eat (if
> they can even do all three of those things)? That's where we are
> headed.
>
Like I said, when it's a wash, it doesn't matter.
At the very least, they still have the option to watch TV
if they get the time. They already spent money for their TV;
at least have the option to use it that hardly cost anything.
(Heck, I picked up fansubs and DVDs I have not much inclination to watch
but picked 'em up anyway just because those didn't cost me much at all
and at least I have the option.)
>
> > > You seem to think that everybody has cable or satellite these days.
> >
> > Because the majority of American households already have it,
> > and that's where the trend is going for years.
> > (Kinda like the trend from dial-up to broadband internet.)
> > Also, those households tend to be the heavy TV watchers
> > and thus more significant to the TV business.
>
> But you make it sound like every TV-viewer has it.
>
Sorry if it sounded that way, but I don't think it detracts the point.
>
> > > > I'm talking about historically; I didn't even consider "now."
> >
> > > No, you didn't, because we're entering a very different phase than
> > > most in our history.
> >
> > > Read up on it.
> >
> > People always say it's going to turn out different,
> > but it always turn up more similar than different.
> > And didn't you just say (in another post)
> > those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?
> > I'm quite sure the theater business will do just fine,
> > as past history has shown.
>
> Only if the same political considerations (keeping the masses quiet
> and entertained -- as was done in past downturns) are repeated.
>
I'm not sure why they would detract otherwise.