Another damned irritating intrusion on our viewing pleasure
Superman
As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience already..
seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated volume levels
rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners and 'ticker
tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing area, 'in your
face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest annoyance we are
forced to endure is ads during the closing credits. Seems some tv
executive genii have decreed that every show will now have the ending
credits squashed to invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other ad
ridden tv show. Too bad if we actually WANT to see the credits.. WANT to
know who was playing 'that part', or who some guest star was. What do
they care, we are only the viewers and we don't matter it seems.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com
"We stopped the boats coming. The facts speak for themselves. People knew where we stood. We didn't try to be all things to all men. Look, our policy worked. There was no need to alter it" - John Howard
"Our journalists are finally noticing the elephant in the room. Rudd has given us grocery watch, fuel watch, a national dept our children will still be paying, an ETS scheme that will further bankrupt the nation without making an iota of difference to global warming. Rudd is all spin and no substance. Even worse, he expects to fool all people all the time." - media comment
"I don't care what you f__kers think!" - The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
DaveS
_man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote:
>
>As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience already..
>seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated volume levels
>rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners and 'ticker
>tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing area, 'in your
>face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest annoyance we are
>forced to endure is ads during the closing credits. Seems some tv
>executive genii have decreed that every show will now have the ending
>credits squashed to invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other ad
>ridden tv show. Too bad if we actually WANT to see the credits.. WANT to
>know who was playing 'that part', or who some guest star was. What do
>they care, we are only the viewers and we don't matter it seems.
My thoughts absolutely exactly.....
David Barnett
news:pQj1n.67439$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience already..
> seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated volume levels
> rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners and 'ticker tape'
> messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing area, 'in your face'
> watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest annoyance we are forced to
> endure is ads during the closing credits. Seems some tv executive genii
> have decreed that every show will now have the ending credits squashed to
> invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other ad ridden tv show. Too
> bad if we actually WANT to see the credits.. WANT to know who was playing
> 'that part', or who some guest star was. What do they care, we are only
> the viewers and we don't matter it seems.
I agree.
I have to go to imdb if I want to see the credits (for movies)
However, this does not help if there are movie bits among the credits.
--
David Barnett
annily
>
> As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience already..
> seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated volume levels
> rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners and 'ticker
> tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing area, 'in your
> face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest annoyance we are
> forced to endure is ads during the closing credits. Seems some tv
> executive genii have decreed that every show will now have the ending
> credits squashed to invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other ad
> ridden tv show. Too bad if we actually WANT to see the credits.. WANT to
> know who was playing 'that part', or who some guest star was. What do
> they care, we are only the viewers and we don't matter it seems.
>
That's been happening for ages.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Lu R
"Superman" <"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
news:pQj1n.67439$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated volume levels
> rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners and 'ticker tape'
> messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing area, 'in your face'
> watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest annoyance we are forced to
> endure is ads during the closing credits. Seems some tv executive genii
> have decreed that every show will now have the ending credits squashed to
> invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other ad ridden tv show. Too
> bad if we actually WANT to see the credits.. WANT to know who was playing
> 'that part', or who some guest star was. What do they care, we are only
> the viewers and we don't matter it seems.
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
Freeview is a fuckin joke too...
?
> As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience already..
> seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated volume levels
> rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners and 'ticker
> tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing area, 'in your
> face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest annoyance we are
> forced to endure is ads during the closing credits. Seems some tv
> executive genii have decreed that every show will now have the ending
> credits squashed to invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other
> ad ridden tv show. Too bad if we actually WANT to see the credits..
> WANT to know who was playing 'that part', or who some guest star was.
> What do they care, we are only the viewers and we don't matter it
> seems.
TV = Mind Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9Gg7A-YEE&feature=related
TV Mind Control For Dummies http://www.tyspk.cjb.net
http://killercoke.org/crimes.htm
Superman
> Superman wrote:
>>
>> As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience
>> already.. seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated
>> volume levels rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners
>> and 'ticker tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing
>> area, 'in your face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest
>> annoyance we are forced to endure is ads during the closing credits.
>> Seems some tv executive genii have decreed that every show will now
>> have the ending credits squashed to invisibility by yet another ad
>> for yet some other ad ridden tv show. Too bad if we actually WANT to
>> see the credits.. WANT to know who was playing 'that part', or who
>> some guest star was. What do they care, we are only the viewers and
>> we don't matter it seems.
>>
>
> That's been happening for ages.
>
Well it seems to be being done more than ever. Even if there's no video
we get voice over. (sigh)
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
> On 8/01/2010 9:59 AM, annily wrote:
>
>> Superman wrote:
>>>
>>> As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience
>>> already.. seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated
>>> volume levels rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode, banners
>>> and 'ticker tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the viewing
>>> area, 'in your face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,.. the latest
>>> annoyance we are forced to endure is ads during the closing credits.
>>> Seems some tv executive genii have decreed that every show will now
>>> have the ending credits squashed to invisibility by yet another ad
>>> for yet some other ad ridden tv show. Too bad if we actually WANT to
>>> see the credits.. WANT to know who was playing 'that part', or who
>>> some guest star was. What do they care, we are only the viewers and
>>> we don't matter it seems.
>>
>> That's been happening for ages.
>
> Well it seems to be being done more than ever. Even if there's no video
> we get voice over. (sigh)
Yep, and its all annoying.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
Superman
> Superman wrote:
>> On 8/01/2010 9:59 AM, annily wrote:
>>
>>> Superman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience
>>>> already.. seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated
>>>> volume levels rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode,
>>>> banners and 'ticker tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the
>>>> viewing area, 'in your face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,..
>>>> the latest annoyance we are forced to endure is ads during the
>>>> closing credits. Seems some tv executive genii have decreed that
>>>> every show will now have the ending credits squashed to
>>>> invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other ad ridden tv
>>>> show. Too bad if we actually WANT to see the credits.. WANT to know
>>>> who was playing 'that part', or who some guest star was. What do
>>>> they care, we are only the viewers and we don't matter it seems.
>>>
>>> That's been happening for ages.
>>
>> Well it seems to be being done more than ever. Even if there's no
>> video we get voice over. (sigh)
>
> Yep, and its all annoying.
>
All movies are made to leave you with some emotion or feeling at the
end, and the better the movie the better that's done, and credits are
invariably associated with that, often by music which continues into
them, or just by the nature of the visual presentation of them. But what
do tv stations do? As soon as the movie finishes.. WHAM! they hit you
with some loud promotion for something you really don't want to know
about, and completely destroy the effect the director has so ably created!
DaveS
_man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote:
>All movies are made to leave you with some emotion or feeling at the
>end, and the better the movie the better that's done, and credits are
>invariably associated with that, often by music which continues into
>them, or just by the nature of the visual presentation of them. But what
>do tv stations do? As soon as the movie finishes.. WHAM! they hit you
>with some loud promotion for something you really don't want to know
>about, and completely destroy the effect the director has so ably created!
And / or they speed them up so they're gone in a flash, or they're
quick in the first place.
annily
Well, there are much better (and quicker) ways to get movies. Why watch
them on FTA TV?
Superman
Perhaps the 'F' part of that has something to do with it.
annily
Well, there is another way that's free (except for ISP charges).
Superman
Pirating?
> (except for ISP charges).
>
Then it's not free, is it.
annily
That's what it's sometimes called. I prefer to think of it as not being
geographically-limited in what FTA TV I can watch. Why should I be
penalized just because I don't live in the US or Canada?
>> (except for ISP charges).
>>
>
> Then it's not free, is it.
>
Neither is FTA TV. You still need to pay for something to watch it on.
Coach
Not if you go to your local Harvey Norman store and watch it in their
Home Theatre lounge.
effdee
Ok, so how can I watch RAGE doing that???
DavidW
> Superman wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there is another way that's free
>>>
>>
>> Then it's not free, is it.
>>
>
> Neither is FTA TV. You still need to pay for something to watch it on.
Irrelevant. That's a capital cost, not a per-program cost. And apart from the
cost, you need:
- to know where on the net to find the film
- a fast connection
- the time required to download it
- depending on your setup, the means, time and effort to transfer it to a medium
from which you can view it on your TV set
This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly and sitting down
to watch it, or recording it for later viewing without the ads (except on the
credits).
DavidW
> On 8/01/2010 9:59 AM, annily wrote:
>
>> Superman wrote:
>>>
>>> As if there isn't enough intrusion on our viewing experience
>>> already.. seemingly never ending ad breaks with their associated
>>> volume levels rivalling that of an airliner in take off mode,
>>> banners and 'ticker tape' messages obscuring a good portion of the
>>> viewing area, 'in your face' watermarks and logos, etc., etc.,..
>>> the latest annoyance we are forced to endure is ads during the
>>> closing credits. Seems some tv executive genii have decreed that
>>> every show will now have the ending credits squashed to
>>> invisibility by yet another ad for yet some other ad ridden tv
>>> show. Too bad if we actually WANT to see the credits.. WANT to know
>>> who was playing 'that part', or who some guest star was. What do
>>> they care, we are only the viewers and we don't matter it seems.
>>>
>>
>> That's been happening for ages.
>>
>
> Well it seems to be being done more than ever. Even if there's no
> video we get voice over. (sigh)
Yes, and even the ABC does that. As owners of the ABC, the taxpayers should not
be subjected to the same tactics used by commercial channels to hold viewers,
such as voiced promotions over credits and starting times 7 minutes or longer
after the listed times.
I have an episode of The Ascent Of Man, taped from the ABC, that ends at
Auschwitz. Unlike the other episodes, this one has silence for the closing
credits, in keeping with the mood of the episode. What do we get? The ABC
announcer buts in and tells us about next week's episode, and whatever else was
on hs mind. No fuckin' idea.
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
>
> This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly and sitting down
> to watch it, or recording it for later viewing without the ads (except on the
> credits).
How do you expect people to view it without the ads, if they record it from free
to air? And how do you expect them to view the credits from a free to air
recording when they are frequently buggered? Haven't you been reading this thread?
DavidW
muzzie troll . wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>>
>> This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly and
>> sitting down to watch it, or recording it for later viewing without
>> the ads (except on the credits).
>
> How do you expect people to view it without the ads, if they record
> it from free to air?
By skipping past them on playback. It's amazing what those gadgets will let you
do.
> And how do you expect them to view the credits
> from a free to air recording when they are frequently buggered?
> Haven't you been reading this thread?
Have _you_ read my post? I excluded the credits - specifically because they are
frequently "buggered".
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
> Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF " <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com is a stupid
> muzzie troll . wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly and
>>> sitting down to watch it, or recording it for later viewing without
>>> the ads (except on the credits).
>> How do you expect people to view it without the ads, if they record
>> it from free to air?
>
> By skipping past them on playback. It's amazing what those gadgets will let you
> do.
Think ....... FREEVIEW.
DavidW
muzzie troll . wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF " <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com is a stupid
>> muzzie troll . wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly and
>>>> sitting down to watch it, or recording it for later viewing without
>>>> the ads (except on the credits).
>>> How do you expect people to view it without the ads, if they record
>>> it from free to air?
>>
>> By skipping past them on playback. It's amazing what those gadgets
>> will let you do.
>
> Think ....... FREEVIEW.
Why?
Superman
I totally agree! Recorded something on channel 10 last night. It started
9 min 50 secs past the scheduled time, according to the DVDR timer. I
had set the timer for 5 minutes overrun- thinking that was all that was
necessary seeing it ch10- but of course missed the end of the show. If I
had been recording ch7 I would have set the timer for 15 min overun!
Seems that ch10 is just as bad now as 7 and 9, although 9 is probably
the best of the commercial channels for adhering to starting times,
except for the new stations which are probably better as they attract
less advertising. But expect them to become just as bad eventually I
guess. (sigh)
Superman
You disable the alarm system, break into the store, and turn the system
on, of course. How obvious! Oh.. you might have to keep and eye out for
security patrols as well.
annily
> annily wrote:
>> Superman wrote:
>>>> Well, there is another way that's free
>>>> (except for ISP charges).
>>>>
>>> Then it's not free, is it.
>>>
>> Neither is FTA TV. You still need to pay for something to watch it on.
>
> Irrelevant. That's a capital cost, not a per-program cost.
True, but the per-program cost is quite low with a decent plan.
> And apart from the
> cost, you need:
> - to know where on the net to find the film
Ever heard of Google?
> - a fast connection
Yes, got one of those. Well, only 5 Mbps, but quite fast enough.
> - the time required to download it
About 12 minutes for a 40-minute TV show. Hardly a problem, since I'm
doing other things.
> - depending on your setup, the means, time and effort to transfer it to a medium
> from which you can view it on your TV set
>
I don't need to transfer to another medium. Just connect the PC to the TV.
> This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly and sitting down
> to watch it, or recording it for later viewing without the ads (except on the
> credits).
>
>
Not as convenient, but worth it to see what you want, when you want,
often long before it comes to FTA TV (if it ever does).
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
> Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF " <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com is a stupid
> muzzie troll . wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF " <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com is a stupid
>>> muzzie troll . wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly and
>>>>> sitting down to watch it, or recording it for later viewing without
>>>>> the ads (except on the credits).
>>>> How do you expect people to view it without the ads, if they record
>>>> it from free to air?
>>> By skipping past them on playback. It's amazing what those gadgets
>>> will let you do.
>> Think ....... FREEVIEW.
>
> Why?
Read this -
http://digihub.smh.com.au/node/275
and
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/07/freeview_officially_launching_in_2009_yawn/
and note the comments.
David Barnett
news:Ucw2n.17274$Wl3....@newsfe11.iad...
All very true, but I do have a fast connection, and I have had TV Shows
download in less than 30 minutes.
Then I can immediately watch it on my Plasma TV, without any trouble at all.
I only download TV shows not available in Australia, and I rarely download a
movie.
Sometimes, however, these TV shows do become available here months or years
later.
--
David Barnett
David Barnett
OTOH, in praise of the ABC, it has iView, and the commercial channels IMHO
have no comparable equivalent; IOW a rather poor equivalent, and so far not
any show I want.
Recently, tho the ABC warned that it was showing things 30 minutes late, I
forgot about it, and so my recording of Taggart was about 15 minutes short -
iView to the rescue.
Tho I have to use the computer to get it, I watch iView on the TV.
The reason I record it is that I go to bed about the time it airs.
--
David Barnett
DavidW
muzzie troll . wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF " <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com is a stupid
>> muzzie troll . wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF " <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com is a
>>>> stupid muzzie troll . wrote:
>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> This hardly seems convenient compared with turning on the telly
>>>>>> and sitting down to watch it, or recording it for later viewing
>>>>>> without the ads (except on the credits).
>>>>> How do you expect people to view it without the ads, if they
>>>>> record it from free to air?
>>>> By skipping past them on playback. It's amazing what those gadgets
>>>> will let you do.
>>> Think ....... FREEVIEW.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Read this -
>
> http://digihub.smh.com.au/node/275
>
> and
>
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/07/freeview_officially_launching_in_2009_yawn/
>
> and note the comments.
I thought we were talking about skipping ads. I'm not getting how this stuff
about Freeview is relevant.
DavidW
> DavidW wrote:
>> annily wrote:
>>> Superman wrote:
>>>>> Well, there is another way that's free
>>>>> (except for ISP charges).
>>>>>
>>>> Then it's not free, is it.
>>>>
>>> Neither is FTA TV. You still need to pay for something to watch it
>>> on.
>>
>> Irrelevant. That's a capital cost, not a per-program cost.
>
> True, but the per-program cost is quite low with a decent plan.
So it's "quite low" - with a decent plan - not free.
>> And apart from the
>> cost, you need:
>> - to know where on the net to find the film
>
> Ever heard of Google?
Yes, but that's just another step to go through that's not necessary for the FTA
broadcast.
>> - a fast connection
>
> Yes, got one of those. Well, only 5 Mbps, but quite fast enough.
>
>> - the time required to download it
>
> About 12 minutes for a 40-minute TV show. Hardly a problem, since I'm
> doing other things.
Right. _You_ are doing other things.
>> - depending on your setup, the means, time and effort to transfer it
>> to a medium from which you can view it on your TV set
>>
>
> I don't need to transfer to another medium. Just connect the PC to
> the TV.
Right. _You_ don't need to transfer it.
You are recommending this to others as a general solution, remember. My point
was that it doesn't suit everyone, since it requires many boxes to be ticked,
and they might not be.
Mr.T
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>or recording it for later viewing without the ads (except on the
> credits).
The credits are unwatchable now, even if you wanted to, so no need to watch
ads there either.
MrT.
Mr.T
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> Yes, and even the ABC does that. As owners of the ABC, the taxpayers
should not
> be subjected to the same tactics used by commercial channels to hold
viewers,
> such as voiced promotions over credits and starting times 7 minutes or
longer
> after the listed times.
And bloody watermarks!!!!!!!!
Not that the ABC gives a stuff about viewers either.
MrT.
Mr.T
"Superman" <"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
news:bkz2n.666$pv...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I totally agree! Recorded something on channel 10 last night. It started
> 9 min 50 secs past the scheduled time, according to the DVDR timer. I
> had set the timer for 5 minutes overrun- thinking that was all that was
> necessary seeing it ch10- but of course missed the end of the show. If I
> had been recording ch7 I would have set the timer for 15 min overun!
> Seems that ch10 is just as bad now as 7 and 9, although 9 is probably
> the best of the commercial channels for adhering to starting times,
If you tried recording Magnum P.I. last week you would still have missed it
altogether, it started 60 minutes early. Both the program guides and EPG
were wrong all week
But only 9 minutes 50 seconds out is practically on time these days! Most of
the channels are FAR worse than that *every* day!!!!
> except for the new stations which are probably better as they attract
> less advertising. But expect them to become just as bad eventually I
> guess. (sigh)
ONE was well over half an hour out the other night according to both the
program guides and their own EPG (such as that is!). So no need to wait for
them to "become as bad" :-(
7Two and Go! were a little better at the start, but have already seen the
"error" of their ways :-(
MrT.
annily
> annily wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> annily wrote:
>>>> Superman wrote:
>>>>>> Well, there is another way that's free
>>>>>> (except for ISP charges).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then it's not free, is it.
>>>>>
>>>> Neither is FTA TV. You still need to pay for something to watch it
>>>> on.
>>> Irrelevant. That's a capital cost, not a per-program cost.
>> True, but the per-program cost is quite low with a decent plan.
>
> So it's "quite low" - with a decent plan - not free.
>
Yes. I never said it was free.
>>> And apart from the
>>> cost, you need:
>>> - to know where on the net to find the film
>> Ever heard of Google?
>
> Yes, but that's just another step to go through that's not necessary for the FTA
> broadcast.
>
Yes.
>>> - a fast connection
>> Yes, got one of those. Well, only 5 Mbps, but quite fast enough.
>>
>>> - the time required to download it
>> About 12 minutes for a 40-minute TV show. Hardly a problem, since I'm
>> doing other things.
>
> Right. _You_ are doing other things.
>
Yes, and so could anyone else.
>>> - depending on your setup, the means, time and effort to transfer it
>>> to a medium from which you can view it on your TV set
>>>
>> I don't need to transfer to another medium. Just connect the PC to
>> the TV.
>
> Right. _You_ don't need to transfer it.
>
Yes, and neither do many other people. Many PCs can be connected to TVs.
> You are recommending this to others as a general solution, remember.
I am? Where did I suggest this?
> My point
> was that it doesn't suit everyone, since it requires many boxes to be ticked,
> and they might not be.
>
>
Yes, but since people complain about local FTA TV, they should realize
that you get what you pay for, so if they want something better, they
need to pay for it, and try a little harder. Complaining won't solve the
problem.