Capuchin
-
Posts
1,118 -
Joined
Posts posted by Capuchin
-
-
> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > Capuchin wrote:
>> Cable company execs have said they'd like to offer each provider's channels in a separate tier.
> Really? Cable companies would like to have every single channel in its own tier? I doubt it.
Not every channel, every provider's channels.
All of Viacom's channels in one tier, all of Disney's in another, etc.
> Cable and satellite companies benefit from making us buy tiers rather than individual channels as much as the content providers do.
What they want is to advertise a very low base price and then sell you tiers to bump up your payments. That's why they want to be able to segregate each provider's channels into separate tiers. They can also make money by charging fees for switching packages (it costs nothing to upgrade, it often costs to drop something).
-
> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}
> sit back and wait for all the posts from those in the know who defend the cable companies
In this case, DirecTV's stance actually benefits consumers. If they cave, Viacom will use that contract as a basis for negotiating contacts with cable companies. Cable companies have to pass their costs on to the customer, meaning that even people who don't watch or want Viacom channels will see increases in their bills.
I think there should be a simple set of rules:
1) If a channel is all ads, it pays to be carried (shopping channels, etc.).
2) If a channel has ads in its programs, it neither pays or is paid (its ads should support it).
3) If a channel doesn't have ads, it gets paid (HBO, Showtime, etc.).
-
> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> DirecTV is claiming Viacom wants viewers to pay 30% more.
> Viacom also claims the increase only amounts to a few cents per household per channel. I don't know if that claim is correct or not;
Both sides are right. They've just twisted the way they present the facts.
3 cents per day per 20,000,000 households is over $1,000,000,000 over the term of a 5-year contract.
>One thing I do know, is that it is unrealistic to expect the companies to never raise their prices or want to renegotiate their contracts.
Prices go up and contracts are renegotiated, but a company can't let vendors dictate price and terms. If something is more expensive than it's worth to your customers, you find a new vendor.
DirecTV has a shrinking pool of potential customers. Fewer young people are signing up, and some customers are cutting the cord because of the costs. Gone are the days when cable and satellite companies could blithely pass along rate increases.
> The head of DirecTV claims they should be able to purchase channels from Viacom individually, so they would only have to pay for the most popular channels. Notice, however, that DirecTV does not offer the same option to its viewers. A bit of hypocrisy there,
This is like a tire manufacturer saying GM has to put six of their tires on each car or they can't have any of them, and you wouldn't expect to be able to buy a Chevy with only two wheels..
Cable company execs have said they'd like to offer each provider's channels in a separate tier. The providers refuse to allow it because then the price would be evident. (Personally, I'd give up watching Phineas and Ferb if it meant not having to pay for ESPN, both of which are from Disney.)
-
> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote}
> I am thrilled about the quality programming offered by PBS-old movies, well made documentaries, informative series & news, etc.
It's great that you have a good PBS station. There are two here, and they're mostly rubbish. Besides Antiques Roadshow and Masterpiece, the only thing worthwhile is one channel has Britcoms and the other shows an old movie. Naturally, they're scheduled opposite each other.
I don't know what's available on your channel, but I highly recommend keeping an eye out for shows like To The Manor Born, The Vicar of Dibley, and Chef.
-
I just got an e-mail from SansFin saying she found a message in her inbox. I PM'ed the person to let them know she can't respond right away (her connection is really spotty, and it crashed before she could even read the message).
If anyone else wants to send her a message, PM me, and I'll forward it. I don't log in every day, but it won't be as long as waiting for her to get back.
Speaking of which . . . we're not sure when that'll be. She took an apartment because it looks like the last piece of paperwork she needs is going to take a while. She said the apt. is an easy walk from Deribasovskaya Street (and, yes, I cut and pasted that name rather than trying to spell it!). That doesn't tell me much because, for her, easy walking distance is anything less than a couple of miles.
At the moment, the city's pretty much shut down because of the flood, so she's spending a few days in St. Petersburg with her dad.
We're really hoping she'll be back before the last week of August, but there's no guarantee since she hasn't even figured out yet who to --bribe-- ask for special assistance.
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
> 10 CLS
> 20 FOR I=1 TO 10
> 30 PRINT "KRIEGERG69"
> 40 NEXT I
C:DOS
C:DOSRUN
RUNDOSRUN
-
Does purple prose count? I can easily name a dozen movies with scads of it.
-
> {quote:title=Stephan55 wrote:}{quote}
> And people that I talk to that think they are getting great miles per gallon when their expensive new compact gets 30 miles per gallon on the highway.
With current technology, it'd be easy to produce a car with great performance and 100+ mpg.
The reason it isn't happening is a little thing called the EPA.
To get the most out of fuel, it must be burned at high temperatures. As the temp goes up, so do NOx emissions. At lower temps and compression, emissions drop significantly, but so does the energy you get out of the fuel.
I don't have a cite handy, but I remember a few years ago a classic car club petitioned for an exemption because their cars couldn't meet the county's new emission standards. A modern V-8 could pass easily, but their one-lungers spewed out too much pollution.
Add in all the weight of air bags, catalytic converters, and a thousand other safety and environmental gizmos, and you've got a nightmare of less horsepower vs more to power and move.
There's a lot wrong with the way modern cars are produced and marketed, and no auto executive would last long if their blood wasn't 87% Chicanery, but the engines themselves are technological marvels.
The reason some higher mpg vehicles can be marketed in other countries is because there aren't the regulatory mandates that exist here.
The reason bio-fuels have never made headway here is they aren't cost effective or efficient. The only reason sugar cane to alcohol programs work in some countries is because farm labor is cheap. When all the jobs are done by machines (as they would be here), it takes more energy to produce a gallon of alcohol than it contains.
-
> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}
> NOTE: anachronistic references?
> Either it is notable that the 1935 Chevrolet Master De Luxe with suicide doors is specific to the plot, or the setting for the story is 1935, which would make several items on the list non-existent for it's time frame.
> Which is it?
Call it an establishing shot. Instead of setting, it goes to characterization.
Pulling a black BMW into a parking garage full of Mercs, Suburbans, Jags, etc. identifies the driver as one of the herd. A vintage car, especially one not popularized by collectors or restorers, says the character is a nonconformist.
-
> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}
> A sleek black BMW
A BMW? Please! At least make it a 1935 Chevrolet Master De Luxe with suicide doors.
-
It had to be something totally mindless. For the guy who directed Ant in Your Pants, only something which lacks any claim to artistic merit could affirm his value to society and defend his work.
The Marx Brothers were too complex. Popeye, Bugs, and other popular cartoons required pacing and story development to achieve their biggest laughs. For him to aspire to emulate them would be trading one vision (document the poor) for another (create literate humor). Only a cartoon that's just one outrageous scene after another, with little thought and no styling, could validate the kind of movies he'd been making.
-
> {quote:title=Bilgewasser wrote:}{quote}
> I don't want to appear immodest, but I'm currently working on what I think just might be the next Great American Shopping List. I've already completed work on 15 items.
Just so you know, this one is copyrighted --
Breath Mints
Candles
Red Wine
Chocolate-covered cherries
Roses
Barry Manilow CD
Romaine lettuce
Cherry tomatoes
Bottle of French Dressing
White Wine
Lobster tails
Baby peas
New potatoes
Brandy
Cheesecake
6 Disposable cameras
8 square feet of fake fur
14 tubes of K-Y Jelly
Feather duster
50 foot clothesline
Nerf ball
Nude Nuns with Big Guns (2010) DVD
Large box of gauze bandages
Blood-Out laundry stain remover
-
> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote}
> Billy was one of the very few, who could make the words come to life in such a colossal way as to make a film so memorable.
I don't think he's a good example.
He, and few others, had the glorious opportunity to ensure that the actors were delivering the lines exactly as he envisioned them, and he could adjust the dialogue to feed to the actors' strengths and minimize their weaknesses. He didn't have to write to a mediocre standard so the script could be spoken by just about anyone the director might cast, and he didn't have to make the lines so basic that they carried at least some meaning in spite of whatever way the actor chose to deliver them.
He was, obviously, a rare genius, but anytime the writer is also the director, or assists in directing, the result should be nearly perfect.
Holding him forth as someone to emulate is ignoring the limits normal writers face.
For my own writing, I've used text-to-speech programs so I can listen to the flow and structure, independent of what I might subconsciously apply when reading it aloud. The same paragraph can sound exciting, pensive, or banal depending on the choice of male/female, young/old, etc., and doing minor tweaks to the tone and pacing.
Being able to do that with live actors, especially when adding choice of camera angles and continuous directions re facial expression, can make even a stodgy hack seem like a reincarnation of Shakespeare.
-
Writing is like a mirror -- when it's perfect, you don't see it. You only notice it is when there are flaws.
I'm a writer. When I come across bad writing in a movie, I don't automatically blame the screenwriter. The script may have been perfect, but directors and editors often butcher the flow and actors decide to take the character in a different direction. A great, innovative line written to be stated boldly comes across as trite when spoken simperingly.
I sometimes find myself subconsciously rewriting lines because I'll recognize what the writer meant, but the actors couldn't carry off that sentence structure. That's why roles written for a specific actor are so often vastly superior to generic roles.
There are many times the writer's word choices undermine their grand intentions. Tell a woman she looks like the first breath of spring, and you might get a kiss. Her reaction will be quite different if you say exactly the same thing with the words, "you look like the end of a long, hard winter."
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> I missed SansFin's post telling us of the trip, and was hoping you might relay to her, one way or the other, my belated best wishes.
You couldn't have replied in time. She was dragging me out the door about half an hour after she got the message from her realtor (she booked her flight, posted, and sent a few e-mails while I got dressed).
> And it sounds like she really knows how to take care of herself, ha!
She's in her element. She'd live in airplanes and on the fringes of strange cities if she could. Being in her hometown makes it easier.
I have this natural instinct to protect her. Sometimes I think I'm trying to babysit a shark!
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}Enjoy your kompot on the beach, Sansfin! I'll be anxiously awaiting your return.
I e-mailed her your comment (Internet access there isn't safe). She appreciates all your good wishes.
She's having a great time. One of the boys who tried to pick her up the first day drives a taxi, and she's put him on a short leash. Under the threat she'll tell his friends he hit on someone old enough to be his grandmother, he's giving her a reduced rate and showing her all the new hotspots.
The final piece of paper she needs for the sale is supposed to be ready in the morning. If it isn't, she'll rent an apartment and wait it out.
They gave her the deposit the buyer put down, and she's busy spending it. She's already mailed two boxes of stuff she bought. It'll be interesting to see how long they take to get here.
-
I knew it'd cost a lot more than her other trips because it was last minute. She had to check into a hotel because she couldn't connect with anyone right away. I'm happy to see she didn't skimp (people there are famous for renting out spare rooms, and even garden sheds, to travelers looking for a cheap place to stay). Tonight she's at a cousin's house.
I miss her, of course, but she's been getting really homesick lately. I think looking for pictures to post in the Born in the Wrong Time thread has made it worse. There's been a lot of times she's shown me a picture she found and tell me all about something that happened to her there.
And I'm hoping she does a lot of shopping! She lives on the cheap and won't spend a penny she doesn't have to, especially for clothes. Maybe the price difference will spur her to go a little wild.
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}
> I hope you have a lovely trip, and an easy time of it with the sale. How sad for you to have to go shopping every day and ogle unsuspecting young men in their bathing suits.... I'll be thinking about you, and we'll try to behave, though I wouldn't count on it.
I'll send her your post by e-mail (she doesn't want to log into her regular accounts from there).
She spent the afternoon on the beach, and two of those unsuspecting boys tried to pick her up! Oh, the inhumanity!
As she expected, there's a hitch with the deed, so there's no telling when she'll finish up. I hope it's soon! She's already eating into the extra $1,000 I put on her VISA card.
-
SansFin asked me to tend this thread for her (she's gone for a bit and didn't want to post and run).
> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}
>> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}It has truly been a fun night going from Gojira to Rodan to Mothra!
> I agree completely! Seeing all three in their original form was wonderful. *Gojira* is ten times the film *Godzilla* is. *Mothra* was great fun,
Gojira is clearly far above the Americanized version. I wouldn't have watched if she hadn't twisted my arm (I like Godzilla, but we watched it a few weeks ago), and I'm glad she did.
I'm sure she appreciates your backing up her opinion. I sent her your post in an e-mail, but it'll be at least a few days before she can get back to you (she's lounging on the beach).
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> it certainly wasn't directed at you.
If I wanted to bother changing my keyboard over to Cyrillic, I could tell you what she said when she read your post (I wouldn't dare put it in English), and then you'd really be offended!
EOD
-
She sent me an e-mail saying she transferred okay. It's a 16 hour flight (I don't envy her that), and she's sitting next to a girl who's going to Odessa for the first time.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> What a rude thing to say to a fellow board member.
I happen to have all my report cards from grade school. Not one of them has a checkmark in the Plays Nicely With Others box.
You made a snide comment. I gave you a friendly hint (it was plainly labeled) why that's not a smart thing to do.
I'll even give you another friendly hint -- the Ignore Member button works perfectly.
-
SansFin asked me to tend this thread for her (she's gone for a bit and didn't want to post and run).
> {quote:title=TCMfan23 wrote:}{quote}
> what gives you the right to think you could show whatever you want
They get that right by owning the station.
They cater to a large viewership. There aren't enough people who'll watch a narrow band of years and genres to keep them in business.
Within their viewership, there's a large crowd who wants eclectic movies. Should they shun those people and program only for the few viewers who have an IQ smaller than their waist?
-
SansFin asked me to tend this thread for her (she's gone for a bit and didn't want to post and run).
> {quote:title=allthumbs wrote:}{quote}
> BTW i see that Empire of Passion (which i thought was pretty good) is also known as "In the Realm of Passion." what is the "official" title of this film?
It's probably Empire of Passion. The director made his name with Realm of Senses (or some such title), and the marketing people probably wanted that tie in.
Off Topic: Viacom's GREED!
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
>> Capuchin wrote:
>> In this case, DirecTV's stance actually benefits consumers.
> DirecTV's stance is not designed to benefit customers
Of course it's not designed to benefit consumers; it just happens to be a side-effect.
>They are either afraid that the increased costs will eat into their (probably already exorbitant) profit margins, or else they will have to raise their prices which will lose them customers.
The profit margins these days are quite slim. They borrowed heavily to put satellites into orbit, and the customer growth to pay off the debts hasn't hit what they expected because of the bad economy.
> there is entirely too much defense of the satellite and cable companies as if they are angels...
I'd never claim they're angels. They're middlemen, and when dealing with vendors, they do have to take into account what they can reasonably sell. With the satellite/cable/Roku options available today, they have to find what's the most palatable price/services ratio. That benefits consumers.