> It must be a nightmare for Sony, to get really excited by DVDs,
> and here we are two years on, selling recording-DVDs with inbuilt
> hard drive for $500. It must break their hearts...

JT> I think that scares the shit out of free-to-air tv stations
JT> more. Time shifted viewing makes commerical breaks just about
JT> obselete. Not like the few VCRs around that fast-forward about
JT> 30 seconds, these buggers do it in about half a second.

 Yes - after you get used to watching TV on tape, it comes as a real
shock to watch it live, and have to put up with those interminable
commercials. I keep trying to fast-forward live transmissions

 They'll just have to adapt to starvation profits. Remember when
petrol companies used to make a motza and dominated TV commercials
using their extra profits? Now they have to settle for a comfortable
10% on capital, like Myers and everyone else.

JT> As you said, people don't watch movies more than about three
JT> times. I didn't actually believe that till after you menitioned
JT> it, and I find myself bored of recorded movies or DVDs, there's
JT> the odd few that are the exception to the rule, but for the
JT> most part, it just isn't worth taping anything. 

 TV sucks for a lack of content, and invariably when they run a good
movie, the opposing channel does the same. I tape a lot... not so I
can watch it twice, but so I can watch it the next night, For
instance, tonight (Sunday) there is OCEAN's 11 and X-MEN. I'll watch
OCEAN's and tape X-MEN for Monday, which is a total loss. Tape is much
better for that...DVD is only useful if you want to keep it. I *still*
can't see any point in DVD (except perhaps for porn or home movies,
or even better - both at once!)

JT> However, free-to-air is "free" because of advertising. That's
JT> why off-air recorded stuff is not counted as far as ratings go.
JT> As far as the stations go, if you're not sitting in front of
JT> it, viewing something live, then you're not really watching it
JT> and it doesn't count towards ratings. 

 I sometimes think that TV advertising is more force of habit than
actual effectiveness. I can watch an entire movie and not register a
single commercial... unless it's Coles advertising specials, or
something I find useful. For instance...what's the brand of the
tamponsin the commerical where the guy is throwing them to the kittan?
I register the joke (which is quite funny), but the brand... who
cares? They're not advertising the joke, but that the only part that
sticks (with apologies to tampons and where they are usually stuck).

 Is that the same brand tampon as the nervous fish? Who cares? 
What's the name of the toilet paper with the cute little pup? what's
the name of the toilet paper with the ugly wrinkled dog? Who gives a
shit? Is it just me? Does anyone remember the brand names of the crap
they waste our time running betweens glimpses fo the actual TV
programs?

 I suspect that nothing would change if the advertisers just paid the
TV stations and didn't bother with commercials... "This ten-second
blank screen is brought to you by Not-too-leaky Tampons" would have a
larger impact than a fuckwit tossing tampons to a kitten, and waste
less of our time, too. I mean, tampons are not the sort of thing a
woman is likely to rush out and buy because she sees it on TV. All
they're trying to implant (besides the actual cunt-stopper) is the
BRAND NAME. The rest is supposed to attract our attention...

 We're already watching their fucking movie, what more do they
want?

> Pesonally, I wouldn't like to lose SHREK, especially if all we
> have left for light entertainment is the hope of BUMBANDITS-13.

JT> You get what you pay for. Give the choice of Shrek and
JT> Bumbandits, I'll take shrek anyday.

 God only knows where it all ends up, but it's nearly time government
started doing its job, and looking after the interests of the People,
rather than the money-making bastards who prey off us. What else is
cable TV, than a new way to take money for what we already enjoyed
free, and better?

Regards,
Bob
 

 

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5