On 31/01/2011 4:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial
> break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that
> happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.
>
We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know this 
because often American made programmes will have a scene change that 
exhibits the behaviour you describe.
I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:56:53 -0000, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On 31/01/2011 11:44 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again - children's TV programming
>> often excels compared to that targeted at adults. Then again are we just
>> getting a large amount of rubbish these days? "Have I Got News for You",
>> "Never Mind the Buzzcocks", and "Mock the Week" in the short bursts they
>> do. "Misfits" which has been simply outstanding. "Being Human" which
>> just gets better. "Doctor Who" of course and... hmm that's about it.
>> I've ended up setting the box to record the re-runs of "Malcolm in the
>> Middle" on Fiver for a half-hour 'fix' of something decent. Everything
>> else is Soap or soap-like - real-life turned to 11 and painted in
>> day-glo fluorescent colours; or reality shows that aren't. Just nothing
>> worth watching for most of the week.
>
> I quite liked the Inbetweeners.

Couldn't get on with it, a bit like "The Office" caused too much  
arse-squirming embarrassment.

Time for the controversy - Miranda (Hart) - Best New British TV Comedy?  
Talking to someone about that and they said "If they can't make a funny  
30-second 'advert' what hope is there for the series?"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:14 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On the other hand, consider recent films like Lord of the Rings or
> Avatar. Those are pretty damned long, and yet still very popular.

What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
That is one of the things that puts me off going.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 04:48 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 4:14 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> On the other hand, consider recent films like Lord of the Rings or
>> Avatar. Those are pretty damned long, and yet still very popular.
>
> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
> That is one of the things that puts me off going.

Depends what film, and what time of day you go.

I've only had a problem once. I went with a girl to see AI. (If you ever 
get the chance, DO NOT bother watching this miserable piece of crap.) 
Some kid behind us was playing with explosives. They actually stopped 
the film and turned all the lights back on while the police removed them.

Great way to get into a girl's knickers, that one. >_<

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:45 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Couldn't get on with it, a bit like "The Office" caused too much
> arse-squirming embarrassment.
>

Maybe I'm a bit more removed from adolescence. But I know what you mean 
because that's how I feel about "The Office".

> Time for the controversy - Miranda (Hart) - Best New British TV Comedy?
> Talking to someone about that and they said "If they can't make a funny
> 30-second 'advert' what hope is there for the series?"

Not seen/heard her.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:50 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 04:48 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 31/01/2011 4:14 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> On the other hand, consider recent films like Lord of the Rings or
>>> Avatar. Those are pretty damned long, and yet still very popular.
>>
>> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
>> That is one of the things that puts me off going.
>
> Depends what film, and what time of day you go.
>

I suppose so.

> I've only had a problem once. I went with a girl to see AI. (If you ever
> get the chance, DO NOT bother watching this miserable piece of crap.)
> Some kid behind us was playing with explosives. They actually stopped
> the film and turned all the lights back on while the police removed them.
>
> Great way to get into a girl's knickers, that one. >_<

Why did she leave them on the seat?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:13 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?
>
> Well, it was *actually* nearly noon. What can I say?

"I'll be home late, mum"?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?
>>
>> Well, it was *actually* nearly noon. What can I say?
>
> "I'll be home late, mum"?

I think you mean, "mum, I'm 30 years old and I'll be home whenever I 
damned well feel like it".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Great way to get into a girl's knickers, that one. >_<
>
> Why did she leave them on the seat?

Oh, don't even get me started thinking about actually seeing her knickers...

Ah, the memories of shattered dreams.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:42:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 4:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial
>> break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that
>> happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.
>>
> We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know this
> because often American made programmes will have a scene change that
> exhibits the behaviour you describe.
> I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.

"Fewer", you mean?  (Odd that an American has to teach English to a Brit 
<gd&rvvf>)

But yes, I know what you mean - I do wish we had fewer breaks, but it 
seems that now out of an hour, we get about 43 minutes of actual 
programming.  Used to be closer to 50 minutes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:38:32 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> And the teasing pre-caps "coming up on..." that repeat multiple times
> during the show not just at breaks or at the end for the next episode;
> even the BBC have got into the act.

Even worse is when they start one show over the credits of another.  If 
I'm recording a programme, how am I supposed to get the whole thing if 
you start EARLY?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:48:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?

Recent experience suggests that it's not good.  We went to see Tron 
Legacy and there was a group of half a dozen teens who came in late and 
then talked through the entire film.  Not in whispers, either, but in 
normal voices.  I was tempted multiple times to loudly suggest that they 
take their conversation outside, or to ask for reimbursement for my 
tickets, because I hadn't paid to listen to them gab through the whole 
film.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 9:06 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?
>>>
>>> Well, it was *actually* nearly noon. What can I say?
>>
>> "I'll be home late, mum"?
>
> I think you mean, "mum, I'm 30 years old and I'll be home whenever I
> damned well feel like it".
>
If that's OK with you :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 9:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >  We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know this
>> >  because often American made programmes will have a scene change that
>> >  exhibits the behaviour you describe.
>> >  I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.
> "Fewer", you mean?  (Odd that an American has to teach English to a Brit)

First we had the Irish (GBS) now you.
You must remember that English is not my first language, it is Stephen-ese.
Thirdly I was speaking about time periods which as everyone knows is 
“less” not “fewer”.
(I liked Mornington Crescent, this week.)

> <gd&rvvf>

How right you are.

> But yes, I know what you mean - I do wish we had fewer breaks, but it
> seems that now out of an hour, we get about 43 minutes of actual
> programming.  Used to be closer to 50 minutes.

That seems about right. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 9:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:48:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
>
> Recent experience suggests that it's not good.  We went to see Tron
> Legacy and there was a group of half a dozen teens who came in late and
> then talked through the entire film.  Not in whispers, either, but in
> normal voices.  I was tempted multiple times to loudly suggest that they
> take their conversation outside, or to ask for reimbursement for my
> tickets, because I hadn't paid to listen to them gab through the whole
> film.
>

It is as if they think they are at home watching their TV.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:49:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 9:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:48:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
>>
>> Recent experience suggests that it's not good.  We went to see Tron
>> Legacy and there was a group of half a dozen teens who came in late and
>> then talked through the entire film.  Not in whispers, either, but in
>> normal voices.  I was tempted multiple times to loudly suggest that
>> they take their conversation outside, or to ask for reimbursement for
>> my tickets, because I hadn't paid to listen to them gab through the
>> whole film.
>>
>>
> It is as if they think they are at home watching their TV.

Indeed, but even then I get annoyed when watching a film at home and 
having people talking during it.  If I've seen it before, that's a 
different matter - but it drives me crazy having people saying "Oh, this 
is the coolest part of the film coming up!" ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:48:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 9:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >  We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know
>>> >  this because often American made programmes will have a scene
>>> >  change that exhibits the behaviour you describe.
>>> >  I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.
>> "Fewer", you mean?  (Odd that an American has to teach English to a
>> Brit)
> 
> First we had the Irish (GBS) now you. You must remember that English is
> not my first language, it is Stephen-ese. Thirdly I was speaking about
> time periods which as everyone knows is “less” not “fewer”.
> (I liked Mornington Crescent, this week.)

Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the 
number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly. ;-)

I know at least one Brit who would back me up on this. ;-)

>> <gd&rvvf>
> 
> How right you are.

Yes, but fortunately, I'm faster. ;-)

>> But yes, I know what you mean - I do wish we had fewer breaks, but it
>> seems that now out of an hour, we get about 43 minutes of actual
>> programming.  Used to be closer to 50 minutes.
> 
> That seems about right. :-(

Yeah, then again, the quality of a lot of programming here in the US, 
losing time to commercials isn't an entirely bad thing.  600 channels of 
programmes, and nothing on worth watching much of the time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>

Have it your own way. You always do. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 10:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Indeed, but even then I get annoyed when watching a film at home and
> having people talking during it.  If I've seen it before, that's a
> different matter - but it drives me crazy having people saying "Oh, this
> is the coolest part of the film coming up!";-)
>
Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:48:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
>> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>>
>>
> Have it your own way. You always do. :-P

That's because I'm right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:50:46 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 10:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Indeed, but even then I get annoyed when watching a film at home and
>> having people talking during it.  If I've seen it before, that's a
>> different matter - but it drives me crazy having people saying "Oh,
>> this is the coolest part of the film coming up!";-)
>>
> Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”

I actually came close to that - it was Ken's girlfriend, and she didn't 
realise we hadn't seen the film before.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:48:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
>>> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Have it your own way. You always do. :-P
>
> That's because I'm right. ;-)
>

You always are (so you say). ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”
> I actually came close to that - it was Ken's girlfriend, and she didn't
> realise we hadn't seen the film before.

Awkward

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:48:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
>>>> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Have it your own way. You always do. :-P
>>
>> That's because I'm right. ;-)
>>
>>
> You always are (so you say). ;-)

I don't hear you debating it. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:45:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”
>> I actually came close to that - it was Ken's girlfriend, and she didn't
>> realise we hadn't seen the film before.
> 
> Awkward

Yeah, slightly.  She's borderline ADD/ADHD as it is, so it's sometimes 
tricky to point that kind of thing out, because her brain doesn't focus 
well on things for long periods of time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:18:55 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:38:32 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> And the teasing pre-caps "coming up on..." that repeat multiple times
>> during the show not just at breaks or at the end for the next episode;
>> even the BBC have got into the act.
>
> Even worse is when they start one show over the credits of another.  If
> I'm recording a programme, how am I supposed to get the whole thing if
> you start EARLY?

Oh I complained to the BBC on that one - Watch a programme on BBC2 until  
the end turn over just as the credits roll and find the programme on BBC1  
has already started:

"We do allow programme-makers some flexibility in running time, although  
all programmes are expected to run about one minute less than their slot  
time so that we can accommodate promotional trails and continuity  
announcements. If a programme is over-running slightly, it may be  
necessary to begin it a little early."

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:50:51 -0000, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On 31/01/2011 4:45 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Couldn't get on with it, a bit like "The Office" caused too much
>> arse-squirming embarrassment.
>>
>
> Maybe I'm a bit more removed from adolescence. But I know what you mean  
> because that's how I feel about "The Office".

Or it's just me - I don't like any show or episode in which the main point  
is laughing at someone's naivety or unselfconsciousness.

>> Time for the controversy - Miranda (Hart) - Best New British TV Comedy?
>> Talking to someone about that and they said "If they can't make a funny
>> 30-second 'advert' what hope is there for the series?"
>
> Not seen/heard her.

Do you want to inflict 2 minutes on yourself  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIDquJbDFf0 this is the part that the BBC  
thought would get you to watch the full episode.


-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 11:13 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Maybe I'm a bit more removed from adolescence. But I know what you
>> mean because that's how I feel about "The Office".
>
> Or it's just me - I don't like any show or episode in which the main
> point is laughing at someone's naivety or unselfconsciousness.
>
Normally I feel like that too but it is (IMO) so OTT it is detached from 
reality. Except for how the girls treat the boys.


>>
>> Not seen/heard her.
>
> Do you want to inflict 2 minutes on yourself
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIDquJbDFf0 this is the part that the BBC
> thought would get you to watch the full episode.

I lasted about 30 seconds. Pitiful.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 2:15 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:48:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
>>>>> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Have it your own way. You always do. :-P
>>>
>>> That's because I'm right. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> You always are (so you say). ;-)
>
> I don't hear you debating it. ;-)
>

That's right.
(see you are always right.)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 2:16 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:45:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”
>>> I actually came close to that - it was Ken's girlfriend, and she didn't
>>> realise we hadn't seen the film before.
>>
>> Awkward
>
> Yeah, slightly.  She's borderline ADD/ADHD as it is, so it's sometimes
> tricky to point that kind of thing out, because her brain doesn't focus
> well on things for long periods of time.
>

How about, hitting her over the head with a cushion and tickling her 
until she gets the point?
I find a bit of gentle violence never comes amiss.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:54:04 -0000, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On 01/02/2011 11:13 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> Do you want to inflict 2 minutes on yourself
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIDquJbDFf0 this is the part that the BBC
>> thought would get you to watch the full episode.
>
> I lasted about 30 seconds. Pitiful.

And that's been deemed the "Best New British TV Comedy" for 2010; wait a  
sec... I've just looked at the other two nominees - "Grandma's House" and  
"The Trip". Oh yeah stiff competition there [cough]

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 12:45 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
> And that's been deemed the "Best New British TV Comedy" for 2010;

By whom? No, don't bother. :-)

> wait a
> sec... I've just looked at the other two nominees - "Grandma's House"
> and "The Trip". Oh yeah stiff competition there [cough]

Now I remember why I don't watch live TV.
-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:02:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> How about, hitting her over the head with a cushion and tickling her
> until she gets the point?
> I find a bit of gentle violence never comes amiss.

I could get Ken to do that, but she'd probably enjoy that, so probably 
not much of a deterrant. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:20:28 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> Even worse is when they start one show over the credits of another.  If
>> I'm recording a programme, how am I supposed to get the whole thing if
>> you start EARLY?
> 
> Oh I complained to the BBC on that one - Watch a programme on BBC2 until
> the end turn over just as the credits roll and find the programme on
> BBC1 has already started:
> 
> "We do allow programme-makers some flexibility in running time, although
> all programmes are expected to run about one minute less than their slot
> time so that we can accommodate promotional trails and continuity
> announcements. If a programme is over-running slightly, it may be
> necessary to begin it a little early."

The thing that really gets to me is that if the provider (Comcast in my 
case) provides the time to my DVR and they host the programmes, how is it 
possible that the programmes cannot (a) start actually on time, and (b) 
the recording can't be jiggered to actually record *the entire programme* 
regardless of what time it actually starts?

I mean really - if I ask it to record The Simpsons (and the machine knows 
that's what I want), if the programme starts 15 minutes late because of a 
news bulletin, time change because of programming earlier in the day 
(Super Bowl, World Series, etc), the dumb thing should *know* that I 
don't care what's on between 7 PM and 7:30 PM if it isn't The Simpsons - 
so it shouldn't record based on time but based on *what I actually wanted 
to record*.  And if the programme starts 2 minutes early or runs 2 
minutes over, then it should record *to completion* and not stop just 
because the time it says it was scheduled for isn't the time it actually 
ran.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:59:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>>> That's because I'm right. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You always are (so you say). ;-)
>>
>> I don't hear you debating it. ;-)
>>
>>
> That's right.
> (see you are always right.)

LOL

BTW, you were right about Mornington Crescent last night - well done. :-)

But I *really* want to know what that version of "We Will Rock You" was 
all about.  Were they *trying* to make us wish Jeremy was there, or were 
they trying to make us think he was?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 5:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:02:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> How about, hitting her over the head with a cushion and tickling her
>> until she gets the point?
>> I find a bit of gentle violence never comes amiss.
>
> I could get Ken to do that, but she'd probably enjoy that, so probably
> not much of a deterrant. :-)

No it has to be you. The surprise makes it memorable.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 5:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> BTW, you were right about Mornington Crescent last night - well done.:-)
>

I cannot accept any credit.

> But I*really*  want to know what that version of "We Will Rock You" was
> all about.  Were they*trying*  to make us wish Jeremy was there, or were
> they trying to make us think he was?

A generic Rock Star, I think.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:08:06 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 5:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:02:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> How about, hitting her over the head with a cushion and tickling her
>>> until she gets the point?
>>> I find a bit of gentle violence never comes amiss.
>>
>> I could get Ken to do that, but she'd probably enjoy that, so probably
>> not much of a deterrant. :-)
> 
> No it has to be you. The surprise makes it memorable.

Hmmm, worth considering...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:10:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 5:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> BTW, you were right about Mornington Crescent last night - well
>> done.:-)
>>
>>
> I cannot accept any credit.

But you should, you're the one who said it was a good round.

>> But I*really*  want to know what that version of "We Will Rock You" was
>> all about.  Were they*trying*  to make us wish Jeremy was there, or
>> were they trying to make us think he was?
> 
> A generic Rock Star, I think.

One that really can't sing. ;-)

Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.  
And that's saying something.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:19:40 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:20:28 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>>> Even worse is when they start one show over the credits of another.  If
>>> I'm recording a programme, how am I supposed to get the whole thing if
>>> you start EARLY?
>>
>> Oh I complained to the BBC on that one - Watch a programme on BBC2 until
>> the end turn over just as the credits roll and find the programme on
>> BBC1 has already started:
>>
>> "We do allow programme-makers some flexibility in running time, although
>> all programmes are expected to run about one minute less than their slot
>> time so that we can accommodate promotional trails and continuity
>> announcements. If a programme is over-running slightly, it may be
>> necessary to begin it a little early."
>
> The thing that really gets to me is that if the provider (Comcast in my
> case) provides the time to my DVR and they host the programmes, how is it
> possible that the programmes cannot (a) start actually on time, and (b)
> the recording can't be jiggered to actually record *the entire programme*
> regardless of what time it actually starts?
>
> I mean really - if I ask it to record The Simpsons (and the machine knows
> that's what I want), if the programme starts 15 minutes late because of a
> news bulletin, time change because of programming earlier in the day
> (Super Bowl, World Series, etc), the dumb thing should *know* that I
> don't care what's on between 7 PM and 7:30 PM if it isn't The Simpsons -
> so it shouldn't record based on time but based on *what I actually wanted
> to record*.  And if the programme starts 2 minutes early or runs 2
> minutes over, then it should record *to completion* and not stop just
> because the time it says it was scheduled for isn't the time it actually
> ran.

The stupid thing is that is how my box works. Supposedly the broadcaster  
sends a start signal which when used in conjunction with the Electronic  
Programme Guide knows that I want to record the listed 7pm programme that  
is now starting at 7:15pm and records from 7:15-7:45. In this case it  
relies on both the guide being updated and the signal being sent. The most  
common complaint I have is that it starts on-time and cuts off early; not  
by much normally, just enough to annoy.

As you say I don't see why this is so hard to do exactly.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:53:55 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> The stupid thing is that is how my box works. Supposedly the broadcaster
> sends a start signal which when used in conjunction with the Electronic
> Programme Guide knows that I want to record the listed 7pm programme
> that is now starting at 7:15pm and records from 7:15-7:45. In this case
> it relies on both the guide being updated and the signal being sent. The
> most common complaint I have is that it starts on-time and cuts off
> early; not by much normally, just enough to annoy.
> 
> As you say I don't see why this is so hard to do exactly.

I don't either.

Last night, my DVR said it was scheduled to record "The Daily Show" from 
9:00 PM to 9:31 PM (which in and of itself was odd), but at 9:09 PM it 
hadn't started recording.  So we watched it live (no big deal, it was 
partially buffered so we were able to go back to the beginning).

At 9:30, it started recording, recorded exactly 1 minute, and then 
recorded the next show.

Of course, it decided that since it was starting to record on the channel 
we were actively watching, it just skipped 5 minutes or so of the 
interview while we were watching it, so it could record the last minute 
(which was mostly credits).

Stupid technology.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:33:41 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:53:55 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> The stupid thing is that is how my box works. Supposedly the broadcaster
>> sends a start signal which when used in conjunction with the Electronic
>> Programme Guide knows that I want to record the listed 7pm programme
>> that is now starting at 7:15pm and records from 7:15-7:45. In this case
>> it relies on both the guide being updated and the signal being sent. The
>> most common complaint I have is that it starts on-time and cuts off
>> early; not by much normally, just enough to annoy.
>>
>> As you say I don't see why this is so hard to do exactly.
>
> I don't either.
>
> Last night, my DVR said it was scheduled to record "The Daily Show" from
> 9:00 PM to 9:31 PM (which in and of itself was odd), but at 9:09 PM it
> hadn't started recording.  So we watched it live (no big deal, it was
> partially buffered so we were able to go back to the beginning).
>
> At 9:30, it started recording, recorded exactly 1 minute, and then
> recorded the next show.
>
> Of course, it decided that since it was starting to record on the channel
> we were actively watching, it just skipped 5 minutes or so of the
> interview while we were watching it, so it could record the last minute
> (which was mostly credits).
>
> Stupid technology.

A similar thing happened with "Sherlock" on the BBC. Not just to me but to  
a large group with different model PVRs. It didn't start recording until  
20 minutes in. The BBc claimed it must have been the EPG at fault despite  
the fact that it happily showed the programme starting at the right time.

The other problem is "Series Link" set to record on programme and it asks  
if you want to record it from that point on. Did it for "FlashForward" -  
recorded the main episode then the repeat the next night then the next  
repeat on the other channel. Ended up with three copies. For "Malcolm in  
the Middle" it'll record some, but not others. Just strange.


-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:00:54 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> A similar thing happened with "Sherlock" on the BBC. Not just to me but
> to a large group with different model PVRs. It didn't start recording
> until 20 minutes in. The BBc claimed it must have been the EPG at fault
> despite the fact that it happily showed the programme starting at the
> right time.

Ouch, that's a shame.  Hope you got to see it, because that was a very 
well done series, I thought.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:10:05 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:00:54 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> A similar thing happened with "Sherlock" on the BBC. Not just to me but
>> to a large group with different model PVRs. It didn't start recording
>> until 20 minutes in. The BBc claimed it must have been the EPG at fault
>> despite the fact that it happily showed the programme starting at the
>> right time.
>
> Ouch, that's a shame.  Hope you got to see it, because that was a very
> well done series, I thought.

The benefits of a PS3 - iPlayer naturally hooked up to the TV. Even my  
parents had to use theirs to watch "Lark Rise to Candleford" which  
inexplicably failed to record; shame the official remote doesn't work with  
the web/flash interface in terms of pause etc. though; they're not used to  
the 'proper' controller.

But yes it was an enjoyable series I did like how both Mycroft and  
Moriarty were introduced; it took nerve to mislead the audience in that  
way as well as rely on their memory. I'm currently running through the  
Jeremy Brett series and I find it interesting to note the touches that  
both Cumberbatch's "Sherlock" and Downey's "Sherlock Holmes" lifted from  
it.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> One that really can't sing.;-)
>
> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
> And that's saying something.

I did not notice but I make Jeremy sound like Plácido Domingo.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:10:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> One that really can't sing.;-)
>>
>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
>> And that's saying something.
> 
> I did not notice but I make Jeremy sound like Plácido Domingo.

Now there's a scary thought.:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
> And that's saying something.

I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least as 
good as the overrated Queen’s.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:16:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
>> And that's saying something.
> 
> I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least as
> good as the overrated Queen’s.

Well, granted, the song doesn't have that much tonal variation....but 
still. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/02/2011 5:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:16:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
>>> And that's saying something.
>>
>> I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least as
>> good as the overrated Queen’s.
>
> Well, granted, the song doesn't have that much tonal variation....but
> still. ;-)
>

But still, what?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 19:17:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/02/2011 5:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:16:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing
>>>> Queen. And that's saying something.
>>>
>>> I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least
>>> as good as the overrated Queen’s.
>>
>> Well, granted, the song doesn't have that much tonal variation....but
>> still. ;-)
>>
>>
> But still, what?

But still, he could've worked harder at not sounding like Jeremy. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message