Tenebrae Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 You joke but with Braga's "Threshold" getting axed after a poultry 10 episodes, I wouldn't put it past the diabolical duo. "Just when you thought the Star Trek franchise couldn't sink lower SEMI-NAKED FANBOY PLEASING STRAIGHT TO DVD RELEASES!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Braga's "Threshold" getting axed after a poultry 10 episodes HAH! Now that's karma for ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Reminds me of The Simpsons episode "Guess who's come to criticise dinner" at the end when Homer is running away from all the enraged restraunters yelling "No comeuppance!" If that's happened to Braga, I can only imagine Berman has a horiffic few years in store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 well....this topic has certainly verged off course... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 theres others via google I expected pictures/links to get posted on the 2nd post or atleast the 1st page and was amazed that it had to ask... ;) I have nothing against gel rubs and other semi-nudity. What I can't stand is commercial breaks and commercial/info-text poping up during TV shows. These breaks/distractions have nothing in common with the program I'm watching and I'll give a damn about what the next show is about, cause I probably already know that if I'm intrested. This is why I love non-commercial TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 theres others via google I expected pictures/links to get posted on the 2nd post or atleast the 1st page and was amazed that it had to ask... ;) I have nothing against gel rubs and other semi-nudity. What I can't stand is commercial breaks and commercial/info-text poping up during TV shows. These breaks/distractions have nothing in common with the program I'm watching and I'll give a damn about what the next show is about, cause I probably already know that if I'm intrested. This is why I love non-commercial TV. Sadly this is the only method television networks have come up with finance tv. You'd think since the dawn of pay per view tv and paid cable channels like HBO , they'd simply set up a system where you pay to watch a show, either on a per episode or per season basis, no commericals with a build in TiVo/DVR option. I'd pay to see say, TNG on tv, commerical free, whenever I choose to watch an episode. Unfortunately it'll be a long time, if ever, that we see this. Personally I think the tv networks are in the pocket of all these product companies. Who would buy the latest offshoot of Coca Cola or Pepsi if no one saw the same commerical seven times within an hour of a tv show? I was waiting on the product placement in Enterprise, you know Archer was going to walk out of his room at amy moment with a Sprite to quench his thirst ;o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Don't joke - advertising companies know that product placement is going to have to become a bigger part of campaigns given the increasing prevalence of tivo and similar systems that can eliminate proper adverts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You'd think since the dawn of pay per view tv and paid cable channels like HBO ' date=' they'd simply set up a system where you pay to watch a show, either on a per episode or per season basis, no commericals with a build in TiVo/DVR option.[/quote'] If that happened, I'd throw my TV in the trash & read books instead. HBO charges ~$10 for each hour of Original Programming. I *refuse* to pay that much money. I like the current system. The RICH corporations pay for the entertainment of the poor & the poor (me) pays nothing. That's how it should be. . I suppose exposed breasts & butts would attract a new type of audience. But is soft porn really what you want to produce???? Says Mr. T&A Avatar. Sometimes' date=' Troy, you personify unintentional humour.[/quote'] Which is a Photo Capture from Microsoft's soft porn videogame. AKA trash. It proves my point that porn is a poor substitute for a lousy game/story. BTW, there's nothing wrong with titillation *if you still have a story*. TOS was infamous for scantily-clad women, but they still told great stories. In contrast, Enterprise *told stupid stories* and tried to use sex as a replacement. Piss-poor. troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 ...Sadly this is the only method television networks have come up with finance tv... In Sweden we have Public Service TV for which we pay a licens fee (~$250/year/household). Public Service TV is non-commercial and have several obligations to the public. One of these obligations is no bias and is an excellect source of NEWS, especially politics, world events, wars... If the Public Service TV (PSTV) fails to be non-biased, anybody can make a complaint to a board overseeing PSTV. If PSTV has been found "guilty" thay have to make a public announcement regarding what, why and so forth and of course appologize for the error. I mostly watch PSTV news, current debate and a other programs now and then. I watched all 7 seasons of ST Voyager and season 1&2 of ST Enterprise without any break and therefore PSTV rules. I only wish they could show more quality sci-fi though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 ...Sadly this is the only method television networks have come up with finance tv... In Sweden we have Public Service TV for which we pay a licens fee (~$250/year/household). Public Service TV is non-commercial and have several obligations to the public. One of these obligations is no bias and is an excellect source of NEWS, especially politics, world events, wars... If the Public Service TV (PSTV) fails to be non-biased, anybody can make a complaint to a board overseeing PSTV. If PSTV has been found "guilty" thay have to make a public announcement regarding what, why and so forth and of course appologize for the error. I mostly watch PSTV news, current debate and a other programs now and then. I watched all 7 seasons of ST Voyager and season 1&2 of ST Enterprise without any break and therefore PSTV rules. I only wish they could show more quality sci-fi though. That sounds awesome. I should have been more specific and said, "American television networks.." We are usually the last to adopt anything that is generally considered better for the people (i.e. Canada's free healthcare system versus America's only-the-rich-get-treatment). I wouldn't mind commericals so much, if they were of products targeted at the appropriate demographic. Like if I'm watching say, the latest episode of BSG or Stargate I don't need to see a commerical for female tampons or elderly denture cream. Maybe a commerical about some new computer software, or video game ads or something relevant to the demographic watching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 BBC seem to have lost interest in sci-fi/fantasy shows - which now seem to be exclusively the preserve of Channel 4 + 5... except Surface, which somehow ITV got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 $250 a year for a "license fee" is too much money. Geez. What are you people? Rich? I'm perfectly happy with the FREE commercial TV that I watch for FREE whenever I feel like some FREE viewing. Did I mention it was free? ;) That's an important consideration for us poor people. Let the RICH corporations pay for my tv. Steal from the rich corporations/ give to the poor. troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 You don't have a choice with a license fee - it's like tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 You'd be shocked at how good the BBC, which the UK licence fee funds, is when it comes to public service. They produce a lot of excellent programming, with no adverts. That's the best part. No interrupting half way through a show. I can go half an hour without being told to go spend money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 The BBC are excellent in many areas, especially news and current affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 they make good dramma too.....and Doctor Who of course!!!!!:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 $250 a year for a "license fee" is too much money. Geez. What are you people? Rich? I'm perfectly happy with the FREE commercial TV that I watch for FREE whenever I feel like some FREE viewing. Did I mention it was free? ;) That's an important consideration for us poor people. Let the RICH corporations pay for my tv. Steal from the rich corporations/ give to the poor. troy Not counting my internet cable (which is also provided by my television cable company) $250.00 for specific shows/stations that have no commericals and such is not too bad a deal. You figure we're paying almost $100 a month on tv, I have a 'digital cable' package which nets me like 300+ channels, which includes five or six hbo's five or six showtimes, etc then depending apon what is included in that $250.00 a year deal, it might be worth it. But we don't really have anything like that. The closest we have is TiVo which is something entirely different, and still costs a great deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 It's good to have land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Not counting my internet cable (which is also provided by my television cable company) $250.00 for specific shows/stations that have no commericals and such is not too bad a deal. You figure we're paying almost $100 a month on tv' date=' I have a 'digital cable' package [/quote'] The difference? That digital cable is *voluntary* and you don't have to pay it (I have no cable). The $250 license fee is Compulsory. I don't like being told I HAVE to do something. It should be my choice. Oh, and I've seen the so-called "commercial-free" tv from the BBC. They still have commercials during the last 15 minutes of the hour.... usually self-promotion. So what's the difference? And finally, it's just entertainment. It's not worth it to me to pay for what is, basically, a time-killer. I agree with my parents, "If they start charging for TV, I'll throw it in the trash and listen to the radio instead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0V13T Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Guys, the topic for this thread is "What was with all the rubbing gel over each other in ENT!?" Lets kep it back on topic, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts