Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 3195 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 388Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #95821 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 06:49 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
The solution is simple. Just do what DirecTV wants. Only the subscribers that want the channel pay for it. But unfortunately, Time Warner Cable wants everyone to subsidize the cost for the minority of people that will watch it.

I know FiOS recently introduced a regional Sports fee. Which sucks since I don't watch any of the channels that it covers. I'm forced to subsidize the cost for the minority of people that do watch them.
Except DIRECTV does the very same thing for the RSNs they own(Root) to providers like TWC, they want the channel to be viewed by as many subscribers as possible and demand that it's on specific tiers, just like TWC wants with this Dodger channel.

The problem here is that the price TWC is asking always gets the headlines when in fact it's roughly the same as other sports networks. It just so happens that this is the channel where a line has been drawn in the sand, it could have been almost any other RSN but the fact that this is in the second largest market in the country gives it a lot of visibility. It was the perfect channel to use to push back on the rising costs of all sports networks. Unfortunately for Dodger fans in the LA market(who don't have TWC) the conditions provided for a perfect storm and they're losing out.

The channel actually is carried by DIRECTV through their MLB-EI package, but only to out of market subscribers, meaning everyone in the country other than the team's home market.
slowbiscuit likes this.
Keenan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #95822 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 08:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mhufnagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
The problem here is that the price TWC is asking always gets the headlines when in fact it's roughly the same as other sports networks. It just so happens that this is the channel where a line has been drawn in the sand, it could have been almost any other RSN but the fact that this is in the second largest market in the country gives it a lot of visibility. It was the perfect channel to use to push back on the rising costs of all sports networks. Unfortunately for Dodger fans in the LA market(who don't have TWC) the conditions provided for a perfect storm and they're losing out.
Well the biggest problem I see is that it only has one pro team. Why should you pay as much for a one team channel as you would for a multi-pro team channel? Here in Detroit we have three pro teams on FS Detroit (Red Wings, Pistons, Tigers). I sure as hell would complain if one of them split off to form their own channel and then we're paying twice the price we are now! Of course here in Detroit that scenario is less likely since the Red Wings and Tigers have the same owner and nobody would follow the Pistons if they left FSD.

The best solution for pay-tv subscribers is for RSNs to cost extra and only get it if you sub to it (them). I know that all channels are subsidized to some extent. But sports is far more subsidized than ordinary channels. And while pay-tv rates go up higher than the rate of inflation, sports channels rates go up faster still. $4 - $6 for one channel when your tv package is $50 - $60 (since sports is on the lower tier packages) is unbelievable! A RSN and ESPN cost you $9 + per month and that's if you only have one RSN in your market.
slowbiscuit likes this.
mhufnagel is offline  
post #95823 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Nielsen Notes (Cable)
WGN America’s ‘Manhattan’ Debut Ratings Can’t Match ‘Salem’ As Network Uses New Rollout Strategy
By Nellie Andreeva, Deadline.com - Jul. 28, 2014

WGN America’s second original scripted drama, the generally well received Manhattan, opened with 904,000 total viewers and 233,000 adults 18-49 at 9 PM last night. That more than tripled network’s season-to date average among total viewers in the hour. But it was off the hot debut of WGNA’s first original drama, Salem, which premiered with 1.5 million total viewers and 647,000 adults 18-49 at 10 PM on Sunday in April. Tribune-owned WGN America, which is single-feed and covers only 62% of the U.S. (71.4 million homes), employed a different strategy with Manhattan.

To generate larger sampling, in addition to its airing on WGNA, the premiere ran in primetime in 33 markets where Tribune has broadcast stations, including WPIX in New York and KTLA in Los Angeles. With 14 of the larger of these 33 markets reporting, the series debut of Manhattan, which is skewing older than Salem, delivered 1.8 million viewers last night, 1.4 Million (326,000 Adults 18-49) in three combined airings on WGNA and another 400,000 on broadcast local stations. Salem‘s premiere amassed 2.3 million total viewers and 886,000 adults 18-49 over four airings on WGNA. Like with the Salem debut, which jumped 56% in Live+3 among adults 18-49 and 41% in total viewers, WGNA brass expect Manhattan‘s numbers to grow significantly in time-shifting viewing.

http://www.deadline.com/2014/07/manh...s-wgn-america/
dad1153 is offline  
post #95824 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Notes
Jay Leno Returning to NBC — as ‘Last Comic Standing’ Mentor
By Tim Molloy, Deadline.com - Jul. 28, 2014

Former “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno will return to NBC this week to mentor comedians on “Last Comic Standing.”

As the five final comics face off Thursday, Leno will provide counsel on the ins and out of stand-up. Host J.B. Smoove introduces Leno to the comics by telling them they're about to meet “one of the funniest comedians in the world.”

Leno continued to perform standup regularly even while hosting “The Tonight Show” each night for two decades. NBC entertainment chief Bob Greenblatt has said he hopes Leno will continue a relationship with the network, and that hope is coming to fruition with Leno's appearance on the competition show.

Jimmy Fallon took over “The Tonight Show” in February.

The “Last Comic Standing” contestants are competing for the title of “Last Comic Standing” and a prize package worth $250,000, including cash and talent and development deals.

Thursday's episode with Leno appears Thursday at 10/9c on NBC.

http://www.thewrap.com/jay-leno-retu...anding-mentor/
dad1153 is offline  
post #95825 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Sports
If ESPN Keeps Smith on Air, Message Will Be Loud and Murky
Stephen A. Smith’s Domestic Violence Remarks Put ESPN in a Bind
By Richard Sandomir, The New York Times - Jul. 29, 2014

ESPN is such a colossus that it was big news when Michelle Beadle challenged Stephen A. Smith over his misguided remarks on Friday about domestic violence. They are ESPN stars, with nearly three million Twitter followers between them. The ESPN ecosystem is such that any misstep by any of its boldface names can start a digital storm, even if the subject is inane — or Tim Tebow.

Domestic violence is anything but silly, though it is difficult to discuss intelligently on a sports debate show like “First Take” on ESPN2 or without an expert or a victim to provide experience and balance. But Smith was riffing Friday on “First Take,” on which he and Skip Bayless are the loudmouthed commentators. Smith was discussing the N.F.L.’s two-game suspension of Ray Rice over allegations that he beat his fiancée, now his wife, in a casino elevator, and Smith suggested that women should avoid provoking men into assaulting them.

Staking out a position for a longer punishment for Rice is not brave. Anyone could see that N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell had been too lenient. But then Smith went verbally reckless.

“In Ray Rice’s case, he probably deserves more than a two-game suspension, which we both acknowledged,” he said, as Bayless nodded. “But at the same time, we also have to make sure that we learn as much as we can about elements of provocation. Not that there’s real provocation, but the elements of provocation” — at this point, without letting him finish his sentence and as he delved into amateur forensics, you had to wonder which “elements” he was talking about, when women should accept responsibility for being victimized and why those elements do not add up to “real provocation.”

Beadle, who can be tart, funny and challenging on Twitter, responded at first by writing: “I was just forced to watch this morning’s First Take. A) I’ll never feel clean again B) I’m now aware that I can provoke my own beating.” Then she posted: “I’m thinking about wearing a miniskirt this weekend...I’d hate to think what I’d be asking for by doing so @StephenA smith. #dontprovoke .”

And then: “I was in an abusive relationship once. I’m aware that men & women can both be the abuser. To spread a message that we not ‘provoke’ is wrong.”

This was bold stuff that probably violates ESPN’s internal social media policy, which warns employees against making personal attacks on one another. But Beadle is unlikely to be disciplined because she offered such bracing and smart responses.

Smith did not help himself when he responded, wondering why his words had been misconstrued but blaming himself for not being more articulate. “But be clear,” he wrote. “I wasn’t BLAMING women for anything. I was simply saying to take all things into consideration for preventative purposes. Period.”

Smith has used his family history — he was raised by his mother and four older sisters — to provide an experiential backdrop to his so-called expertise. I do not doubt that being close to strong women in his family can make a man more sensitive, more acutely aware of how women feel about certain issues and more willing to fight for them if they are being abused.

Continue reading the main story
But that does not make him an expert with the credentials to venture into the psychology or sociology of abuse. Sometimes I wonder if Smith needs to breathe a bit more, to get out of his rapid rhythm of commentary, to think about what he will say before he says it.

He offered no groundwork in his remarks for “preventative purposes” or “elements of provocation.” Do such provocations include, as Beadle suggested, the way women dress, or perhaps violently initiating a fight?

On Monday, Smith apologized for his remarks and acknowledged making “the most egregious error” of his career. He and Cari Champion, the host of “First Take,” taped the segment for a usually live program, because “this was an important and sensitive topic and there were specific points that Stephen wanted to make,” said Josh Krulewitz, an ESPN spokesman.

Smith said he had not intended to suggest that sexual violence was a woman’s fault and that “the failure to truly articulate something different lies squarely on my shoulders.” He added, without elaboration, that he had dealt with domestic violence in his family.

ESPN has not decided whether it will suspend Smith, but its decision may be clear: He was back on the air quickly, at least to apologize as soon as possible. The network said that he “recognizes his mistakes.”

If he is not suspended, it suggests that we need to understand ESPN’s discipline handbook. How offensive need someone be to earn a week or more off? In 2012, two ESPN employees used the phrase “chink in the armor” in reference to Jeremy Lin, then a guard for the Knicks.

One of them, an anchor, got a 30-day suspension; the other, an editor who used the phrase in a headline on ESPN’s mobile website, was fired.

How does ESPN weigh its employees’ offensive remarks, regardless of how strongly they apologize? We shall see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/sp...ref=media&_r=0
dad1153 is offline  
post #95826 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Notes
'Sharknado 2' could bite off more buzz than the first
By Ann Oldenburg, USA Today - Jul. 28, 2014

Uh oh. Another crazy weather event is looming on the horizon.

The forecast: Cloudy with a major chance of sharks, as Syfy's Sharknado 2: The Second One is set to attack Wednesday (9 ET/PT).

Last July, the original Sharknado, one of many Syfy B-movies, came out of nowhere and took pop culture by storm. (You knew we had to say that.)

Ratings for the Syfy original movie were modest (1.4 million viewers for its initial airing), but social media went crazy, registering 5,000 tweets a minute. Celebs including Mia Farrow, Josh Gad, Olivia Wilde and Michael Chiklis were among those watching and cracking jokes online, turning it into one giant, hilarious viewing party.

So how do you top that?

"More sharks," says Tara Reid, who stars with Ian Ziering (Beverly Hills 90210) in the campy sequel.

The American Pie actress wasn't sure she even wanted to be in Sharknado. "I remember reading the first one and going out with friends and saying 'sharks are flying around Beverly Hills and maiming people and jumping out of pools.' And my friends are laughing so hard. They're like, 'Are you kidding me? This is amazing. It's so funny. You have to do it!'"

So she did, "never knowing it would become the phenomenon it did." She adds, "We got real lucky." And she acknowledges, "Social media is what took it to the next level."

Ziering, who is back in all his chainsaw-wielding, shark-fighting glory as surfer/bar owner Fin Shepard, says, "The brilliance of Sharknado 2 is it's more of the same — similar formula, more of the experience." (Yes, he's swinging a 45-pound chainsaw in this one, he assures.)

But that's the tricky part, says screenwriter Thunder Levin -- striking that just-right Sharknado B-movie balance.

"It's tricky because... you keep hearing the reason the first one was successful was because it was so bad it was good. I've never quite bought into that, but you worry if you make it too good, no one will like it!"

He vows The Second One is "bigger and better than the first. It's got more excitement and action — and more heart, too. The characters are more endearing."

Endearing or not, there are definitely more of them, as the action moves from Los Angeles to New York City. Sharknado 2 features Vivica A. Fox, Mark McGrath, Judah Friedlander, Kelly Osbourne, Judd Hirsch, Andy Dick and Robert Klein.

And Matt Lauer, Al Roker, Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan, pop in as their TV personas in cameos.

The movie was shot over two months in February — look for snowflakes along with those sharks falling from the sky, with some 700 visual effects used in filming.

So does bigger and better mean more blood and shark guts?

"We didn't necessarily go for more gore," says Levin. "That's never really been what Sharknado is about. We go for more fun and go for more action and more tension and excitement. It starts in the opening scene and doesn't let up. It's a lot faster pace than the first one."

Anything can happen during a sharknado. "They could go anywhere from inside hospitals to the Mets stadium to subways to the street to you name it, a shark could be there," Reid says. "The Empire State Building."

Director Anthony Ferrante says that people shouldn't get hung up on the idea of sharks in a tornado. It's a beast of its own kind.

"The simple explanation is it's a sharknado. It's like our Frankenstein, our Freddy Krueger, our Jason (from Friday the 13th films). You don't question Jason getting his neck chopped off half a million times and then getting shot and getting back up again — that's part of the mythology…. The sharknado is our villain and it does what we tell it to do."

The key is to play it all seriously, but not take it seriously.

"I definitely played my character serious," says Fox, who plays Ziering's girlfriend, "and I think, in the moments and what we're fighting against – and the elements – then the comedy ensued."

Ferrante says the only people who were allowed to be funny are the comic-relief characters – Judd Hirsch (fittingly, a cab driver), and Judah Friedlander (a baseball fan at the Mets game). He had to tell some they were too "over the top."

Ferrante admits the first movie was "lightning in a bottle.... So I mean there's a pressure." And, he says, "You can't go into the second one and just be OK. You have to be better than OK."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/t...do-2/13109777/
dad1153 is offline  
post #95827 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Notes
CBS Moves ‘Extant’ to 10 p.m., Away From Summer’s Top Show
By Rick Kissell, Variety.com - Jul. 28, 2014

After taking a hit in the ratings in its third outing last week, CBS’ Halle Berry-fronted sci-fi drama “Extant” is moving back an hour, starting this week. The move will enable the show to avoid going head-to-head with summer’s No. 1 show, NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”

“Extant,” which had been airing Wednesdays at 9 p.m. behind “Big Brother,” will swap timeslots with repeats of “Criminal Minds.” The vet drama will now air at 9 p.m., its regular fall timeslot anyway, and will serve as a lead-in for “Extant.”

While “Big Brother” is a strong demo performer for CBS, it hasn’t always meshed well with scripted programming behind it, and the Eye would like to see how “Extant” fares with a more compatible — scripted drama — lead-in.

CBS tried a similar timeslot switch earlier this month with its Sunday dramas — and it has paid off. The new “Reckless,” which had been performing meekly at 9 p.m. behind “Big Brother” on Sundays, traded timeslots with the established “Unforgettable.” The Poppy Montgomery drama has increased its ratings at 9 p.m., while “Reckless” has held steady in the demo while gaining in total viewers at 10 o’clock.

The “Extant” timeslot move also allows the series to avoid a head-to-head showdown with “America’s Got Talent.” Last week, the first time an original “Talent” faced “Extant,” the NBC program trounced “Extant” in 18-49 (2.6 to 1.1) and total viewers (11.09 million to 6.48 million).

In updated Nielsen estimates released Monday by Nielsen, the series premiere of “Extant” jumped 50% in adults 18-49 (2.4 from 1.6) and 31% in total viewers (12.57 million from 9.58 million) when comparing its “live plus same-day” results to “live plus-7″ (a full week’s worth of DVR playback).

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/cbs-...ow-1201270389/
dad1153 is offline  
post #95828 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Nielsen Notes (Cable)
Al Jazeera America's Gaza coverage boosts ratings
By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times' 'Company Town' Blog - Jul. 28, 2014

The crisis in Gaza has provided a ratings boost for Al Jazeera America.

Over the past two weeks, Al Jazeera America has seen its ratings grow by 30% compared with the previous four weeks. Its prime-time audience has jumped 40%.

Al Jazeera America, launched last August, has struggled to establish itself. While it has gotten critical acclaim for its journalism and recently won a Peabody Award, that has not translated into big ratings.

To be sure, Al Jazeera America still has a tiny audience compared with Fox News and CNN. Funded by the government of Qatar, Al Jazeera America has recently reduced staff. Earlier this month reporters and producers were told to exercise restraint when it comes to live shots that require costly satellite time.

When it launched, Al Jazeera America said its focus was to cover the United States and it opened bureaus throughout the country. That its best numbers and greatest response from viewers is for coverage of an international crisis may give credence to those who thought the channel would be better off if it focused its efforts on news from abroad rather than here.

Asked whether the ratings growth for its coverage of Gaza would lead the channel rethink its mission, a spokeswoman said, "I think it shows that there is appetite for in-depth coverage when there is breaking news anywhere."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...728-story.html
dad1153 is offline  
post #95829 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Notes
Suspected Child Molester Recently Featured on CNN Crime Show Killed in NYC Shootout
By Hilary Lewis, The Hollywood Reporter - Jul. 28, 2014

A suspected child molester whose case was recently featured on CNN's The Hunt With John Walsh was killed in a New York City shootout on Monday.

Sexual-assault suspect Charles Richard Mozdir exchanged fire with a fugitive task force Monday in Greenwich Village, leaving the suspect dead and two federal marshals and a police detective wounded, authorities said.

Mozdir was arrested in California after the now-7-year-old son of two close friends told his parents that Mozdir touched his private parts while the suspect was taking care of him, CNN reported. A $1 million warrant was issued for Mozdir’s arrest after he failed to appear at his arraignment.

After the Hunt episode featuring Mozdir aired on July 20, authorities received a tip he was working at a restaurant in Manhattan, but the information didn’t pan out, Walsh told CNN. After the network re-aired Mozdir’s episode on Sunday night, another tip came in that included an address for Mozdir.

Authorities have searched for him in Georgia, California and Mexico, according to the show.

"He was on the run for almost two years. And this family was destroyed, terrified that he would come back and hurt them because they had the courage to come forward and file charges against him, and now they don't have to worry if this guy's coming back to hurt the family or hurt their little boy," Walsh said Monday. "And they get justice."
Walsh described Mozdir’s death as a “very shocking ending.”

"But it shows how much the public cares and how much they can help," he added.

"This is our first capture. I'm very sorry that those police officers got wounded in the line of duty," Walsh said, "but this is one more lowlife that's off the streets."

The wounded officers were in stable condition, Police Commissioner William Bratton and Mayor Bill de Blasio told reporters.

"We pray everything we are hearing is true and that these officers will be OK in the long run," de Blasio said. The law enforcement officials' exact injuries were unclear.

The shooting happened just after 1 p.m. in the West Village not far from New York University when a fugitive apprehension task force tried to serve a warrant to Mozdir, who was inside a smoke shop just north of a busy subway station.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...red-cnn-721720
dad1153 is offline  
post #95830 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rebkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 4,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post
TV Notes
CBS Moves ‘Extant’ to 10 p.m., Away From Summer’s Top Show
By Rick Kissell, Variety.com - Jul. 28, 2014

After taking a hit in the ratings in its third outing last week, CBS’ Halle Berry-fronted sci-fi drama “Extant” is moving back an hour, starting this week. The move will enable the show to avoid going head-to-head with summer’s No. 1 show, NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/cbs-moves-extant-to-10-p-m-away-from-summers-top-show-1201270389/
I don't watch Extant, but it seems like a logical move, in the previous story about Manhattan, it may just be me, but there are so many shows on Sunday prime time that I can't possibly hope to watch them all, it's a challenge to even get them all recorded and pretty tough to get them all watched in a couple of days. I did catch Manhattan last night, but it was a coin flip.
rebkell is online now  
post #95831 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Critic's Notes
Sure, You Loved Lucy, but Vintage Has Limits
A Case of Retro TV Overload
By Neil Genzlinger, The New York Times - Jul. 28, 2014

Maybe you’re one of those irritating people prone to complaining, “Why can’t they make shows as good as [name of a vintage TV series] anymore?”

For years, that was a safe whine because the shows existed only in the memories of those who had seen them the first time around. But then, in addition to releases on videotape and DVD, came cable. Outlets like Nick at Nite and TV Land discovered that they could live off rebroadcasts of ancient series, and now, in case you haven’t noticed, all sorts of imitators have discovered that, too.

This past Saturday afternoon at 1:30, a Comcast customer in central New Jersey like me could choose from among “7th Heaven” (on a channel called Up that promises “uplifting entertainment”), “Good Times” (TV One), “The Virginian” (Inspire), “The Bill Cosby Show” (Aspire), “The Golden Girls” (TV Land), “Maverick” (Encore Westerns) and others. Expecting to feel nostalgic on Thursday night at 10:30? Cozi has “Magnum P.I.,” Antenna TV has “Sanford and Son,” and Aspire offers “The Flip Wilson Show.”

The problem with the ready availability of this old stuff — don’t even get me started on Internet streaming — is that it forces us into a wistful but abstract longing for what was. And the reality is: All this retro TV is too much of a good thing, or, more correctly, too much of a thing that wasn’t really as good as memory makes it seem. It’s fine to pay respect to the shows of yore, to acknowledge and admire them for delineating and expanding the form and so on. But to actually watch 50-year-old shows all day? I’d rather rip out my eyeballs.

Sure, it’s fun to indulge occasionally — once a week, say. Maybe you’ll get lucky and stumble on a 1966 episode of “Bewitched” called “Man’s Best Friend,” where a young actor named Richard Dreyfuss, still a teenager, made one of his first appearances. Or perhaps you’ll hit upon one of the two “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” episodes from the 1950s directed by the unknown Robert Altman.

But if you’re watching this fare all day, every day, you need help, because “venerable” doesn’t necessarily mean “still watchable.” Sluggish pacing, wooden acting, wince-inducing jokes and obvious plot twists abound in the television of the distant and even not-so-distant past. Too much of this will turn your brain to mush as surely as too much of today’s reality TV will.

I know this is heresy to some, but since I’m in this far, I might as well go whole hog. Here are nine great, important, fabulous vintage (or soon to be) shows that I never want to see again. I don’t know if they are currently being shown on any of the channels mentioned above, but surely somebody has programmed them or plans to in the future. No! Back in the vault, please:

‘I LOVE LUCY’ (premiere: 1951) Yeah, I know; it’s at or near the top of a lot of Best TV Series of All Time lists, and rightly so. In its time, it was defining. But today the broad humor draws only the occasional chuckle. The show is like your high school girlfriend: Just because you loved Lucy once doesn’t mean you still do.

‘THE HONEYMOONERS’ (1955) Same problem, only louder. Couples defined by screaming seem more sad than funny today.

THE MANY LOVES OF DOBIE GILLIS’ (1959) Considering that it gave us one of the most memorable characters in television’s first half-century, the beatnik Maynard G. Krebs (Bob Denver), this series is remarkably drab. Teenagers perhaps found that it spoke to them. If those same people, with a lifetime of perspective now in their heads, were to watch it today, the memory of that would make them flush with embarrassment. At their age, that would constitute a health risk.

‘GILLIGAN’S ISLAND’ (1964) Considering the cultural impact it had, this show wasn’t around for long, but if you were a child when it was on, it looms large. Such characters! Such a predicament! Preserve that innocence by not watching it again, because most of the episodes were actually kind of lame, and some dismaying stereotypes floated through the island from time to time.

‘GREEN ACRES’ (1965) Speaking of stereotypes, there was this empty-headed series. Along with “The Beverly Hillbillies,” “Gomer Pyle” and a few others, it made sure “rural” and “stupid” would be wrongly linked for years to come.

‘WELCOME BACK, KOTTER’ (1975) Love the John Sebastian song; hate the hair and the sight of John Travolta. Even if Mr. Travolta hadn’t mangled Idina Menzel’s name at the Oscars, I don’t think I could take hearing the phrase “up your nose with a rubber hose” again.

‘DALLAS’ (1978) What’s dismaying isn’t so much that this series was ever on, it’s that it ran for 13 years and then was revived in 2012.

‘BOY MEETS WORLD’ (1993) This was and still is a wonderful show. I just don’t want to see it on TV again, because its mere presence might remind me of the sequel that just started, “Girl Meets World,” which doesn’t come close to clearing the bar the original set.

‘SEX AND THE CITY’ (1998) It’s perhaps not quite “vintage” yet, but this series already has the feel of a show whose original fans, when they’re older and wiser, might upon revisiting it say: “Gosh, I really didn’t know anything back then, did I? And some of those clothing choices didn’t age well.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/ar...ref=television
dad1153 is offline  
post #95832 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 09:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Notes
On The Air Tonight
TUESDAY Network Primetime/Late Night Options
(All shows are in HD unless noted; start times are ET. Network late night shows are preceded by late local news)

ABC:
8PM - Extreme Weight Loss (120 min.)
10PM - Celebrity Wife Swap: D.J. Paul/Plaxico Burress (Season Finale)
* * * *
11:35PM - Jimmy Kimmel Live! (Daniel Radcliffe; Abigail Spencer; Kiesza performs)
12:37AM - Nightline

CBS:
8PM - NCIS
(R - May 6)
9PM - NCIS: Los Angeles
(R - Dec. 10)
10:01PM - Person of Interest
(R - Sep. 24)
* * * *
11:35PM - Late Show with David Letterman (Chris Pratt; Judy Greer; Rodrigo y Gabriela perform)
12:37AM - The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson (Jamie Chung)

NBC:
8PM - Food Fighters
9PM - America's Got Talent (120 min.)
* * * *
11:34PM - The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon (Vin Diesel; Aubrey Plaza; will.i.am performs with The Roots)
12:36AM - Late Night with Seth Myers (Maggie Gyllenhaal; Lee Pace; comic Scott Aukerman)
1:37AM - Last Call With Carson Daly (Comic Richard Ayoade; Franz Ferdinand performs; musical group Royal Canoe)
(R - May 12)

FOX:
8PM - Family Guy
(R - Dec. 15)
8:30PM - Brooklyn Nine-Nine
(R - Feb. 11)
9PM - New Girl
(R - Feb. 4)
9:30PM - The Mindy Project
(R - Apr. 1)

PBS:
(check your local listing for starting time/programming)
8PM - Mark Twain (Part 1 of 2, 120 min.)
(R - Jan. 14, 2002)
10PM - Frontline: Losing Iraq (90 min.)

UNIVISION:
8PM - Mi Corazón Es Tuyo
9PM - Lo Que La Vida Me Robó
10PM - Qué Pobres Tan Ricos

THE CW:
8PM - Arrow
(R - Feb. 26)
9PM - Supernatural
(R - Feb. 25)

TELEMUNDO:
8PM - Reina De Corazones
9PM - En Otra Piel
10PM - El Señor de los Cielos

COMEDY CENTRAL:
11PM - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Journalist Sara Firth)
11:31PM - The Colbert Report (Musicians Jon Batiste and Stay Human)
12:01AM - At Midnight (Chad Daniels; Rory Scovel; Jay Larson)

TBS:
11PM - Conan (Martial Artist Steven Ho; Molly Shannon; comic Mike Recine)
(R - May 20)

E!:
11PM - Chelsea Lately (John C. Reilly)

Last edited by dad1153; 07-29-2014 at 06:14 AM.
dad1153 is offline  
post #95833 of 97507 Old 07-28-2014, 11:43 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post
Well the biggest problem I see is that it only has one pro team. Why should you pay as much for a one team channel as you would for a multi-pro team channel? Here in Detroit we have three pro teams on FS Detroit (Red Wings, Pistons, Tigers). I sure as hell would complain if one of them split off to form their own channel and then we're paying twice the price we are now! Of course here in Detroit that scenario is less likely since the Red Wings and Tigers have the same owner and nobody would follow the Pistons if they left FSD.

The best solution for pay-tv subscribers is for RSNs to cost extra and only get it if you sub to it (them). I know that all channels are subsidized to some extent. But sports is far more subsidized than ordinary channels. And while pay-tv rates go up higher than the rate of inflation, sports channels rates go up faster still. $4 - $6 for one channel when your tv package is $50 - $60 (since sports is on the lower tier packages) is unbelievable! A RSN and ESPN cost you $9 + per month and that's if you only have one RSN in your market.
I agree, and they should have seen this coming when they launched the Lakers channel and all the push back they got from doing that. The problem with only charging those who want the RSN is that if that happens the channel isn't anywhere close to what it's worth when they try and force everyone to pay for it. Far less viewers means far less ad revenue and far less money for the rights payments made to the team. Less rights money means less team(quality-wise), less fans, less viewers, it's a domino effect I suppose you could say.

TWC gambled and so far they've lost, and it really just comes down to timing. If they were attempting this 4 or 5 years ago we may not even be having this conversation. It's just timing and TWC's was very bad as the carriage demands and the price are not unlike many other RSNs already carried by providers like DIRECTV.
slowbiscuit likes this.
Keenan is offline  
post #95834 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 03:47 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,749
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
The solution is simple. Just do what DirecTV wants. Only the subscribers that want the channel pay for it. But unfortunately, Time Warner Cable wants everyone to subsidize the cost for the minority of people that will watch it.

I know FiOS recently introduced a regional Sports fee. Which sucks since I don't watch any of the channels that it covers. I'm forced to subsidize the cost for the minority of people that do watch them.
It sounds simple, but the math doesn't work. Time Warner wants what, $4 per subscriber? That calculation is based on the total number of subscribers who'd normally get SportsNet as a regional channel and those in the rest of the country who buy the whole sports tier (even though they'd only get non-game programming). Reduce that down to just the number of people who'd pay extra for it and TWC has to recalculate the per-sub fee in order to make the same money from D*. I'd imagine fewer than a quarter of LA subscribers would pay extra. It's a sliding scale. The fewer subscribers, the higher the fee to maintain the price TWC wants. So, it easily goes from $4 a month to $20. Now, you're asking subscribers to pay $240 a year for the network. And that's not even calculating in the loss of ad revenue based on a smaller audience, which could drive the price even higher.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #95835 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 04:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wetumpka, AL
Posts: 15,429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
It sounds simple, but the math doesn't work. Time Warner wants what, $4 per subscriber? That calculation is based on the total number of subscribers who'd normally get SportsNet as a regional channel and those in the rest of the country who buy the whole sports tier (even though they'd only get non-game programming). Reduce that down to just the number of people who'd pay extra for it and TWC has to recalculate the per-sub fee in order to make the same money from D*. I'd imagine fewer than a quarter of LA subscribers would pay extra. It's a sliding scale. The fewer subscribers, the higher the fee to maintain the price TWC wants. So, it easily goes from $4 a month to $20. Now, you're asking subscribers to pay $240 a year for the network. And that's not even calculating in the loss of ad revenue based on a smaller audience, which could drive the price even higher.
Its not exactly fair to raise cost to subscribers for programming that's overpriced that they don't even watch. Keep raising the monthly bill and eventually they cut the cable.

Samsung 64F8500, Panasonic 65VT50, Oppo 95, Tivo Roamio for OTA, Dish VIP722, Marantz AV8801 preamp, Rotel Amps, Atlantic Tech 8200 speakers, Seaton Submersive HP, Calman 5, Chromapure, Accupel DVG-5000, i1Display3pro, i1pro2, eecolor colorbox.
JimP is online now  
post #95836 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 04:40 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,749
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post
Its not exactly fair to raise cost to subscribers for programming that's overpriced that they don't even watch. Keep raising the monthly bill and eventually they cut the cable.
Exactly. Which is why DirecTV is opting not to carry the network at that price.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #95837 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 05:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TheRatPatrol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
I agree, and they should have seen this coming when they launched the Lakers channel and all the push back they got from doing that.
Yes they should have learned from it and they should have shared their existing channel, Dodgers in the summer and Lakers in the winter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
So, it easily goes from $4 a month to $20. Now, you're asking subscribers to pay $240 a year for the network. And that's not even calculating in the loss of ad revenue based on a smaller audience, which could drive the price even higher.
There are people out there that are willing to pay that much for a sports channel in order to watch their favorite teams IF they are given the chance to do so. The problem is they're not given that chance. And they will never know if it'll work unless they're willing to try it.
TheRatPatrol is offline  
post #95838 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 05:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRatPatrol View Post
There are people out there that are willing to pay that much for a sports channel in order to watch their favorite teams IF they are given the chance to do so. The problem is they're not given that chance. And they will never know if it'll work unless they're willing to try it.
And they won't try it because they don't have to, just like ala carte. If DirecTV added the channel and raised the rates, subscribers would grumble and end up paying the new rate, like we all do now. The number of us who are willing to cut the cord over such rate increases just isn't there and probably won't be for a long time. I've given up complaining about ESPN costing me $6/mo when I don't watch it. It's great food for discussion, but the reality is that until someone steps up, nothing is going to change. Aereo got shot down and the next entity to try something new to offer options to lower bills will get shot down too. We can complain about all the other channels that get subsidized to a degree, but it's the sports world that dictates rates, pure and simple. Take sports-related money out of the equation and the Pay TV landscape would change dramatically. If ESPN didn't cost $6/mo, no other channel would cost as much as it does. And if all content providers quit carrying the ABC/Disney/ESPN juggernaut of channels, every other bundling group would cave and the landscape would change dramatically. And, yes, salaries would go down and jobs might be lost, but I personally believe the quality would go up. Almost very show on TV started with a cheap cast of unknown actors. Now they stoop to paying ridiculous sums to people like Halle Berry to get us to watch a show like Extant. IMHO, if Extant were that good, they wouldn't need Halle Berry to sell it. And yes, I know that's being simplistic, but I hope you get my point. Out of 315,000,000 people, surely there is a "new" Halle Berry out there that would have cost a lot less, though admittedly without the drawing power. And I'm as guilty as many others, I'll watch bad shows just because of favorite actors. We're a big part of the problem too.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #95839 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 05:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhufnagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
It sounds simple, but the math doesn't work. Time Warner wants what, $4 per subscriber? That calculation is based on the total number of subscribers who'd normally get SportsNet as a regional channel and those in the rest of the country who buy the whole sports tier (even though they'd only get non-game programming). Reduce that down to just the number of people who'd pay extra for it and TWC has to recalculate the per-sub fee in order to make the same money from D*. I'd imagine fewer than a quarter of LA subscribers would pay extra. It's a sliding scale. The fewer subscribers, the higher the fee to maintain the price TWC wants. So, it easily goes from $4 a month to $20. Now, you're asking subscribers to pay $240 a year for the network. And that's not even calculating in the loss of ad revenue based on a smaller audience, which could drive the price even higher.
Nobody forced TWC and the Dodgers to start another RSN. They are getting exactly what they deserve. Between this and the one in Houston, I hope this stops multiple RSNs in an area for good. I'm getting sick and tired of subsidizing sports teams, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Not only are we forced to to pay a lot more for RSN's than for normal entertainment channels, but some leagues have taxpayer supported minor leagues (colleges) and then there are taxpayer built stadiums and arenas that have a minor impact on the local economies after construction is over. Look at Detroit. A city in bankruptcy subsidizing a billionaire for a new arena that will only hire seasonal and part-time employees at low wages. And the surrounding restaurants and bars will hire for the same type of positions. What a deal! Oh well, at least the light rail boondoggle will have one destination stop. It really wouldn't bother me if some big-time Dodger fan paid $20 per month for this channel. As a matter of fact, the $240 per year charge is about the cost of going out for the night attending one game.
mhufnagel is offline  
post #95840 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 06:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Notes
Bianculli's Best Bets
By David Bianculli, TVWorthWatching.com - Jul. 29, 2014

NOTTING HILL
Sundance, 7:15 p.m. ET

Richard Curtis wrote this charming 1999 romantic comedy, which benefits greatly not only from the subtlety and honesty of his dialogue, but from the charisma and chemistry of the two leads: Julia Roberts, playing a variation of her own international superstar persona, and Hugh Grant, playing a sometimes stammering bookstore owner who meets her, falls under her spell, and falls in love. Watch for Rhys Ifans, a supporting-role scene-stealer as the bookseller’s best buddy, Spike. You may recognize Ifans, all these years later, as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock’s competitive sibling on CBS’s Elementary.

MARK TWAIN
PBS, 8:00 p.m. ET
Part 1 of 2.
This two-part 2001 biography by Ken Burns and company is a Mark Twain Prize all by itself: a thoughtful examination that gives equal weight to the author and his writings, to the fiction and to the real life behind it. And, it turns out, Sam Clemens and his alter ego are perfect subjects for Burns, whose TV works, primarily, have all been about the examination of place and race. With Mark Twain, and especially with Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, you get plenty of both. Check local listings.

RIO GRANDE
TCM, 8:00 p.m. ET

Maureen O’Hara Tuesdays continue tonight on TCM, and this evening’s lineups begins with one of her famous pairings with John Wayne: 1950’s Western, set just after the Civil War, in a beautifully photographed action film directed by John Ford.

PBS: "LOSING IRAQ"
PBS, 10:00 p.m. ET

This latest video-retrospective history lesson from executive producer Michael Kirk and associates is another example of the enduring value of Frontline. All it does, in Losing Iraq, is go back to the start of the Iraq War, and trace the key moves, missteps, allegiances and battles since. What emerges is a chilling portrait that makes today’s international unrest, and the rise of the Sunnis, seem much more understandable – and puts a good percentage of the blame on various moves by the Bush administration. Participants as well as observers retell the story, plainly and sometimes shockingly, with one expert summarizing American military moves as “incompetent,” “indecisive” and “inhumane.” Check local listings.

TYRANT
FX, 10:00 p.m. ET

Each week, it seems, watching this series becomes an exercise in “compare and contrast”: Namely, to compare the scripted insurgency and violence and unrest on the screen, in this drama about a fictional Middle Eastern country, with what’s happening in real life, and shown on the news, the same week. So far, it’s been sufficiently tumultuous to shift this show’s on-location production base from Tel Aviv to Istanbul. In other words, Tyrant can’t shoot in Tel Aviv, because real-life combatants are shooting there.


http://www.tvworthwatching.com/
dad1153 is offline  
post #95841 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 06:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
It sounds simple, but the math doesn't work. Time Warner wants what, $4 per subscriber? That calculation is based on the total number of subscribers who'd normally get SportsNet as a regional channel and those in the rest of the country who buy the whole sports tier (even though they'd only get non-game programming). Reduce that down to just the number of people who'd pay extra for it and TWC has to recalculate the per-sub fee in order to make the same money from D*. I'd imagine fewer than a quarter of LA subscribers would pay extra. It's a sliding scale. The fewer subscribers, the higher the fee to maintain the price TWC wants. So, it easily goes from $4 a month to $20. Now, you're asking subscribers to pay $240 a year for the network. And that's not even calculating in the loss of ad revenue based on a smaller audience, which could drive the price even higher.
But this is exactly what SHOULD happen to reflect the actual cost of sports. The net result would be a strong downward pressure on the whole cost structure, which is WAY overdue. They will likely find out that it's a tough sell at those prices, just as it is now for NASCAR et al to fill stands at the prices they're charging.
Keenan and mhufnagel like this.

Last edited by slowbiscuit; 07-29-2014 at 06:17 AM.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #95842 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 06:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
TV Review
‘Penn & Teller: Fool Us,’ please do
CW magic competition is enjoyable for the entire family to watch
By Tom Conroy, Media Life Magazine - Jul. 29, 2014

There are many divisions of people into two kinds. Here’s another one:

A: Some people think that seeing how a magic trick is done ruins the magic.

B: Others think seeing how the trick is done makes it better.

For decades, Penn and Teller have played to both groups: The magicians show the audience members how they were fooled at each step of a trick, but the trick usually ends with a surprising twist that leaves the audience baffled.

In The CW’s new competition series “Penn & Teller: Fool Us,” a series of less famous magic acts perform their cleverest trick. If Penn and Teller are unable to figure out how the trick was done, the act gets to fly to Las Vegas and perform in Penn and Teller’s show.

But since most acts would refuse to have the secret to their best trick exposed, thus ruining it for people in group A, Penn, who does all the talking for his team, skirts the issue, saying enough to let the competitors know he knows what they did but not enough to let us viewers in on the secret, thus disappointing people in group B.

Most viewers in both groups, however, will simply enjoy the acts, especially the final one, a classic bit by Penn and Teller themselves.

Moreover, “Fool Us” is a rarity on broadcast TV nowadays: a show that the whole family can enjoy together. Whether that makes it a bad fit for the young-adult-oriented CW is something their programming executives can worry about.

Premiering this Wednesday, July 30, at 8 p.m., “Fool Us,” which is evidently made in Britain, is another of this summer’s many low-risk pickups from a foreign provider. The host is the famous-over-there Jonathan Ross, who opens by introducing a taped segment in which Penn and the always inaudible Teller explain their shtick and the rules of the show.

As a warning to the contestants, Penn says, “If we can figure out how the trick is done, we’re gonna say.” As stated above, that doesn’t mean he’s going to share the secret with us.

The four contestants are a well-mixed bag. The first, an amiably goofy guy from Northampton named Mark Shortland, uses Ross as a volunteer, asking him to surrender his mobile phone, which is then placed in one of six identical envelopes along with five phones provided by Shortland, who smashes all but one of them in turn.

As expected, the only unbroken one is Ross’. Without divulging all the ruses that Shortland pulled along the way, Penn points out something suspicious about the way Shortland chose the order of envelopes. This is as close as he comes in this episode to ruining the trick for A types.

The second act is a card trick performed by a rather serious Frenchman named Matieu Bich. Audience members choose a card by tossing a ball randomly in the air. The correct answer appears spectacularly when Bich fans the deck.

The third is a British duo named Young and Strange, who do a variation on an old escape act. Young, the patsy in the duo, is dressed in a pink tutu because, as Strange says, “Any good act should have a gorgeous woman.” Penn and Teller look appropriately insulted.

Finally, another Brit, Daniel Madison, while blindfolded, deals a royal flush out of a deck of cards that Penn shuffled.

Only one of the acts fools Penn and Teller. In the other cases, Penn always praises the magicians’ skills before letting them down easy. Most viewers won’t be able to even imagine how the tricks might have been done.

The episode-ending segment, a card trick from the early years of Penn and Teller’s career, is the longest. As usual, Penn bullies both the audience and Teller. Typically, he shows us how he palmed a card and points out that he’s doing a “false cut” and a “false shuffle.”

Penn says that he and Teller have always thought card tricks are “intrinsically wimpy,” so Teller performs his part blindfolded and armed with a knife. People who know the duo won’t be surprised if the bit ends gorily. That’s probably the only moment in “Penn & Teller: Fool Us” that might make parents of very young children nervous.

A family-friendly show is atypical for both The CW and Penn and Teller. They fooled us, and that’s fine.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/pen...ool-us-please/
dad1153 is offline  
post #95843 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 06:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
The number of us who are willing to cut the cord over such rate increases just isn't there and probably won't be for a long time.
I just did... a few days ago. Going through some major withdrawal (like a junkie without his daily fix ) but haven't caved so far. Trying to do with just internet, an antenna and DVD's/Blu-ray's. The push that came to shove was that, in the past six months, my monthly Time Warner Cable bill went up from $169.00 to $206.00, without me adding anything to what I already had before (top channel tier, three premium channels, sports package and high-speed internet cable). It was clearly the cost of subsidizing new channels and/or the ballooning fees payments to existing one's, but $37 extra bucks in just six months? Too freaking greedy, no thanks, goodbye. If I ever subscribe to TV again it's going to be satellite or bust, Time Warner Cable's greed (I'm sure not all those $37 bucks were for fees; a "franchise" tax of some kind was thrown in for them) just cost them a lifetime customer.
TeeJay1952 likes this.

Last edited by dad1153; 07-29-2014 at 06:30 AM.
dad1153 is offline  
post #95844 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 07:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 60
I get it dad, but still not enough of us willing to do it. And if you go back to satellite, you're still part of the problem. Just by buying DVDs, etc., makes you still part of the system. And, the same thing will eventually happen to TV on the internet. If you think that nothing would change for you if we all cut the cord, you're dreaming. It's like all of us trying to use vegetable oil to run our cars as a protest against the use of fossil fuels. We better be prepared to give up our cars because there just aren't enough resources to sustain vegetable oil supplies. If we all cut the cord, what do you think will happen to content? I saw the article about there already being too much Retro. Now, I know you like Retro, so you'd probably be okay/

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #95845 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 07:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post
I just did... a few days ago. Going through some major withdrawal (like a junkie without his daily fix ) but haven't caved so far. Trying to do with just internet, an antenna and DVD's/Blu-ray's. The push that came to shove was that, in the past six months, my monthly Time Warner Cable bill went up from $169.00 to $206.00, without me adding anything to what I already had before (top channel tier, three premium channels, sports package and high-speed internet cable). It was clearly the cost of subsidizing new channels and/or the ballooning fees payments to existing one's, but $37 extra bucks in just six months? Too freaking greedy, no thanks, goodbye. If I ever subscribe to TV again it's going to be satellite or bust, Time Warner Cable's greed (I'm sure not all those $37 bucks were for fees; a "franchise" tax of some kind was thrown in for them) just cost them a lifetime customer.
It's not just that. The DVR fees they charge, the rentals for the equipment - they're rapidly going up too, just check your TWC bill. In some ways, they're just using the escalating carriage fees from providers as an excuse to raise rates for everything, including equipment already in the field.

And this, in spite of the 2-year contract many of us signed that was supposed to "lock in" our monthly fees. Amazing that they can legally get away with it.
archiguy is offline  
post #95846 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 08:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 2,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
It's not just that. The DVR fees they charge, the rentals for the equipment - they're rapidly going up too, just check your TWC bill. In some ways, they're just using the escalating carriage fees from providers as an excuse to raise rates for everything, including equipment already in the field.

And this, in spite of the 2-year contract many of us signed that was supposed to "lock in" our monthly fees. Amazing that they can legally get away with it.
So far, Brighthouse has added an RSN fee of a buck, they now have a 6-tuner DVR which of course costs extra over the original DVR fee. Next year a $2 fee for each DTA you have, which you must have if you have anything above bare-bones basic and if you have more than one TV that really adds up. I never thought I'd say it, but I am thisclose to just dumping everything and going OTA.

I'm a 'hooker' and a knitter. I guess that makes me bi-stitchual :). Crap I say
Nayan is offline  
post #95847 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 253
Noooo!!! How are you going to get your NASCAR fix?
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #95848 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 11:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dcowboy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pequannock, NJ
Posts: 5,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 104
What about all that mello-yello ?


dcowboy7 is offline  
post #95849 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 2,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post
Noooo!!! How are you going to get your NASCAR fix?
LOL! I have to admit, the thought of not having sports at the press of a button is very depressing and it's the main reason I've kept cable. But I also look at how much I am spending every month and that's pretty depressing too. Add in the annual rate increase plus the extra boxes next year and it's a pretty good chunk of change, enough for me to say I've had enough.

I'm a 'hooker' and a knitter. I guess that makes me bi-stitchual :). Crap I say
Nayan is offline  
post #95850 of 97507 Old 07-29-2014, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rebkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 4,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nayan View Post
LOL! I have to admit, the thought of not having sports at the press of a button is very depressing and it's the main reason I've kept cable. But I also look at how much I am spending every month and that's pretty depressing too. Add in the annual rate increase plus the extra boxes next year and it's a pretty good chunk of change, enough for me to say I've had enough.
The annual rate increase is just terrible, I have the same modem I have had for 4 or 5 years at least, and of course the modem is depreciating annually, yet the fee has doubled since I got it, actually I think it a little bit more than double, I'm pretty sure it started off at $3.00/month and now it's $7.00/month and all the outlet fees that have just been tacked on through the years.
Nayan likes this.
rebkell is online now  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off