or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'The Americans' on FX HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'The Americans' on FX HD - Page 21

post #601 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Who has Cinemax? I've already got HBO, Showtime, and Starz. What typically shows up on Cinemax usually makes its way to HBO eventually since they're the same company (although these original series probably won't - that's the point I guess). At some point, you just have to say "Uncle!"

That said, 'Banshee' is filmed here in Charlotte and I've seen their production trucks around town. If they'd cast me as an extra and pay me scale, then maybe I could afford to subscribe! smile.gif
Banshi is a great show! I'm sure you'd enjoy. The writing is very reminiscent of Justified but not in the same league. Also, Hunted and Strike Back are a lot of fun too. Give them a shot. I watched them On Demand as a great hour long elliptical workout cool.gif . Great entertainment .
post #602 of 900
Thread Starter 
Another +1 for Banhee. Great television! Nice to see you post, LL3HD. You should post more often smile.gif
post #603 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by LL3HD View Post

Banshi is a great show! I'm sure you'd enjoy. The writing is very reminiscent of Justified but not in the same league. Also, Hunted and Strike Back are a lot of fun too. Give them a shot. I watched them On Demand as a great hour long elliptical workout cool.gif . Great entertainment .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Young C View Post

Another +1 for Banhee. Great television! Nice to see you post, LL3HD. You should post more often smile.gif
Banshi? Banhee? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. By the way, it's Banshee.
post #604 of 900
I love both Banshee and Strike Back. They are way over-the top, but if you could ignore the realism issues of the last few seasons of 24 and just enjoy the ride - you'll like both of these shows.
post #605 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by LL3HD View Post

Banshi is a great show! I'm sure you'd enjoy. The writing is very reminiscent of Justified but not in the same league. Also, Hunted and Strike Back are a lot of fun too. Give them a shot. I watched them On Demand as a great hour long elliptical workout cool.gif . Great entertainment .

Larry, from everything I've heard about it, I probably would. But I'm not willing to add yet another premium channel (that would be five if you include Netflix), and another $120-150/yr to my TWC bill just to see it. For many years I was determined to make do with only HBO and Showtime, going all the way back to the dawn of the HD age. I figure I was one of the first, if not the first, person to have HDTV in the Charlotte area and those two channels were about the only HD content there was back then. Then I added Starz, primarily just for 'Spartacus', and have been rewarded with some other decent original series including period dramas 'Pillars of the Earth' and now 'DaVinci's Code' so that I can somewhat justify the additional cost.

But now we're facing a veritable onslaught of original programming from a variety of subscription sources, including Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Hulu, and heaven-knows how many more. At some point you just have to draw a line in the sand. Someday 'Banshee' will make it to Netflix; I can wait until then.

Off topic - how much fun was the Derby yesterday? Reminded me of playing in the mud as a kid. Those poor horses needed goggles more than the riders. biggrin.gif
post #606 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post


Banshi? Banhee? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. By the way, it's Banshee.
LOL biggrin.gif doh!
post #607 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Larry, from everything I've heard about it, I probably would. But I'm not willing to add yet another premium channel (that would be five if you include Netflix), and another $120-150/yr to my TWC bill just to see it. For many years I was determined to make do with only HBO and Showtime, going all the way back to the dawn of the HD age. I figure I was one of the first, if not the first, person to have HDTV in the Charlotte area and those two channels were about the only HD content there was back then. Then I added Starz, primarily just for 'Spartacus', and have been rewarded with some other decent original series including period dramas 'Pillars of the Earth' and now 'DaVinci's Code' so that I can somewhat justify the additional cost.

But now we're facing a veritable onslaught of original programming from a variety of subscription sources, including Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Hulu, and heaven-knows how many more. At some point you just have to draw a line in the sand. Someday 'Banshee' will make it to Netflix; I can wait until then.

Off topic - how much fun was the Derby yesterday? Reminded me of playing in the mud as a kid. Those poor horses needed goggles more than the riders. biggrin.gif
I find that when I call my provider, to threaten that I’m leaving, they always work out some type of arrangement to keep me. cool.gif I’ve always had all of the premiums and no matter how I work the numbers, it doesn’t pay to lose any. This has worked with TWC and currently with Fios. Call and complain smile.gif

I prefer BD for their better audio and picture qualities. I had Netflix a while ago but switched to Blockbuster because of the earlier release dates. But now-- I dumped BB and just went back to Netflix. I’m finally living the streaming world. biggrin.gif and enjoying it immensely. Finally got to see Breaking Bad and now enjoying House of Cards.

We are now living through a "golden age" of television. No better entertainment in my opinion. I look forward to watching these shows more than I do for most movies and I've always been a movie buff.

And yes, Derby was great.cool.gif I wish I had that exacta. Almost a grand eek.gif My horse is still running. biggrin.gif
post #608 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by LL3HD View Post

.

We are now living through a "golden age" of television. No better entertainment in my opinion. I look forward to watching these shows more than I do for most movies and I've always been a movie buff.

biggrin.gif

+1000. TV has definately grown up.In the right hands its as much an artform as film.
post #609 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

I think it was just a dramatic look designed to tell the audience that she's suspicious of her mother's activities, even though the folded laundry was sitting there, just as Elizabeth had said.

What's to be suspicious about? She has no grandparents, aunts, uncles or cousins and her travel agent parents are out at all crazy hours. Sounds normal. rolleyes.gif
post #610 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by LL3HD View Post

We are now living through a "golden age" of television. No better entertainment in my opinion. I look forward to watching these shows more than I do for most movies and I've always been a movie buff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

+1000. TV has definately grown up.In the right hands its as much an artform as film.
More accurately- the "golden age" of Cable television.
The original OTA networks (and I'll single out NBC here) are still putting out some absolute rubbish while the cable networks have without doubt raised the bar.
post #611 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by replayrob View Post


More accurately- the "golden age" of Cable television.
The original OTA networks (and I'll single out NBC here) are still putting out some absolute rubbish while the cable networks have without doubt raised the bar.

Broadcast networks, by definition, have to appeal to a broad audience. So they dumb their programming down to appeal to the lowest common denominator - that's where the greatest mass of eyeballs are. Cablenets can aim a little higher and appeal to specific demographic groups. Not making an excuse for the sorry state of broadcast drama, just speculating as to why they put out so much dreck.
post #612 of 900
I think you can still create a smart broadcast series that will still appeal to a broad audience. If anyone is dumb it's the executives falling for the dumbing down concept. A media professor I used to know believed that one should aim above the level of the audience in the process of lifting them up. Dumbing down will just make it harder and harder to create new series for a nation of "dumbed down" sludge heads.
post #613 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

I think you can still create a smart broadcast series that will still appeal to a broad audience. If anyone is dumb it's the executives falling for the dumbing down concept. A media professor I used to know believed that one should aim above the level of the audience in the process of lifting them up. Dumbing down will just make it harder and harder to create new series for a nation of "dumbed down" sludge heads.

I don't disagree, but the fact remains that the smarter a show, the more difficult time it has finding an audience. And as long as the advertiser-supported business model is in effect, the size of the audience is ultimately the only thing that matters.

'Rubicon', for example, a really smart show, couldn't even make it on AMC. We seem to be becoming a nation of stupid people. We can speculate on the causes all day (I have a few ideas), but it is what it is. We're lucky we still have '60 Minutes'.
post #614 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I don't disagree, but the fact remains that the smarter a show, the more difficult time it has finding an audience. And as long as the advertiser-supported business model is in effect, the size of the audience is ultimately the only thing that matters.

'Rubicon', for example, a really smart show, couldn't even make it on AMC. We seem to be becoming a nation of stupid people. We can speculate on the causes all day (I have a few ideas), but it is what it is. We're lucky we still have '60 Minutes'.

If how smart the tv shows that are on is a sign of the intellegence of the american people we would have never survived the 50's...or the 60's...70's...

Some do not want to be challenged by what they watch. They want something comfortable and familiar so they can turn off their brains and relax. Nothing wrong with that. Whats wrong is the Big 3 networks contention that the vast majority of people are like that, which was their excuse for poor quality back in the days when tv was called a vast wasteland. The broadcast networks still seem to believe that, so now there is a real division between broadcast and cable programming. On the whole success on cable is based on quality and being different while broadcast is content to be background noise. Cable series numbers continue to grow whi8e the network audience share continues to decline. So maybe that "majority"was never as big as the networks claim it was.
post #615 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

Some do not want to be challenged by what they watch. They want something comfortable and familiar so they can turn off their brains and relax.
I don't thing it's so much that as people want something they can keep up with while cooking dinner, eating dinner, surfing the 'net, talking on the phone or texting, doing laundry, washing the dishes, etc. Plus, if it's a show where you're lost if you miss an episode, people are more likely to bail if they do miss one.

When you have too much detail that requires you to have seen a bunch of other detail to keep up, it means people have to sit and actively watch the show. That prevents them from trying to multitask, which makes them want to give up on the show rather than have it dominate their time.

making time sit and watch a movie now and then is one thing. Making that same committment to potentially a half a dozen or more TV shows every single week isn't going to work for many people with all the things that compete for their time.
post #616 of 900
^^^ I agree. I wasn't being critical of those who don't focus their full attention on tv, its as valid a use of the medium as any other. It really comes down to how you watch tv. Some have it on constantly but only give it a fraction of their attention. Outside of a few shows thats all tv deserved over the years. At least now their are some shows worth setting time aside for and giving your full attention to just like you would do for a film in a theater. The marketplace is responding to that-the OTA networks still mainly believe in the old model Cable thrives by creating shows that the audience will seek out and give their full attention to. Everybody wins...except maybe the CW smile.gif
post #617 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I don't thing it's so much that as people want something they can keep up with while cooking dinner, eating dinner, surfing the 'net, talking on the phone or texting, doing laundry, washing the dishes, etc. Plus, if it's a show where you're lost if you miss an episode, people are more likely to bail if they do miss one.

When you have too much detail that requires you to have seen a bunch of other detail to keep up, it means people have to sit and actively watch the show. That prevents them from trying to multitask, which makes them want to give up on the show rather than have it dominate their time.

making time sit and watch a movie now and then is one thing. Making that same committment to potentially a half a dozen or more TV shows every single week isn't going to work for many people with all the things that compete for their time.

That is what is wrong with TV now, IMO. We get more and more stations and they all try to appeal to everybody. Seems like no matter what the station started out as, in time it tries to appeal to the masses more and more, maybe the reason people spend all their time multitasking is because nothing on tv is really worth investing time in. And if shows don't get good numbers immediately, then the show will get shuffled around or dropped completely, once a network starts fiddling with a show, they have given up and almost assuredly make sure of it's demise.
post #618 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebkell View Post

That is what is wrong with TV now, IMO. We get more and more stations and they all try to appeal to everybody. Seems like no matter what the station started out as, in time it tries to appeal to the masses more and more, maybe the reason people spend all their time multitasking is because nothing on tv is really worth investing time in.
The problem is, it's one of those circular situations. The less people pay attention, the less attention the shows require to watch to compensate for the lack of attention. The less attention the shows require to watch, the less people pay attention....

Quote:
And if shows don't get good numbers immediately, then the show will get shuffled around or dropped completely, once a network starts fiddling with a show, they have given up and almost assuredly make sure of it's demise.
The biggest issue now that we didn't have years ago is that viewers now often know whether a show is doing well or not. So, when a show doesn't start out well, people figure it will be cancelled anyway and stop watching. That makes the numbers go down even more, which causes the network to dump it.

Years ago, viewers didn't have access to that information, so those that liked the show continued to watch because they liked the show. They went on happily watching a show, not knowing or caring if they were the only ones watching. The result: Years ago, aside from the obvious bombs right out of the gate, low rated shows normally didn't shed viewers the way they do now. That low, but steady viewership often allowed the networks time to tweak things a bit to get more people to notice it.

Don't forget, in the 70's and earlier, most people not only had no way to record a show, but few TVs had a factory included remote control. "Turning the channel" meant literally turning the channel knob. That meant, unless the lead in show sucked, many people would let one channel ride until something was bad enough to turn the channel - assuming there wasn't a specific show on another channel they really wanted to see.

Now, our DVRs record shows and allow us to watch them independent of the network and time slot it's on. Fewer of us are seeing the lead-in show than we used to. That means we often judge the show worthy of our time based on how long it sits on the hard drive before we watch it. It's buzz from the internet or our friends that makes us choose to watch a show sooner rather than later.

CBS is the one exception to the above. They have a lot of older skewing viewers that watch the way they always have: they tune in and tuck in for the evening. The lead-in, leads to the next and the next until the local news comes on. Not only that, but they are less likely to time shift, which means they see more commercials. Now, some would say that those people are usually set in their ways and are less influenced by the ads, but I say bull. I know quite a number of people over 55 that will try a product they saw on TV if it happens to go on sale one week or if their normal product isn't as good as it used to be. If older viewers aren't being swayed by ads it's because they aren't selling them in a way to appeal to things like economy, durability, reliability and ease of use. Instead, they sell everything as fast, flashy and does everything - and use technical terms that confuse them.
Edited by NetworkTV - 5/7/13 at 9:48pm
post #619 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The problem is, it's one of those circular situations. The less people pay attention, the less attention the shows require to watch to compensate for the lack of attention. The less attention the shows require to watch, the less people pay attention....
The biggest issue now that we didn't have years ago is that viewers now often know whether a show is doing well or not. So, when a show doesn't start out well, people figure it will be cancelled anyway and stop watching. That makes the numbers go down even more, which causes the network to dump it.

Years ago, viewers didn't have access to that information, so those that liked the show continued to watch because they liked the show. They went on happily watching a show, not knowing or caring if they were the only ones watching. The result: Years ago, aside from the obvious bombs right out of the gate, low rated shows normally didn't shed viewers the way they do now. That low, but steady viewership often allowed the networks time to tweak things a bit to get more people to notice it.

.

I still think the networks have created the biggest problem, they are the ones that have access to the info, and do the knee jerk reactions. I doubt that many people have that much info available to them, I work with a guy that watches more tv than I do and he has no idea about ratings. The people that do drop the show because of low ratings, have been conditioned by the networks dropping shows like hot potatos. It's a lot of she said, he said, damned if you do, damned if you don't logic I guess.
post #620 of 900
Just finished up the season, easily one the better shows I've seen in a while.
post #621 of 900
Finally watched the season finale. Who was the soon to be dead guy talking to? It had to be Elizabeth, but did the viewer know that?

At the time I thought they were obviously setting up Claudia to come back, but now that I know she's been cast in another show, I guess they intentionally left it ambiguous, but with a nice big door to come back through.
post #622 of 900
I don't want to nit pick to bad here with all their glaring problems/issues in this episode but one that really stood out is that, would the FBI really of made a road block by pulling two cars out and leaving them apart by 10 feet so you can almost drive another car through the gap?
post #623 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamR View Post

I don't want to nit pick to bad here with all their glaring problems/issues in this episode but one that really stood out is that, would the FBI really of made a road block by pulling two cars out and leaving them apart by 10 feet so you can almost drive another car through the gap?

SOP for tv cops. But you're right of course. Didn't spoil my enjoyment of the scene but I did notice the FBI didn't seem to have a plan if their target tried to get away. Course they weren't expecting a car to show up for the getaway. Which begs the question: Why wouldn't they?
post #624 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post



SOP for tv cops. But you're right of course. Didn't spoil my enjoyment of the scene but I did notice the FBI didn't seem to have a plan if their target tried to get away. Course they weren't expecting a car to show up for the getaway. Which begs the question: Why wouldn't they?

Two possibilities: You can't think of everything, and they had no reason to suspect a double agent would FUBAR their little trap.

This isn't 'The Following'. The FBI is a lot smarter in this show.
post #625 of 900
'Spirit of the Cold War': Russia says US diplomat was trying to recruit for CIA

Evoking the spy games of the Cold War, Russia said Tuesday that it had detained an American diplomat who was carrying cash, two wigs and technical equipment and was trying to recruit a Russian intelligence official to work for the CIA
post #626 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

'Spirit of the Cold War': Russia says US diplomat was trying to recruit for CIA

Evoking the spy games of the Cold War, Russia said Tuesday that it had detained an American diplomat who was carrying cash, two wigs and technical equipment and was trying to recruit a Russian intelligence official to work for the CIA

I read that report in this morning's Oklahoman and when I saw that the US diplomat had wigs, I immediately thought of Philip and Elizabeth.smile.gif
post #627 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Two possibilities: You can't think of everything, and they had no reason to suspect a double agent would FUBAR their little trap.

This isn't 'The Following'. The FBI is a lot smarter in this show.

As is the writing.
post #628 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I read that report in this morning's Oklahoman and when I saw that the US diplomat had wigs, I immediately thought of Philip and Elizabeth.smile.gif

Well until this happened. Well all I ever heard was the Russians doing it to us. I guess the US Spy business is alive and well in Russia.
Edited by Wytchone - 5/15/13 at 10:38am
post #629 of 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

'Spirit of the Cold War': Russia says US diplomat was trying to recruit for CIA

Evoking the spy games of the Cold War, Russia said Tuesday that it had detained an American diplomat who was carrying cash, two wigs and technical equipment and was trying to recruit a Russian intelligence official to work for the CIA

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I read that report in this morning's Oklahoman and when I saw that the US diplomat had wigs, I immediately thought of Philip and Elizabeth.smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

Well until this happened. Well I ever heard was the Russians doing it to us. I guess the US Spy business is alive and well in Russia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

Well until this happened. Well I ever heard was the Russians doing it to us. I guess the US Spy business is alive and well in Russia.
vast majority of the time this stuff never reaches the press as they causally trade spy for spy behind closed doors , Putin is using this as leverage on the US claims of injustice of minorities/political enemies done by Putin .
post #630 of 900
Thread Starter 
The Americans Exclusive: Margo Martindale Returning as Claudia in Season 2
October 16, 2013 05:02 PM PDT by Michael Ausiello

How do you say ‘hooray’ in Russian?*

Margo Martindale is returning to FX’s The Americans as Elizabeth and Phillip’s KGB handler Claudia in Season 2, TVLine has learned exclusively.

“Sources say this intel is very strong,” executive producer Joel Fields cheekily confirms, adding, “She’ll be back for at least one episode.”

Martindale, who netted a 2013 Emmy nod for playing Claudia, will juggle The Americans with her current starring role in CBS’ new comedy The Millers.

The Americans returns in early 2014.

*Ypa!

http://tvline.com/2013/10/16/the-americans-season-2-margo-martindale-returning-claudia/

___________________

They started filming S2 a couple days ago.



New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'The Americans' on FX HD