|
Josh Lyman posted:There is zero chance the FCC ever implements this rule due to lobbyists. Nobody in government has an incentive to push it through. Yeah, I haven't heard of anybody pushing a la carte in America since the Bush administration. I guess people are being propagandized because Canada is apparently considering it (as if anything Canada does matters). That being said, a la carte is definitely a change, but its far from the looming apocalypse networks and cable companies want you to believe it is. JohnSherman posted:I would pay for 3 of those channels, because the rest of them are either complete poo poo or don't have enough good programs to justify keeping. I mean, I'd say that's the biggest problem with a la carte. If the biggest problem with a la carte is that you wouldn't be forced to pay for channels aimed at children, housewives, conservatives and sportfans, it sounds like the greatest thing in the world.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Irish Joe posted:If the biggest problem with a la carte is that you wouldn't be forced to pay for channels aimed at children, housewives, conservatives and sportfans, it sounds like the greatest thing in the world. No, but one of the biggest problems is that housewives, conservatives, and sportfans are all no longer forced to pay for the channels you enjoy. Almost twice as many people watch ESPN at primetime than watch AMC. Do you really think that giving them the option to stop paying for it will be a net positive for AMC?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:It's Left Behind by Damon Lindelof They should have just called it Left Behind. The Leftovers sounds like your fridge had a mini rapture during the midnight and you woke up the next day with only a tomato and half a beer. Plus, if only 2% of the goddamn world disappeared, they wouldn't be the "Leftovers," they'd be the goddamn majority. PootieTang posted:TV is going the way of the radio. It's gonna lurch on in a zombie like form, but people will crack jokes about it and old people will complain that back in their day they had to watch broadcast TV and it was upstream both ways. You're absolutely right. Most of the people I know watch tv on devices other than their television. And that's a growing trend. I don't know if A la carte will work in the US, I just know that it shouldn't be chastised on the basis that it will promote homogeny because that's absolute bullshit, and anyone who honestly believes that tv isn't already diluted with police procedural and "safety" shows is deluding himself. I had A La Carte television while living in India, and it was absolutely the best thing ever. We paid 200rs a month (that's 5 bucks) for all the best channels, plus a few extra. We got something like 20 channels, all with shows we regularly watch. Now, if you want something with 900 channels, few of which you will ever watch, you can go ahead and waste your money. I'm telling you A la carte is the best thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
I have just realised that it has been five years since Party Down was first broadcast and the movie adaptation never materialised, while countless other piles of complete poo poo stayed on air for many years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
OppyDoppyDopp posted:I have just realised that it has been five years since Party Down was first broadcast and the movie adaptation never materialised, while countless other piles of complete poo poo stayed on air for many years. We just got a Veronica Mars adaptation so a Party Down adaptation can't be far behind.... right? CaptainHollywood fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Martin Starr is on Silicon Valley playing a similar character, which may assuage your loss (also it's pretty good!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:No, but one of the biggest problems is that housewives, conservatives, and sportfans are all no longer forced to pay for the channels you enjoy. Almost twice as many people watch ESPN at primetime than watch AMC. Do you really think that giving them the option to stop paying for it will be a net positive for AMC? 1) I don't give a poo poo about what is or isn't good for a multi-billion dollar corporation. That doesn't change just because I like their product. 2) AMC has the same goal as every other business: to make money. When circumstances change and the old models become obsolete, so, too, will they change. Also, its natural for businesses to fail and be replaced. Yeah, imagining a world different than our own is scary as hell, but change is usually for the best. Remember, no one mourns VHS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:Remember, no one mourns VHS. Dude, tons of people do. They're just all retarded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:It's Left Behind by Damon Lindelof What is Plot Development? I'll take TV IV for $300, Alex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:1) I don't give a poo poo about what is or isn't good for a multi-billion dollar corporation. That doesn't change just because I like their product. The current state of Discovery is the result of their executives realizing that it makes more sense to air lovely reality shows than to produce science related content that nobody watches. But you're right, I'm sure AMC will be content to blow cash on prestige television after they lose half their subscriber base. Change is 8 seasons of Small Town Security. Baronash fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:The 12 most popular cable channels in primetime: I haven't had cable for about a year and I watch no less tv than before (aside from I guess less random cartoons or background noise). If the criteria is "I would pay for that channel" it would also have to come with no commercials to even begin to appeal to me. That said, I don't think ala carte tv will happen any time soon regardless of whether you buy the idea that big cable channels subsidize the smaller ones as a result of being part of packages and that this results in more risk-taking programs or not (you would be very wrong if not, but it doesn't matter). You guys do know who runs the FCC right? Hint: former or future very well compensated employees of telecoms companies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:The current state of Discovery is the result of their executives realizing that it makes more sense to air lovely reality shows than to produce science related content that nobody watches. But you're right, I'm sure AMC will be content to blow cash on prestige television after they lose half their subscriber base. What a weird argument. Your worst case scenario is an example of something that happened under the current system. Then you pointed out that even prestige channels like AMC lean heavily on lowest common denominator shows under the current system. However, you have yet to point out a single compelling reason why everything you hate about the current system would be worse under a la carte. Like you said, cable networks already serve two masters--ratings and advertisers--and that wouldn't change with a la carte. In fact, I'd argue just the opposite--that people are more likely to demand higher quality programming for stations they explicitly pay for, forcing cable network to develop better, rather than cheaper, programs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Ravane posted:Plus, if only 2% of the goddamn world disappeared, they wouldn't be the "Leftovers," they'd be the goddamn majority. That's the entire point, it's a twist on 'society breakdown,' without having to resort to a complete apocalypes. Imagine if six million Americans just up and vanished tomorrow: nearly everyone would have lost someone close to them, and has to live with that. Then there's the greater question of what the hell exactly happened, and everyone trying to come to terms with it. And I guess there's a weird cult rubbing everybody's nose in it, which won't help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:03
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
It's not even that I like anime very much at all, I just really hate absolutism ("all anime is bad"). Yeah okay I'm sure people who say that have seen even like 1% of "all anime" that exists. It's like saying "all American dramas are bad" when all you've seen is NCIS. I was going to say something about Great Teacher Onizuka but I had it backwards and the anime of that is really terrible, whereas the live action version is loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Everything on the Taco Bell menu is bad. Same with anime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Everything on the Taco Bell menu is bad. Same with anime. I haven't been to a Taco Bell in over 20 years. Do they still sell hard-shelled tacos?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Interesting tidbit- without the three hours of WWE on Monday nights, they would fall to 6th. With how fickle cable is, after the death of half the menu, new channel/content creation would halt as no companies would be willing to spend so much on ad space as to finance a station with exactly zero viewers. All the channels would have to create a bunch of small groups of package deals, with television subscriptions requiring a set minimum in spending- which would still equal prices now but with significantly fewer channels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:I haven't been to a Taco Bell in over 20 years. Do they still sell hard-shelled tacos?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:What a weird argument. Your worst case scenario is an example of something that happened under the current system. Then you pointed out that even prestige channels like AMC lean heavily on lowest common denominator shows under the current system. However, you have yet to point out a single compelling reason why everything you hate about the current system would be worse under a la carte. Like you said, cable networks already serve two masters--ratings and advertisers--and that wouldn't change with a la carte. I mentioned it twice, you just felt content to blow it off because ~big corporations~. Massive losses in revenue hurt networks, and the easiest way to counteract that is to make cheaper programming. A&E and History sit higher on the list of most popular networks than AMC yet spend less on programming. People aren't going to stop watching their lovely reality shows because of a line on their bill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
soapgish posted:Interesting tidbit- without the three hours of WWE on Monday nights, they would fall to 6th. With how fickle cable is, after the death of half the menu, new channel/content creation would halt as no companies would be willing to spend so much on ad space as to finance a station with exactly zero viewers. Actually, with cable in over 75% of households, channel creation would not stop under any circumstances. Yes, media companies would have to change the way they introduce new channels (ie marketing towards consumers instead of cable companies), but cable tv is too good to pass up, even under a la carte. JohnSherman posted:A&E and History sit higher on the list of most popular networks than AMC yet spend less on programming. People aren't going to stop watching their lovely reality shows because of a line on their bill. You're right, people might stop watching those networks altogether until they produce better programs. Thanks for once again making my argument for me. Irish Joe fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
precision posted:It's not even that I like anime very much at all, I just really hate absolutism ("all anime is bad"). Yeah okay I'm sure people who say that have seen even like 1% of "all anime" that exists. It's like saying "all American dramas are bad" when all you've seen is NCIS. But all anime IS bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:You're right, people might stop watching those networks altogether until they produce better programs. Thanks for once again making my argument for me. You are aware of the concept of popularity and how it ties into what people are and are not willing to spend money on, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Forget it, Jake. It's Irish Joe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:Actually, with cable in over 75% of households, channel creation would not stop under any circumstances. Yes, media companies would have to change the way they introduce new channels (ie marketing towards consumers instead of cable companies), but cable tv is too good to pass up, even under a la carte. There are concessions to be made all over, I'm sure of it, but the process would be very long, difficult, and assuredly convoluted. New channels would realistically have to be introduced into existing packages, then there would have to be education campaigns along with extended previews of the new channel, followed by decisive votes given to the subscribers. Like stockholders, and most homes would probably be resigned to a default proxy vote of "Yes" which wouldn't be much of a change at all. Or it could go a completely different way, though the point I'm stabbing at is the various efforts necessary to make the costs and benefits even out are Sisyphean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That's the entire point, it's a twist on 'society breakdown,' without having to resort to a complete apocalypes. Imagine if six million Americans just up and vanished tomorrow: nearly everyone would have lost someone close to them, and has to live with that. Then there's the greater question of what the hell exactly happened, and everyone trying to come to terms with it. And I guess there's a weird cult rubbing everybody's nose in it, which won't help. No, I'm not arguing that the plot is bad, I'm arguing that the name doesn't make sense. You don't fully stock a fridge, then eat a sandwich, and call what's remaining "the leftovers." Even "the Remaining" is a better title than "The Leftovers." MrAristocrates posted:Forget it, Jake. It's Irish Joe. This is such a stupid argument. Irish Joe is actually making some great points, which you guys are unable to refute, and you choose to simply call him a troll? What, when we agree with you, you take our word, but when we don't, we're trolls? Don't look at life that way kid, it's arrogant and it'll lead you nowhere. JohnSherman posted:You are aware of the concept of popularity and how it ties into what people are and are not willing to spend money on, right? If a bunch of fans were willing to spend a few bucks per episode for Firefly, it'd still be going on. You think shows like Hannibal and Arrow would suddenly die out because we switched to an A la Carte system? They're the only reasons some people still watch tv. With an A La Carte system, small fanbases can actually make a difference over our already lovely Nielson system. Edit: Did someone really pay ten bucks to change my avatar thing? Thank you. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
He's wrong, you're wrong, and there's a million articles explaining why. They're just sick of your poo poo and want others to stop engaging it,
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Occupation posted:But all anime IS bad No it's not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
He sorta has a point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
precision posted:No it's not. Every two years or I forget that I hate all anime and will watch few episodes of the new hot "oh this is totally anime for non anime fans" series and they're always terrible. Point me to an anime that isn't chock full of exposition, people saying what they are feeling constantly and having completely unwarranted actions, terribly unfunny jokes and glacial plots. I mean, don't cause I won't watch it, but I'm not generalizing when I say I hate all anime ever made past present and future for eternity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:Every two years or I forget that I hate all anime and will watch few episodes of the new hot "oh this is totally anime for non anime fans" series and they're always terrible. Point me to an anime that isn't chock full of exposition, people saying what they are feeling constantly and having completely unwarranted actions, terribly unfunny jokes and glacial plots. I mean, don't cause I won't watch it, but I'm not generalizing when I say I hate all anime ever made past present and future for eternity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I said don't!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Everything on the Taco Bell menu is bad. Same with anime. This. Also why do people still engage Irish Joe? The gimmick sucks now. It is the Arby's of gimmicks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Mushishi
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Also why do people still engage Irish Joe? The gimmick sucks now. It is the Arby's of gimmicks. Its not so much a gimmick this time as existential sadness at the average goon's general inability to be an intelligent and creative thinker. Everybody here is so young, yet so willing to accept an imperfect status quo because they can't envision a better world. Its honestly depressing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Now I'm hungry for Arbys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:Its not so much a gimmick this time as existential sadness at the average goon's general inability to be an intelligent and creative thinker. Everybody here is so young, yet so willing to accept an imperfect status quo because they can't envision a better world. Its honestly depressing. Well at least you're euphoric.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Now I'm hungry for Arbys. Irish Joe is right, y'all are irredeemable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Irish Joe is right, y'all are irredeemable. So Taco Bell then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:So Taco Bell then? Paging Occupation, start another garbage debate about nothing, this man needs help!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
IRQ posted:Paging Occupation, start another garbage debate about nothing, this man needs help! Anime is bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:44
|
|