Is DoubleClick also behind FUI advertisements that shake? I'm curious what the shaking is for. Is the advertiser trying to draw your eyes to the ad, or is the advertiser trying to make it so reasonably obvious that the message is a fake as to avoid litigation by pinheads who still get fooled by these things.
Actually I believe it does. I've heard there's also at least one car maker and one branch of the US military now using an embedded version of Windows. I'm not sure if it's the same as Windows CE though... and it doesn't crash and isn't bloated.
Windows can be pretty solid on any platform as long as you tune the thing and have good housekeeping skills. You UNIX/Linux/MacOS people have it easier since being lazy isn't as detrimental to your OS as it is to Windows.
Oh, I misread that. I thought you didn't like the sheer amount of commercials. My retort... Sci-Fi has a hard time finding advertisers willing to pay for what is likely exposure to a very small demographic. If you want to sell Formula 409, the Big Three are still the best places to advertise, and if you want to sell high-end electronics, you go for the yuppie crowd watching TNT, WB, and Fox. That must be it. Why else must I endure Girls Gone Wild commerials on Comedy Central? I guess advertisers assume that Sci-Fi channels fans aren't interested in anything other than Highlander/Xena/Hercules collectables... well, Girls Gone Wild videos too.
As a result, Sci-Fi is forced to air their limited commercials more often in order to fill the allotted time for commercials breaks. They probably have to sell advertising time at a discount as it is. If this is the case, their whole business model is wrong. They shouldn't be bartering (I believe that's the word they use in media)for time.
Oh, apparently we Sci-Fans eat at Applebee's and Chile's A LOT!
Cheap yes...but Sci-Fi probably needs the money. It doesn't have the kind of financial backing that other channels have. For example, TLC has the Discovery Channel, a major money maker.
At least I haven't had to endure another Sci-Fi Chain Reaction in a while.
It's the same demographic many of these channels are after. What it is, 20-26 year olds? I'm a TLC addict myself, but that channel probably appeals more to women than men anyway. The intellectual set have the science/history channels. Sci-Fi channel seems to appeal to the older crowd - at minimum the Gen X'ers, so Sci-Fi is probably doing a good job at doing something different. I just know that there are soo many more movies in the horror/sci-fi section at Blockbusters than what is regularly shown on Sci-Fi. I wish I could see more of those titles. But even those flicks were heavy on horror. Galaxy of Terror for example, or Saturn 3.... Maybe it shouldn't be called Sci-Fi channel?
It's depth when actors are making the most of characters that were written two-dimensionally. I thought the original cast did a much better job of handling the asides and internal monologues.
That's the problem with categorizing things. I'd say Event Horizon is Horror with a Sci-Fi setting. I'd say the same thing of Alien, but there's elements of other genres too.
Oh I will happily criticize Star Wars. It sucked when I saw the original in theaters. The special edition didn't help to improve things, and the prequels are just sad. George Lucas is the Bill Gates of the movie industry, getting by on a single product line that is guarded like Fort Knox, and that was built atop themes and storylines that precede it. I will say this those in defense of the original: Han Solo fired first! Deal with it!
I did love Babylon 5 though, but I first encounter it after it was in Season 3 on TNT. I like characters that have depth.
I'm pretty much a big David Lynch fan, but I didn't know it when I first saw Dune in the theaters. I found out after the fact, so that probably has less to do with me liking it.
Granted, the theatrical release was hard to follow unless you paid close attention, filled in the gaps, or previously read the novel. The director's full-length cut released to video then TV made it easier. I really loved the imagery, specifically the contrast. Geidi Prime was nothing like Caledan, which was nothing like Arrakis. The settings really set the tone for the mood of each house. The acting was superb. The various secret societies operating in the story weren't just background players as I found them to be in the revision. Having read the book also, I have always found the Lynch film to be more competent at revealing the Jewish Kabalist themes in the original novel. The revision seemed very secular to me.
Those awesome 1980's metal guitars were provided by Toto, most famous for Hold the Line and Rosanna - which was written for girlfriend, Rosanna Arquette, and also Africa, an Angry Pixie favorite.
The Baron was really really scary. The Baron in the revision was so clean and noble, the tone was so wrong.
You're plushing over a by-gone era. Consumers today want gritty razor's edge kind of shows. SCI-Fi has to put out in order to compete against police/law/medical dramas, reality TV, and cable news shows.
But looking back Sci-Fi has always had elements of horror in it and vice-versa. Consider the bulk of pulp fiction dramas from the 20's-40's or the sci-fi/horror flicks from the 50's. As I remember it wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s that a clear demarcation line was drawn between horror and sci-fi. The Omega Man probably doesn't count though. The 80s were mixed, and the 90s were just plain boring;)
I seriously initially I read that as fleeing the Cylon tranny
The show would have made so much more sense then. Did the story arc ever explain why everyone spoke perfect English, used Grecco-Roman names, and were looking for 1970s Earth?
Hmm.... I wonder which was harder to follow, Battlestar Gallactica or Galactica 1980? For that matter, which was worse: Battlestar Gallactica or Logan's Run, the series. Add the Planet of the Apes TV series and we have a good poll.
Fools. There was no Highlander 2. There has never been a Highlander sequal, and the television series was inspired by original characters from the Highlander film.
I still prefer the original big screen release. I tried watching both SCI-FI adaptations, and they literally gave me a headache, but then my perspective was all off because I still remember the original.
Same effect as with those remakes of the Stephen King movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Is DoubleClick also behind FUI advertisements that shake? I'm curious what the shaking is for. Is the advertiser trying to draw your eyes to the ad, or is the advertiser trying to make it so reasonably obvious that the message is a fake as to avoid litigation by pinheads who still get fooled by these things.
Good answer. I would have also accepted, "Because if they were speaking in perfect Lithuanian, the show would have made even less sense."
reformatting, reinstalling, shutting down non-vital services, hacking the registry... it's all good.
Actually I believe it does. I've heard there's also at least one car maker and one branch of the US military now using an embedded version of Windows. I'm not sure if it's the same as Windows CE though... and it doesn't crash and isn't bloated.
Windows can be pretty solid on any platform as long as you tune the thing and have good housekeeping skills. You UNIX/Linux/MacOS people have it easier since being lazy isn't as detrimental to your OS as it is to Windows.
Oh, I misread that. I thought you didn't like the sheer amount of commercials. My retort... Sci-Fi has a hard time finding advertisers willing to pay for what is likely exposure to a very small demographic. If you want to sell Formula 409, the Big Three are still the best places to advertise, and if you want to sell high-end electronics, you go for the yuppie crowd watching TNT, WB, and Fox. That must be it. Why else must I endure Girls Gone Wild commerials on Comedy Central? I guess advertisers assume that Sci-Fi channels fans aren't interested in anything other than Highlander/Xena/Hercules collectables... well, Girls Gone Wild videos too.
As a result, Sci-Fi is forced to air their limited commercials more often in order to fill the allotted time for commercials breaks. They probably have to sell advertising time at a discount as it is. If this is the case, their whole business model is wrong. They shouldn't be bartering (I believe that's the word they use in media)for time.
Oh, apparently we Sci-Fans eat at Applebee's and Chile's A LOT!
Cheap yes...but Sci-Fi probably needs the money. It doesn't have the kind of financial backing that other channels have. For example, TLC has the Discovery Channel, a major money maker.
At least I haven't had to endure another Sci-Fi Chain Reaction in a while.
It's the same demographic many of these channels are after. What it is, 20-26 year olds? I'm a TLC addict myself, but that channel probably appeals more to women than men anyway. The intellectual set have the science/history channels. Sci-Fi channel seems to appeal to the older crowd - at minimum the Gen X'ers, so Sci-Fi is probably doing a good job at doing something different. I just know that there are soo many more movies in the horror/sci-fi section at Blockbusters than what is regularly shown on Sci-Fi. I wish I could see more of those titles. But even those flicks were heavy on horror. Galaxy of Terror for example, or Saturn 3.... Maybe it shouldn't be called Sci-Fi channel?
Is Mystery Science Theater 3000 still running?
I never watch them.
I watched them. Horrible spinoffs cause alcoholism.
Did anyone like the Alien Nation series? Did anyone still like it when Sci-Fi saw fit to air it several times a day?
It's depth when actors are making the most of characters that were written two-dimensionally. I thought the original cast did a much better job of handling the asides and internal monologues.
That's the problem with categorizing things. I'd say Event Horizon is Horror with a Sci-Fi setting. I'd say the same thing of Alien, but there's elements of other genres too.
Christ. You should have narrated the show.
Oh you clever bastard. That should have been mine!
Oh I will happily criticize Star Wars. It sucked when I saw the original in theaters. The special edition didn't help to improve things, and the prequels are just sad. George Lucas is the Bill Gates of the movie industry, getting by on a single product line that is guarded like Fort Knox, and that was built atop themes and storylines that precede it. I will say this those in defense of the original: Han Solo fired first! Deal with it!
I did love Babylon 5 though, but I first encounter it after it was in Season 3 on TNT. I like characters that have depth.
I'm pretty much a big David Lynch fan, but I didn't know it when I first saw Dune in the theaters. I found out after the fact, so that probably has less to do with me liking it.
Granted, the theatrical release was hard to follow unless you paid close attention, filled in the gaps, or previously read the novel. The director's full-length cut released to video then TV made it easier. I really loved the imagery, specifically the contrast. Geidi Prime was nothing like Caledan, which was nothing like Arrakis. The settings really set the tone for the mood of each house. The acting was superb. The various secret societies operating in the story weren't just background players as I found them to be in the revision. Having read the book also, I have always found the Lynch film to be more competent at revealing the Jewish Kabalist themes in the original novel. The revision seemed very secular to me.
Those awesome 1980's metal guitars were provided by Toto, most famous for Hold the Line and Rosanna - which was written for girlfriend, Rosanna Arquette, and also Africa, an Angry Pixie favorite.
The Baron was really really scary. The Baron in the revision was so clean and noble, the tone was so wrong.
I roll 20 to disbelieve...
If there were no music, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera would just shake their thing to a mute television set and.... oh, I see.
But how would the A-Team get the van to leap over the battlestar?
No no no...
We need Dirk to concentrate on a much anticipated new A-Team series.
You're plushing over a by-gone era. Consumers today want gritty razor's edge kind of shows. SCI-Fi has to put out in order to compete against police/law/medical dramas, reality TV, and cable news shows.
;)
But looking back Sci-Fi has always had elements of horror in it and vice-versa. Consider the bulk of pulp fiction dramas from the 20's-40's or the sci-fi/horror flicks from the 50's. As I remember it wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s that a clear demarcation line was drawn between horror and sci-fi. The Omega Man probably doesn't count though. The 80s were mixed, and the 90s were just plain boring
fleeing the Cylon tyranny.
I seriously initially I read that as fleeing the Cylon tranny
The show would have made so much more sense then. Did the story arc ever explain why everyone spoke perfect English, used Grecco-Roman names, and were looking for 1970s Earth?
Hmm.... I wonder which was harder to follow, Battlestar Gallactica or Galactica 1980? For that matter, which was worse: Battlestar Gallactica or Logan's Run, the series. Add the Planet of the Apes TV series and we have a good poll.
Fools. There was no Highlander 2. There has never been a Highlander sequal, and the television series was inspired by original characters from the Highlander film.
I still prefer the original big screen release. I tried watching both SCI-FI adaptations, and they literally gave me a headache, but then my perspective was all off because I still remember the original.
Same effect as with those remakes of the Stephen King movies.
Ah yes... the ratio of cake to people...