Spinning off the automotive opinions thread with one for TV:
-NBC is the best network ever; it was a sad day when they lost the NBA, and I wish they could get it back
-Fox Sports > ESPN
-CBS Mornings is a lazy name for an AM news program
-MTV is a joke now! They don't show music videos like they used to
-Ditto for VH1 (but at least it airs Behind the Music)
-GSN's programming is utter crap
-Disney should've never bought ABC. They destroyed its classic TGIF lineup, which is totally unforgivable
-"Sitcoms" without a laugh track can't be called sitcoms
-All series should have a 7-season limit
-Wheel of Fortune > Jeopardy!
I'd like to see what you have to add to this.
I haven't watched a live TV program that wasn't sports in over 5 years, and I'm better off for it. That's probably an unpopular opinion here.
Frasier is the best sitcom of the 1990s.
Quote from: Henry on August 09, 2022, 01:00:41 PM-GSN's programming is utter crap
All of the classic shows that used to be on GSN are probably on Buzzr now.
Quote from: Henry on August 09, 2022, 01:00:41 PM-"Sitcoms" without a laugh track can't be called sitcoms
If you're not taping it live in front of a studio audience, then don't add a laugh track. You're telling the audience what is/isn't funny, and how funny it is, and it's not up to you.
Quote from: Henry on August 09, 2022, 01:00:41 PM
Spinning off the automotive opinions thread with one for TV:
-NBC is the best network ever; it was a sad day when they lost the NBA, and I wish they could get it back
-Fox Sports > ESPN
-CBS Mornings is a lazy name for an AM news program
-MTV is a joke now! They don't show music videos like they used to
-Ditto for VH1 (but at least it airs Behind the Music)
-GSN's programming is utter crap
-Disney should've never bought ABC. They destroyed its classic TGIF lineup, which is totally unforgivable
-"Sitcoms" without a laugh track can't be called sitcoms
-All series should have a 7-season limit
-Wheel of Fortune > Jeopardy!
I'd like to see what you have to add to this.
Wait! VH1 still shows "Behind the Music"?? I loved that show! Thanks for letting me know!
A few that come to mind for me.
- Friends was incredibly overrated. The jokes were recycled from numerous sitcoms, and you could see them coming from a mile away.
- The Simpsons should've ended around 2000.
- As much as I love the NFL, we really don't need Thursday Night Football. Generally, they're pretty mediocre matchups.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 09, 2022, 02:32:10 PM
- As much as I love the NFL, we really don't need Thursday Night Football. Generally, they're pretty mediocre matchups.
The 2011-present advent of season-long Thursday night football is the pinpoint moment my interest in the sport took its first major hit. In my view, the NFL played the scarcity model to perfection. You got your Sunday games and MNF, and by the time MNF was over, next Sunday felt a long way away. I didn't mind the Thanksgiving games or the occasional late-season Thursday special, and I loved those end-of-season Saturday games. But the full season Thursday football suddenly made it feel like all the other sports where you can watch it whenever you want because it's always on.
TV and movies in general are overrated. Outside of occasionally watching stuff on Disney+, I haven't really watched anything of note since February 2020. My life has probably been better because of it.
I agree on The Simpsons. I got out of the habit of watching it in 2002 when I was living with my parents and my own TV was in storage, and never got back in the habit. In fact, while I watched Fox all the time for a while, I hardly ever do now except for sports.
Young Sheldon was great when The Big Bang Theory was winding down, but it's become more of a soap opera. It won't be "must-see" for me this fall.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 09, 2022, 01:02:45 PM
I haven't watched a live TV program that wasn't sports in over 5 years, and I'm better off for it. That's probably an unpopular opinion here.
I would call it uncommon, but not necessarily unpopular. I don't think anybody is going to dislike that you don't watch TV.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 09, 2022, 01:02:45 PM
I haven't watched a live TV program that wasn't sports in over 5 years, and I'm better off for it. That's probably an unpopular opinion here.
I'm close to that, Game of Thrones was probably the last TV series I watched live (or a few days later), and the only one in the last 10 years (that I can think of) that wasn't solely on a dedicated steaming platform. I honestly can't recall the last network TV series that I watched with any regularity, save maybe few scattered episodes of The Simpsons or King of the Hill.
I grew up in one of those families in which I watched one cartoon in the afternoon if it was a rainy day. We watched the news nearly every night, one TV program if homework permitted, and perhaps one or two sporting events/movies during a weekend. Never got into sitcoms and drama for very long...I get tired of the artifice very quickly.
For about six weeks in 2020, I think I watched more TV than I had in the previous 5-10 years. My extended family and co-workers mostly enjoy streaming stuff but I'd rather do most anything but watch TV, unless I'm sick, bored, or spending some time with the kids (like them, I'd rather watch cartoons).
-Living Single is underrated af. and it's much better than Friends.
-RHOP is the best housewives franchise now, although RHOA has always been the best but it's been in decline since season 10.
-Idc.. I will never get tired of watching Law & Order: SVU. I've had trouble trying to grasp what's happening in Chris Meloni's spin off though..
-Dylan Dreyer>>>
-Cbs is a little gross.
-I loveeee watching TVONE. I'm upset they air the C*sby Show in the morning now and pushed Living Single back even though I love both.
-I forgot that Megyn Kelly existed and I'm glad.
-I still prefer Cable :meh:.
-NFL is grossly overrated.
Quote from: Henry on August 09, 2022, 01:00:41 PM
-Wheel of Fortune > Jeopardy!
Woah, shots fired! :-D
Disney should have never been allowed to absorb Fox. I can't stand that all these great animated shows I've loved for years are now attached to that behemoth of milquetoast and saccharine.
Cable news is unwatchable, regardless of its ideological bent.
Everyone who actually enjoys shit like The Masked Singer should be sterilized. (Or if they're too old, euthanized.)
There is no need for more than one hour of pregame show on an NFL Sunday. When did it become a thing to have a pregame show before the pregame show with a different cast of talking heads blabbing about whatever?
There should be a law against making "syndication cuts" from old TV shows. When they remove content so they can cram in more ads, they are defacing someone's art, and that's not cool. That's like chopping off the corner of a painting so you can stick the face of some ambulance-chasing lawyer there.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 01:27:57 PM
Cable news is unwatchable, regardless of its ideological bent.
Cable news is nice when there's actually breaking news, as in something just happened and you can get live reporting. Of course that's not anywhere near 24 hours of the day, so they have to fill other time and ideological hot takes are what get ratings during those other times.
Sports talk radio/TV is essentially the same. Great if there's breaking news but if not then you get ridiculous takes because that's what generates buzz.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 01:27:57 PM
Everyone who actually enjoys shit like The Masked Singer should be sterilized. (Or if they're too old, euthanized.)
There is no need for more than one hour of pregame show on an NFL Sunday. When did it become a thing to have a pregame show before the pregame show with a different cast of talking heads blabbing about whatever?
If you don't like it, want it or need it, then don't watch. Why do you care what other people watch and enjoy? I think the Kardashians, Real Housewives, the Bachelor, are ridiculous shows that make people dumber for watching, but if other people enjoy it I don't really care.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 01:27:57 PM
There should be a law against making "syndication cuts" from old TV shows. When they remove content so they can cram in more ads, they are defacing someone's art, and that's not cool. That's like chopping off the corner of a painting so you can stick the face of some ambulance-chasing lawyer there.
Cable has more minutes per hour of commercials than broadcast. It's either cut content or have weird start times. This is becoming less relevant anyway as most stuff is available on streaming services.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 10, 2022, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 01:27:57 PM
Everyone who actually enjoys shit like The Masked Singer should be sterilized. (Or if they're too old, euthanized.)
There is no need for more than one hour of pregame show on an NFL Sunday. When did it become a thing to have a pregame show before the pregame show with a different cast of talking heads blabbing about whatever?
If you don't like it, want it or need it, then don't watch. Why do you care what other people watch and enjoy? I think the Kardashians, Real Housewives, the Bachelor, are ridiculous shows that make people dumber for watching, but if other people enjoy it I don't really care.
I mean, there's an argument to be made that things that make society dumber are worthy of being shamed. It's not like we need the help.
There was even a study alleging that watching things like SpongeBob made kids dumber and gave them impulse control issues. (https://theworldlink.com/news/local/does-spongebob-make-kids-dumber/article_ffcaa7cc-341b-5291-88e6-993c330060df.html#:~:text=They%20were%20given%20common%20mental,whose%20scores%20were%20nearly%20identical.)
Quote from: Henry on August 09, 2022, 01:00:41 PM
-MTV is a joke now! They don't show music videos like they used to
That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
As for opinions I do have myself:
- I also think the Simpsons should've ended, though my cutoff point is a bit later, when the movie released in 2007.
- There's so many streaming services being offered that piracy is a better option most of the time.
- Big Mouth... where do I begin?
- 99.847% of the value in ESPN and its imitators in in live sports. No one really cares what the hot take of the day is, regardless of his or her politics.
- Fox and NBC advertise NASCAR using highlights that cannot happen under today's idiot rules. Which shows what idiots both those running NASCAR and those paying them for the TV rights are.
- The NBA really isn't that popular. If they put it behind a paywall on streaming, at a buck/game, it would get 300K views.
- Anyone who believes that reality shows are not 100% fake has never been camping.
- I wish I had known that watching other people play poker was interesting.
- I wish I had known that watching other people do blue collar work was interesting.
- Sunday Night football should start 15 minutes after the last 4:00 game is over, every week.
- If Carson was a 100, then Letterman, before he got bitter and political, was a solid 75. Nobody currently in those jobs is a 5.
- People that say streaming will replace regular linear TV are dopes.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2022, 03:26:19 PM
- People that say streaming will replace regular linear TV are dopes.
It already has for a good segment of the population. Maybe not your demographic.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 10, 2022, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2022, 03:26:19 PM
- People that say streaming will replace regular linear TV are dopes.
It already has for a good segment of the population. Maybe not your demographic.
Streaming will never 100% replace traditional television because the broadcast networks will never go away. Relying solely on an internet connection to provide information without the ability to broadcast over the air is not something that we'll likely ever see.
Streaming is already replacing cable channels though. NBC discontinued NBCSN so they could put more content on Peacock and USA. You'll likely see other cable channels start to disappear. There are many that I'm surprised still exist.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 10, 2022, 04:29:47 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 10, 2022, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2022, 03:26:19 PM
- People that say streaming will replace regular linear TV are dopes.
It already has for a good segment of the population. Maybe not your demographic.
Streaming will never 100% replace traditional television because the broadcast networks will never go away. Relying solely on an internet connection to provide information without the ability to broadcast over the air is not something that we'll likely ever see.
Streaming is already replacing cable channels though. NBC discontinued NBCSN so they could put more content on Peacock and USA. You'll likely see other cable channels start to disappear. There are many that I'm surprised still exist.
Sure, but let me give you an analogy. Cell phones have "replaced" landlines. Sure, landlines still exist, but basically they have been made largely obsolete. The same will happen with over the air TV programming. I see radio exists in its current form much more than I can see TV.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 10, 2022, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 01:27:57 PM
Everyone who actually enjoys shit like The Masked Singer should be sterilized. (Or if they're too old, euthanized.)
There is no need for more than one hour of pregame show on an NFL Sunday. When did it become a thing to have a pregame show before the pregame show with a different cast of talking heads blabbing about whatever?
If you don't like it, want it or need it, then don't watch. Why do you care what other people watch and enjoy? I think the Kardashians, Real Housewives, the Bachelor, are ridiculous shows that make people dumber for watching, but if other people enjoy it I don't really care.
Because the networks constantly plug their shitty reality game shows during football games and it drives me up the wall.
I might participate in this as I think of Unpopular Opinions that should be Popular.
Here Is One:
King Of The Hill Must Return, Some How. Ideally, with out Disney A.B.C. Involved. Disney A.B.C. occasionally sells things that they acquire such as The Incredible World Of DiC. It existed independently for a few years, even expanding to include Second Run Syndication of The Berenstain Bears Show ... of which the edits that they made was adding "DiC" style Plugs and Bumpers. The Incredible World Of DiC was acquired by several Canadian Companies, which were also acquired by several Canadian Companies.
As for Second Run Syndication Cuts and other laws to keep things from Dumbing Down Societies And Contributing To Civilian Delinquencies:
It has been happening recently. King Of The Hill is example. Just watch how wrong of directions they took in the newer episodes. Things that Hank ought to say "BWAH!!" about he no longer is in the new episodes. If they brought back King Of The Hill, it must not be Disney A.B.C., and it must not be passive.
Another example is Concentration. Discarded be cause of the reputation of Lost Game Shows, they have only recently reran Concentration. BUZZR (with no E) is editing out the Promotional Considerations resulting in less Johnny Olson to remember. It is unlikely that the Master Copies are being digitized in their entirety. Perhaps Wink Martindale can acquire Master Copies of Concentration and other game shows they do not want peoples to watch be cause they are Too Cerebral.
When they revived Concentration in the 1980s, as with all the other Game Shows, they were Dumbed Down. The Original (not "Original Gangster") Solenoid Operated Game Board and Casual Yet Intellectual Atmosphere that Concentration has results in a game show that is advanced. Classic Concentration has a Computerized Game Board, which is going to look bad. And the game board was Dumbed Down from 30 to 25.
That was in the 1980s. However, it was no where near as bad as News Feed & Weed.
As for "Wheel Versus J!" I agree that Wheel Of Fortune is best. However, if we debate it, Chuck Woolery, Susan Strafford, and Art Fleming are best. I am disgusted that Pat Sajak called Law Enforcement on that winning contestant as he hates hugs. Even Bill Cullen did not turn away excited contestants. In fact, Bill Cullen knew how to handle any situation. Pat does not. About the annoyance of the Game Boards: Concentration used Solenoids. However, why did Wheel, the same age as Jack Narz's Concentration, take nearly 25 years to update their paralyzed game board ?! And Jeopardy! is even worse embarrassment: The Art Fleming Jeopardy! ended up with back lit pull cards behind glass. Gold With Blue Text, not Blue With Gold Text ... in other words The Blue Screen Of Death. And other parts of Jeopardy! are dumbed down such as the requirement to finish the Clue. Those people at Jeopardy! think they are so smart. If any body has episodes of Chuck, Susan, and Art: guard them with your lives. Califon Enterprises and Sony do not want you to watch them. Instead, they want you to watch Dumbed Down Game Shows With Antisocial Emcees.
Here Is Another One:
Those Song & Dance Contests Must Be Expanded. Every body thinks they know how to compose music, sing, and dance. They All Suck. The last time I actively watched any Cable Channels was 2007, possibly 2008. Every time I see it, I might throw up. Seriously if they could include every person auditioning and have The Judges chide them about how terrible they are I would probably try to watch them be humiliated. Perhaps I ought to be a Judge to tell them how much they suck. And then perhaps there would be more Susan Boyles and less Drug Addicts.
Another?:
Maury Also Sucks. He thinks he is helping people ?? Maury has plenty of new Clients every day. He has so many clients, not even Connie would be able to help him handle the case load. Strike It Rich was bad. Maury is not unlike Strike It Rich. It Is Disturbing To Watch Maury.
Okay One More:
Bring Back One Ho Productions. We need to have The Hollywood Squares, and produced by Whoopi.
NASCAR on Fox > NASCAR on NBC
Quote from: epzik8 on August 10, 2022, 06:04:38 PM
NASCAR on Fox > NASCAR on NBC
NASCAR on ESPN, before 2001 > the rest
I'll start with the big one: I actually enjoyed the last season of Game of Thrones even though it was the most poorly written (Especially that last episode. I mean, the best stories. Really?). I usually spend my evenings watching documentaries, most often on Curiosity Stream or Nebula. I'd rather slit my wrists than watch "reality television." The only major network show I watch is Colbert which I DVR and watch the monologue the next morning; I haven't watched prime time since BBT went off the air. Otherwise, I only watch the major networks for news and sports. I do like several ESPN shows, especially Around the Horn and PTI, but don't lose sleep if I miss them. The only ESPN personalities I find truly grating are Stephen A Smith and especially "Mad Dog" Russo.
Don’t watch TV period. That’s unpopular as many do, and depending on who you side with in politics, watch the different news anchors or programs, watch television. I have found that I have no interest in TV even for other entertainment as vids on the internet or Pluto TV is my place. Heck I haven’t even watched Pluto in a while. I guess TV lost my old age interests.
Quote from: In_Correct on August 10, 2022, 06:00:40 PMIt has been happening recently. King Of The Hill is example. Just watch how wrong of directions they took in the newer episodes. Things that Hank ought to say "BWAH!!" about he no longer is in the new episodes. If they brought back King Of The Hill, it must not be Disney A.B.C., and it must not be passive.
I just finished watching the entire series for the first time a few months ago, and the last season or two was dire. And oh, the jingoism between 2004 and 2006 (probably enforced by Mike Judge's bosses).
Some takes:
* Network TV has steadily gone downhill since 2000 and hasn't really recovered.
* Cable is better, if you're willing to pay.
* Most TV shows should be limited to 8 years. By that point, they start running out of ideas and end up recycling old ideas and become little more than a paycheck for the cast and crew.
* Between the internet (esp. YouTube) and streaming services, there is little reason to watch most TV shows live, unless you're a dedicated fan.
* It will be a sad day, and a major hit to sports TV, when Charles Barkley retires from the NBA on TNT, which is indeed the best studio show in sports.
* Most cable tv/talk shows are utterly useless. Repetitive at best, mendacious at worst.
* TV, like movies, will be reshaped by streaming. In what way, who knows.
* Lots of great TV is out there, but it's harder to get noticed.
* Remakes of older shows aren't necessarily bad, but it's not exactly a sign of health.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 10, 2022, 06:34:45 PM
And oh, the jingoism between 2004 and 2006 (probably enforced by Mike Judge's bosses).
I don't have a clear enough memory of
King of the Hill to know the specific examples of which you speak, but widespread jingoism would be accurate to the setting of 2000s Texas (we certainly had it in Oklahoma, and I can't imagine it stopped at the Red, given that George W. Bush was a Texan).
Quote from: formulanone on August 10, 2022, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on August 10, 2022, 06:04:38 PM
NASCAR on Fox > NASCAR on NBC
NASCAR on ESPN, before 2001 > the rest
CBS in the early to mid 90s for me. Ken, Ned, Neil. Neil Bonnett was the best NASCAR color commentator of all time. Ned Jarrett is 2nd. Dale Jarrett is my favorite of the modern group even though he's a studio guy mow
Some more potentially unpopular sports announcer opinions...
I don't understand why Dale Jr is so beloved in the booth aside from name recognition. I think he's much better as a host (like on his podcast or his TV show Lost Speedways). In the booth I think he's so over the top he makes Darrell Waltrip look like Wally Dallenbach.
Kurt Busch should go into the booth when he retires from driving (which sounds like it'll be soon).
Sky should replace David Croft as its F1 play-by-play commentator with Alex Jacques (https://youtu.be/ekOcy1OCJOo), who calls F1 for Channel 4 in the UK. I enjoy Alex's style better.
Gary Thorne is underrated.
Quote from: Takumi on August 10, 2022, 07:44:01 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 10, 2022, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on August 10, 2022, 06:04:38 PM
NASCAR on Fox > NASCAR on NBC
NASCAR on ESPN, before 2001 > the rest
CBS in the early to mid 90s for me. Ken, Ned, Neil. Neil Bonnett was the best NASCAR color commentator of all time. Ned Jarrett is 2nd. Dale Jarrett is my favorite of the modern group even though he's a studio guy mow
Some more potentially unpopular sports announcer opinions...
I don't understand why Dale Jr is so beloved in the booth aside from name recognition. I think he's much better as a host (like on his podcast or his TV show Lost Speedways). In the booth I think he's so over the top he makes Darrell Waltrip look like Wally Dallenbach.
Kurt Busch should go into the booth when he retires from driving (which sounds like it'll be soon).
Sky should replace David Croft as its F1 play-by-play commentator with Alex Jacques (https://youtu.be/ekOcy1OCJOo), who calls F1 for Channel 4 in the UK. I enjoy Alex's style better.
Gary Thorne is underrated.
I agree with you about Dale Jr. He needs to hang out with Rutledge Wood more and be in the booth less.
Here is perhaps the most unpopular King Of The Hill opinion ever:
Do Not Kill Off Lucky & Luanne.
It is very simple to recast them, even if it was live action. It has been done before even if an actor and actress died. And even if they killed them off, they would still need to hire a new actor and a new actress any ways for flashback scenes.
Sponge Bob Square Pants:
It went from being in the same league as King Of The Hill to the exact opposite in less than 100 episodes. Seasons 1 & Season 2 are mostly perfect. Season 3 & Season 4 are Hit And Miss. After that, the rest of it should be considered NON Canon.
The Most Unpopular Opinion Ever?:
Family Guy is a rip off of Wait Till Your Father Gets Home, and I do not want to watch Family Guy.
Also:
Sesame Sidewalk was never that good and should have ended after 15 years. The absolute longest would be after they decided to replace "Around The Corner" with "Elmo's World".
Expanding On That Last One:
Chuck Jones is better than Jim Henson, and should have more opportunities that Jim Henson had. This is yet another reason why I do not like Disney A.B.C. who ripped off Chuck Jones and ironically owns most of The Muppets. ... And Marvel, the Animation Studio that Jim Henson utilized.
Quote from: In_Correct on August 10, 2022, 08:38:49 PM
Chuck Jones is better than Jim Henson, and should have more opportunities that Jim Henson had. This is yet another reason why I do not like Disney A.B.C. who ripped off Chuck Jones and ironically owns most of The Muppets. ... And Marvel, the Animation Studio that Jim Henson utilized.
This is the first time I've ever seen someone try to pick a fight with bandit957 on this forum.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 10, 2022, 06:52:21 PM
Some takes:
* Network TV has steadily gone downhill since 2000 and hasn't really recovered.
* Cable is better, if you're willing to pay.
* Most TV shows should be limited to 8 years. By that point, they start running out of ideas and end up recycling old ideas and become little more than a paycheck for the cast and crew.
* Between the internet (esp. YouTube) and streaming services, there is little reason to watch most TV shows live, unless you're a dedicated fan.
* It will be a sad day, and a major hit to sports TV, when Charles Barkley retires from the NBA on TNT, which is indeed the best studio show in sports.
* Most cable tv/talk shows are utterly useless. Repetitive at best, mendacious at worst.
* TV, like movies, will be reshaped by streaming. In what way, who knows.
* Lots of great TV is out there, but it's harder to get noticed.
* Remakes of older shows aren't necessarily bad, but it's not exactly a sign of health.
You hit the nail right on the head.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2022, 07:33:00 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 10, 2022, 06:34:45 PM
And oh, the jingoism between 2004 and 2006 (probably enforced by Mike Judge's bosses).
I don't have a clear enough memory of King of the Hill to know the specific examples of which you speak, but widespread jingoism would be accurate to the setting of 2000s Texas (we certainly had it in Oklahoma, and I can't imagine it stopped at the Red, given that George W. Bush was a Texan).
It wasn't the storylines (yes, those were historically accurate) so much as the high number of episodes that concluded with a billowing American flag and some inspirational trumpet music.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 10, 2022, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2022, 03:26:19 PM
- People that say streaming will replace regular linear TV are dopes.
It already has for a good segment of the population. Maybe not your demographic.
Yeah, I've been finding that my linear TV watching has been going down over the years. These days it's mainly the local/national news on my local ABC station, Young Sheldon, Ghosts, and Holey Moley. As shows eventually end I expect that to decline further. I actually have streaming options for most of this at this point; my local news station streams its broadcast, and Paramount+/Hulu can cover most of the rest with a bit of a wait (I now even use Hulu to catch ABC's This Week on Sundays when I'm traveling and can't watch live since I got it for The Orville). Even this is a lot by the standards of my generation.
Quote from: vdeane on August 11, 2022, 12:52:33 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 10, 2022, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2022, 03:26:19 PM
- People that say streaming will replace regular linear TV are dopes.
It already has for a good segment of the population. Maybe not your demographic.
Yeah, I've been finding that my linear TV watching has been going down over the years. These days it's mainly the local/national news on my local ABC station, Young Sheldon, Ghosts, and Holey Moley. As shows eventually end I expect that to decline further. I actually have streaming options for most of this at this point; my local news station streams its broadcast, and Paramount+/Hulu can cover most of the rest with a bit of a wait (I now even use Hulu to catch ABC's This Week on Sundays when I'm traveling and can't watch live since I got it for The Orville). Even this is a lot by the standards of my generation.
Nothing is replacing OTA/cable TV until a much bigger percentage of the country has access to high-speed Internet access, but it will eventually, because...why would I tune in to watch my favorite TV show on Thursday at 7 Central when I can stream it whenever I want?
Quote from: In_Correct on August 10, 2022, 08:38:49 PM
Here is perhaps the most unpopular King Of The Hill opinion ever:
Do Not Kill Off Lucky & Luanne.
It is very simple to recast them, even if it was live action. It has been done before even if an actor and actress died. And even if they killed them off, they would still need to hire a new actor and a new actress any ways for flashback scenes.
Don't have to kill 'em off or recast them. Just one throw away line about how they moved to wherevers-burg and that's why they're not around Arlen any more.
I dislike voice re-casts. My ears are highly tuned to certain voices and if the wrong noise comes out of a familiar character's face, it's jarring and off-putting.
The Simpsons did it for some of their "non-yellow" characters and it's bad. It's like that character is being dubbed in a foreign language or something; I don't like it. I'd rather lose those characters than hear a different voice come out of their faces, if I'm honest.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 15, 2022, 08:51:21 AM
- GM, Ford, and Mopar are incapable of making a quality product. They just don't care.
- Car dealers are not your friend.
In the same vein, ABC, CBS and NBC are incapable of making good shows; they just don't care.
TV stations are not "on your side"; that is quite possibly the most overused and overrated slogan in the news industry.
All TV is educational, especially when children are watching. But the lessons it usually teaches are bad.
TV news has negative informational value. They just want to ramp up an emotion (usually outrage) enough to keep you watching through the next set of ads.
Reality TV killed network TV. Streaming picked up the baton with some high-quality shows; but now reality TV is infesting Netflix, Hulu, etc.
Having said that, I've changed my mind about Hulu.
What I thought: a bunch of Frasier and Friends reruns, and even if you pay, there are still ads? Frack that.
What I've experienced (piggybacking on a friend's account): hey, this is not bad. Brooklyn 99, Archer, Solar Opposites, the Prey movie, Futurama... and no ads yet (knock on wood). I'm happy to be wrong here.
Another TV pet peeve of mine, relating to news...
Interviews (no matter what kind) are absolutely garbage. They don't really convey any new information, they are all pretty much the same across all news story types, they exist only to stir up emotions in people, and they are simultaneously boring and cringeworthy to watch. It especially irks me when interviews are used way too liberally in documentaries, especially weather documentaries.
They're so predictable that I know how people are going to answer the reporter's questions every time, and the answers never change (unless you're interviewing someone on drugs or something, then it becomes mildly funny).
Quote from: kurumi on August 16, 2022, 12:53:52 PM
All TV is educational, especially when children are watching. But the lessons it usually teaches are bad.
When my kids were little, they were used to TV being either PBS or on DVD. They'd never watched a commercial, except for in a game on a tablet. And they knew how to fix that problem.
One day, we watched some live sporting event, and it broke for a commercial. My 4-year-old daughter told us to
"please put the TV on Airplane Mode" so we wouldn't have to watch the advertisements.
I still wish that was a real feature.
Quote from: CoreySamson on August 16, 2022, 01:23:33 PM
Another TV pet peeve of mine, relating to news...
Interviews (no matter what kind) are absolutely garbage. They don't really convey any new information, they are all pretty much the same across all news story types, they exist only to stir up emotions in people, and they are simultaneously boring and cringeworthy to watch. It especially irks me when interviews are used way too liberally in documentaries, especially weather documentaries.
They're so predictable that I know how people are going to answer the reporter's questions every time, and the answers never change (unless you're interviewing someone on drugs or something, then it becomes mildly funny).
Interviews actually used to mean something. If you look at older interviews from the 60s and 70s there were a lot of hard-hitting interviews that actually exposed truths that were uncomfortable to the subject of interviews. There were basically three TV networks at the time, so if you wanted any chance at all of getting your side of the story out there, you basically had no choice but to go on NBC/ABC/CBS and answer their questions, whether you liked them or not.
What ended up happening was later on, when cable happened, and especially the Internet, is that interviewees just stopped agreeing to interviews with organizations having a reputation for difficult interviews. So all of the news outfits stopped giving difficult interviews because they wanted to still have access to interviewees. It was better for the bottom line to have an interview with someone that said nothing new or interesting than it was to not have an interview at all. Unfortunately, it also means that news networks do not hold their interviewees accountable in the way that they claim to, and in the way that needs to be done for the press to serve the function of informing the populace so that bad actors can be held accountable through the democratic process.
This has also led to siloing as the cable news networks have gotten partisan reputations. You hardly ever see a Democrat interviewed on Fox News, and hardly ever see a Republican interviewed on MSNBC. I can't imagine this is the choice of the editors; more likely, the politicians are worried they'll get a more difficult interview if they go on the "wrong" outlet and so won't sit for one with them. This is eminently rational from the politician's point of view, but it does mean that if someone gets in the habit of watching these networks they will never see the opposing point of view from the source.
The 90s sitcom NewsRadio is underrated. This could also go in the "Things that are underrated" thread.
The Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, USA, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc. are NOT TV stations but rather cable\satellite channels. ONLY channels that can be picked up over the air with a TV antenna (Those carrying ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox, The CW, My Network TV & diginets like MeTV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, etc.) ARE TV stations. I've seen people, on social media, erroneously refering to cable & satellite channels as TV stations. I also remember talking to somebody, years ago, about local TV stations & they thought that Nickelodeon was a local Kansas City area "TV station". Part of that could be that they, and others who think that all channels on cable\satellite TV are TV stations, probably grew up with only cable\satellite TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IY0sxSbh4Y
Why go there to only feel like Sheriff Buford T. Justice and keep having this rhetorical question pop in my mind. Don't watch TV and you focus on your life as personal experience I have found no noticeable difference between the sides of hype that is now ever so popular in pop culture.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 10, 2022, 06:52:21 PM
Some takes:
* Network TV has steadily gone downhill since 2000 and hasn't really recovered.
* Cable is better, if you're willing to pay.
* Most TV shows should be limited to 8 years. By that point, they start running out of ideas and end up recycling old ideas and become little more than a paycheck for the cast and crew.
* Between the internet (esp. YouTube) and streaming services, there is little reason to watch most TV shows live, unless you're a dedicated fan.
* It will be a sad day, and a major hit to sports TV, when Charles Barkley retires from the NBA on TNT, which is indeed the best studio show in sports.
* Most cable tv/talk shows are utterly useless. Repetitive at best, mendacious at worst.
* TV, like movies, will be reshaped by streaming. In what way, who knows.
* Lots of great TV is out there, but it's harder to get noticed.
* Remakes of older shows aren't necessarily bad, but it's not exactly a sign of health.
Then, there's this:
https://www.axios.com/2022/08/18/streaming-surpasses-cable-tv-market-share
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 09, 2022, 01:02:45 PMI haven't watched a live TV program that wasn't sports in over 5 years, and I'm better off for it. That's probably an unpopular opinion here.
Quote from: CoreySamson on August 09, 2022, 03:36:00 PMTV and movies in general are overrated. Outside of occasionally watching stuff on Disney+, I haven't really watched anything of note since February 2020. My life has probably been better because of it.
Quote from: formulanone on August 09, 2022, 07:52:09 PMI'm close to that, Game of Thrones was probably the last TV series I watched live (or a few days later), and the only one in the last 10 years (that I can think of) that wasn't solely on a dedicated steaming platform. I honestly can't recall the last network TV series that I watched with any regularity, save maybe few scattered episodes of The Simpsons or King of the Hill.
I get some passive exposure to TV, mainly by walking past the flat-screen TV in the living room while the news is on, but other than that, I watch very little. The last premium scripted dramas I viewed on a season-to-season basis were
Game of Thrones and
Outlander, and the last over-the-air broadcast drama was
Supernatural. I've since sat down for just a few scattered episodes of
Poldark (2015 adaptation). In the past I've alternated from binging on scripted series to watching virtually nothing over a 10- to 15-year cycle.
I am not even set up to watch anything in comfort. If I want to see a film--I typically view a few recent blockbusters and classic movies a year--I usually get the DVD from the library and sit in my computer chair to watch it on my laptop. I do have a TV in front of my reading chair, but it is 14" analog and has not been turned on in years. I have watched one-hour episodes of various series on my tablet (weighs down my lap since I have to put it on a pillow to secure a suitable viewing angle) or my phone (hard on my elbow since I have to hold it right in front of my face). If I were to return to binging, I'd probably need to spend several hundred dollars on a medium-sized flat-screen (maybe 30") and a DVD player. At this stage I just don't have the interest in doing so. It's not because I don't think TV isn't a cultural touchstone (it is), or because there aren't shows I'm interested in (
Ozark and
The Americans have caught my eye). It's more to do with reading being the more consistently tempting leisure activity at this stage.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on August 10, 2022, 02:15:13 PMThere's so many streaming services being offered that piracy is a better option most of the time.
Matt Yglesias (an economics commentator who used to write
Slate's MoneyBox column) once observed that the economically optimal level of copyright infringement was nonzero. Part of what you buy with a subscription is the peace of mind of not having to deal with copyright enforcement, which in the US attracts bottom-feeder lawyers.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 21, 2022, 02:03:32 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on August 10, 2022, 02:15:13 PMThere's so many streaming services being offered that piracy is a better option most of the time.
Matt Yglesias (an economics commentator who used to write Slate's MoneyBox column) once observed that the economically optimal level of copyright infringement was nonzero. Part of what you buy with a subscription is the peace of mind of not having to deal with copyright enforcement, which in the US attracts bottom-feeder lawyers.
Streaming also presents the problem of some works getting memory-holed as contracts giving rights to a streaming service expire, or whenever corporate strategy somehow incentivizes doing so. There are posts circulating on Tumblr at the moment lamenting that HBO Max has deleted a large chunk of their library, including entire unaired seasons of animated shows and the only streaming access to
Sesame Street, all for what appears to simply be a tax writeoff. This has negatively impacted some of the creative staff behind those shows, who have suddenly seen a large portion of their portfolio vanish overnight.
Piracy guarantees that someone will have access to the pirated work so long as the storage media remains viable. I don't pirate media myself because my interest level in mass media is low enough that I don't find it worth the trouble. However, my thoughts on intellectual property are radical enough that I question the need for copyright to exist in the first place, so if there were something I wanted bad enough to pirate, I would have no hesitancy to do so, purely out of an archivist desire if nothing else.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 21, 2022, 04:10:48 PMStreaming also presents the problem of some works getting memory-holed as contracts giving rights to a streaming service expire, or whenever corporate strategy somehow incentivizes doing so. There are posts circulating on Tumblr at the moment lamenting that HBO Max has deleted a large chunk of their library, including entire unaired seasons of animated shows and the only streaming access to Sesame Street, all for what appears to simply be a tax writeoff. This has negatively impacted some of the creative staff behind those shows, who have suddenly seen a large portion of their portfolio vanish overnight.
Piracy guarantees that someone will have access to the pirated work so long as the storage media remains viable. I don't pirate media myself because my interest level in mass media is low enough that I don't find it worth the trouble. However, my thoughts on intellectual property are radical enough that I question the need for copyright to exist in the first place, so if there were something I wanted bad enough to pirate, I would have no hesitancy to do so, purely out of an archivist desire if nothing else.
Yes--I really disagree with rotating content availability and believe it incentivizes piracy. And while I support copyright in principle as a way of ensuring creators get paid for their efforts, it is broken now (especially in the US) because media conglomerates (acting more as passive rights holders) constitute an overly powerful lobby. It is really another symptom of extreme income inequality.
Quote from: kurumi on August 16, 2022, 12:53:52 PM
All TV is educational, especially when children are watching. But the lessons it usually teaches are bad.
And on some shows today, it seems they show kids acting like they are 18-19 instead of being kids. Back in the 1970s, kid shows often had kids being kids. Being a kid in the 1970s, there was some things i saw kids my age do on tv that i wanted to do (or happen to me). After all, what kid wanted to be the kid who blow bubble gum out of the ears, or get pulled by his bowling ball when he get to throw the ball for example?
Quote from: Route66Fan on August 21, 2022, 10:33:05 AM
The Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, USA, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc. are NOT TV stations but rather cable\satellite channels. ONLY channels that can be picked up over the air with a TV antenna (Those carrying ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox, The CW, My Network TV & diginets like MeTV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, etc.) ARE TV stations. I've seen people, on social media, erroneously refering to cable & satellite channels as TV stations. I also remember talking to somebody, years ago, about local TV stations & they thought that Nickelodeon was a local Kansas City area "TV station". Part of that could be that they, and others who think that all channels on cable\satellite TV are TV stations, probably grew up with only cable\satellite TV.
Yes, I don't think I've seen a TV antenna in real life, so cable/satellite
are TV to me. I mean, how would I know which ones are "TV" vs cable when they look the same on my cable guide? I even have no problem with someone referring to streaming as TV. I think of a TV show as a format (generally 0.5-1 hour long, multiple episodes).
Quote from: 7/8 on August 22, 2022, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: Route66Fan on August 21, 2022, 10:33:05 AM
The Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, USA, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc. are NOT TV stations but rather cable\satellite channels. ONLY channels that can be picked up over the air with a TV antenna (Those carrying ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox, The CW, My Network TV & diginets like MeTV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, etc.) ARE TV stations. I've seen people, on social media, erroneously refering to cable & satellite channels as TV stations. I also remember talking to somebody, years ago, about local TV stations & they thought that Nickelodeon was a local Kansas City area "TV station". Part of that could be that they, and others who think that all channels on cable\satellite TV are TV stations, probably grew up with only cable\satellite TV.
Yes, I don't think I've seen a TV antenna in real life, so cable/satellite are TV to me. I mean, how would I know which ones are "TV" vs cable when they look the same on my cable guide? I even have no problem with someone referring to streaming as TV. I think of a TV show as a format (generally 0.5-1 hour long, multiple episodes).
If we're going to be 100% precise, channels that can be picked up with an antenna are 'Broadcast television channels' and channels that require cable/satellite/streaming to watch are 'Cable television channels' but both are subcategories of the larger category of 'Television channels'.
Services only available via streaming and not available via cable/satellite would not qualify as television channels.
Also, copyright protection terms are sooooo absurdly long that it is easy to 'memory hole' various works because they have become 'unPC' (ie, Disney's Song of the South' or numerous GREAT Warner Brothers Buggs Bunny, et al, cartoon shorts) or, IMHO, an even greater threat - that a great and popular work that at one time was a part of very essence of the popular culture simply be forgotten by the public before it lapses into pubic domain.
Thank God that the studio that made 'It's A Wonderful Life' made the clerical booboo of forgetting to renew its copyright (under the old law) when it was approaching copyright expiration and it thus passed into the public domain.
IMHO, if there is a work that nobody who was alive and aware when it was first published is reasonably still alive and aware today, it should not be under copyright protection.
Mike
I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2022, 08:47:47 PM
I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.
So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?
Back to the thread topic...
The original Star Trek was the best. All the other iterations (TNG, DS9, etc.) pale in comparison in all ways.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2022, 09:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2022, 08:47:47 PM
I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.
So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?
Or they can get their own jobs?
Or create their own things?
Using the carefully-bequeathed fortunes for the massive headstart they'll have on everyone else, instead of stopping others from creating the most minor of derivative works?
Just a few crazy ideas.
I'm not a big fan of charging for copyright renewal, though. Pretty much puts things out of the reach of anyone but the wealthy, and I suppose it would create a side industry of bidders for many expiring works (like patent trolls).
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2022, 09:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2022, 08:47:47 PM
I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.
So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?
Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.
Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 23, 2022, 04:50:49 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2022, 09:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2022, 08:47:47 PM
I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.
So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?
Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.
Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.
But why should anyone else be entitled to it? Shouldn't the owner/creator be entitled to designate who gets control of it after he or she dies? Just like any other property, like a house or a car?
What's the point in doing something/working for something/building something if you don't have control of it?
If I will my house to my brother, should he only get it for 25 years? Or should he have use and control of it until such time that he decides to part with it?
Photoshop is well over 25 years old. Why isn't it in the public domain and freely available to everyone?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2022, 11:21:44 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 23, 2022, 04:50:49 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2022, 09:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2022, 08:47:47 PM
I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.
So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?
Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.
Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.
But why should anyone else be entitled to it? Shouldn't the owner/creator be entitled to designate who gets control of it after he or she dies? Just like any other property, like a house or a car?
What's the point in doing something/working for something/building something if you don't have control of it?
If I will my house to my brother, should he only get it for 25 years? Or should he have use and control of it until such time that he decides to part with it?
Photoshop is well over 25 years old. Why isn't it in the public domain and freely available to everyone?
The patents on its algorithms expired long ago are in the public domain. However, trademarks last for as long as they are maintained.
I also vary much like the idea of a 'use it or lose it' provision being added to copyright law to prevent such things as 'memory holing' currently 'unPC' works or to declare that 'abandoned' works are pubic domain after a certain short amount of time (like when a local photo studio goes out of business and is not taken over or a work is no longer conveniently available in 'first release').
Yes, I am aware of the 'abandonware' thing with computer software - it a software package is no longer sold or supported by its manufacturer, you can hack it in any way needed to get it to run.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 22, 2022, 07:31:04 PMit is easy to 'memory hole' various works because they have become 'unPC' (ie, Disney's Song of the South' or numerous GREAT Warner Brothers Buggs Bunny, et al, cartoon shorts)
Song of the South isn't merely "un-PC," it's entirely predicated on the notion that black people loved nothing more than being slaves and serving white children.
I don't know of any GREAT Warner Brothers cartoons that have been "memory-holed" other than the jaw-droppingly racist ones.
And yes, I think it's important for people to learn that these things exist, but I also think it's important to present them in the context of "this was acceptable then and it's not now."
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2022, 09:03:50 PM
The original Star Trek was the best. All the other iterations (TNG, DS9, etc.) pale in comparison in all ways.
I think TNG seasons 3-6 were peak Star Trek. The "human redemption tour" angle stopped and they started telling good stories. Gene Roddenberry died partway through season 5 of TNG and people trying to put their own stamp on the franchise didn't always do it so well.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2022, 11:21:44 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 23, 2022, 04:50:49 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2022, 09:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2022, 08:47:47 PM
I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.
So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?
Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.
Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.
But why should anyone else be entitled to it? Shouldn't the owner/creator be entitled to designate who gets control of it after he or she dies? Just like any other property, like a house or a car?
Nobody is entitled to anything. After you die, you're dead. What you want ceases to matter anymore.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2022, 11:21:44 AM
What's the point in doing something/working for something/building something if you don't have control of it?
You would. For 25 years.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2022, 11:21:44 AM
If I will my house to my brother, should he only get it for 25 years? Or should he have use and control of it until such time that he decides to part with it?
He should work hard and get a job and stop asking for a handout.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2022, 11:21:44 AM
Photoshop is well over 25 years old. Why isn't it in the public domain and freely available to everyone?
Corporate greed. Is there any reason Adobe should be allowed to say nobody can have Photoshop 4.0, which was released in 1996, without going through them? Do they really lack such confidence in the current version of Photoshop that they think it isn't good enough to get people to choose it over a version that was designed for Windows 95?
In regard to copyright, I favor it persisting for some time after the creator's death, because the desire to leave a legacy is one motivation for the act of creation itself. The legacy isn't necessarily solely unearned income for the heirs--it can also be an endowment for a charitable purpose. However, I think the key is that copyright must not persist indefinitely, either through the original term or chaining of renewals. I think it is unconscionable that Disney has been able to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright for 93 years and counting (he is supposed to enter the public domain in 2024, but I can easily see that deadline being extended).
See, I feel like the desire to leave a legacy is more easily fulfilled without copyright being attached. A dead author's work is more likely to circulate and stay well-known if there is no restriction on doing so. If copyright is in place, circulation of the work is only possible so long as there's still a profit motive on the part of whoever owns the rights; if a work is judged to be past its ability to produce a positive return on investment, it's in the copyright holder's financial interests to quietly bury the work and stop producing copies of it. That remains true even if it maintains a niche following, albeit one small enough that it couldn't justify the up-front cost of cranking out another print run (or DVD pressing, or the cost of server load, or whatever).
The Great Gatsby going public domain did little to diminish F. Scott Fitzgerald's legacy. In fact, I think it was bolstered by it; I heard more people talking about the book when it just went PD than I ever had while it was copyrighted. There were a lot of people taking advantage of the lack of copyright to make silly derivative works for fun, which drew even more attention to the source material.
It's important to remember that the point of intellectual property protections was to foster innovation, by incentivizing people to create works that could then be used by society. The long length of modern copyright actively hinders that purpose by locking the work in whatever estate or corporation holds the rights, and consequently, we now live in an era in which corporate rights holders are milking their existing properties rather than create something new.
Part of the reason for working hard is not only to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts, but to provide for your descendants or other heirs. When the alternative is to let the government have the revenues from something over letting someone designated by the person who developed the revenue-producing thing (be it a physical product or an intellectual creation), you know I'm not going to be for it.
It's one reason why I'm opposed to inheritance and estate taxes. Why should the government be entitled to a chunk of your property or savings just because you have the misfortune of dying?
I've told this story often. I was the executor of the estate of my mother's first cousin when he died 22 years ago. He never married, had no children, was an only child, and had no heirs that Kentucky classifies as Class A (no tax) or Class B (some tax). All of his heirs were considered Class C. He lived modestly, saved well, and had a decent bank account when he died. He named four heirs in his will, three distant cousins and one person who was not a blood relative (my dad) who got only some physical possessions of his such as a power lift chair. Before I could distribute one cent of the inheritance to the heirs, I had to write a check to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for around $45,000. That sticks in my craw to this day. The state did absolutely nothing to deserve to get that money and had no moral right to claim it over the individuals my cousin wanted to have his estate.
The pre-2002 Columbia/Tri-Star TV closing theme was the best. I hate how Sony plasters all the old logos with its own logo and that godawful theme.
The 2003 Warner Bros. TV closing theme (AKA As Time Goes By) is the best one ever from that company, and it's a hell of a lot better than the 2021 remake.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2022, 09:14:01 PM
Part of the reason for working hard is not only to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts, but to provide for your descendants or other heirs. When the alternative is to let the government have the revenues from something over letting someone designated by the person who developed the revenue-producing thing (be it a physical product or an intellectual creation), you know I'm not going to be for it.
It's one reason why I'm opposed to inheritance and estate taxes. Why should the government be entitled to a chunk of your property or savings just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Our federal government spends substantially less per person than nearly every other highly developed country, so substantially lowering the overall tax burden isn't really an option if you want to continue to have the services that highly developed countries provide.
So what it boils down to is what kind of taxes do we want to pay. Because income taxes get deducted from your paycheck every week/2 weeks/month, that particular type of tax gets most of the complaints from voters, and as a result that particular type of tax is the first one that politicians want to cut. The net result is that inheritance taxes and consumption taxes, which are much more regressive (disproportionately affect lower income people) get raised to compensate. Another factor is that wealthy people donate the most to political campaigns and other types of more progressive taxes like capital gains and corporate taxes are kept low at the expense of more regressive taxes.
If the lowest 80% of income earners would educate themselves on everything about taxes and vote in their own best interests, we would have much, much higher income taxes and much lower taxes of other kinds.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 23, 2022, 12:11:15 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 22, 2022, 07:31:04 PMit is easy to 'memory hole' various works because they have become 'unPC' (ie, Disney's Song of the South' or numerous GREAT Warner Brothers Buggs Bunny, et al, cartoon shorts)
Song of the South isn't merely "un-PC," it's entirely predicated on the notion that black people loved nothing more than being slaves and serving white children.
I don't know of any GREAT Warner Brothers cartoons that have been "memory-holed" other than the jaw-droppingly racist ones.
And yes, I think it's important for people to learn that these things exist, but I also think it's important to present them in the context of "this was acceptable then and it's not now."
Have you recently seen or heard anything from Foghorn Leghorn? The hens in his barnyard? Speedy Gonzalez (a modern-day national folk hero among Mexicans, BTW)? Granny using that big revolver to protect Tweety from Sylvester? Yosemite Sam (ooooh was he VIOLENT when he got mad!)? Even the original Buggs Bunny short of Buggs v. the freeway contractor's construction worker? Also 'Hillbilly Hare' (a riotously funny look into the southern Appalachian lifestyle)? Etc?
It you don't like something, there is a switch or icon on your own system that you can change to turn it off. You don't have to use the power of the copyright 'memory hole' to suppress it for the rest of us.
Mike
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 24, 2022, 02:31:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2022, 09:14:01 PM
Part of the reason for working hard is not only to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts, but to provide for your descendants or other heirs. When the alternative is to let the government have the revenues from something over letting someone designated by the person who developed the revenue-producing thing (be it a physical product or an intellectual creation), you know I'm not going to be for it.
It's one reason why I'm opposed to inheritance and estate taxes. Why should the government be entitled to a chunk of your property or savings just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Our federal government spends substantially less per person than nearly every other highly developed country, so substantially lowering the overall tax burden isn't really an option if you want to continue to have the services that highly developed countries provide.
So what it boils down to is what kind of taxes do we want to pay. Because income taxes get deducted from your paycheck every week/2 weeks/moth, that particular type of tax gets most of the complaints from voters, and as a result that particular type of tax is the first one that politicians want to cut. The net result is that inheritance taxes and consumption taxes, which are much more regressive (disproportionately affect lower income people) get raised to compensate. Another factor is that wealthy people donate the most to political campaigns and other types of more progressive taxes like capital gains and corporate taxes are kept low at the expense of more regressive taxes.
If the lowest 80% of income earners would educate themselves on everything about taxes and vote in their own best interests, we would have much, much higher income taxes and much lower taxes of other kinds.
My sense is that the long term trend is in the direction of repealing the 16th Amendment. Recently one state (Mississippi) repealed theirs and there has been chatter from a couple of high-ranking Wisconsin legislators of doing the same here. IMHO, it is just too complex to even be enforced (I'm waiting for a federal judge to rule that) and there is waay too much impulsiveness and incentive to commit political hanky panky with it.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 24, 2022, 02:32:15 PMHave you recently seen or heard anything from Foghorn Leghorn? The hens in his barnyard? Speedy Gonzalez (a modern-day national folk hero among Mexicans, BTW)? Granny using that big revolver to protect Tweety from Sylvester? Yosemite Sam (ooooh was he VIOLENT when he got mad!)? Even the original Buggs Bunny short of Buggs v. the freeway contractor's construction worker? Also 'Hillbilly Hare' (a riotously funny look into the southern Appalachian lifestyle)? Etc?
I don't watch OTA/cable/satellite TV, so I have no idea which of the WB cartoons are being shown regularly. 15 seconds of Googling led me to this, which I'm told is the most complete collection of WB cartoons. Feel free to look through there and tell me which cartoons are missing, though.
https://play.hbomax.com/page/urn:hbo:page:GXozhGwOz77DCYwEAABBA:type:series
Quote from: mgk920 on August 24, 2022, 02:32:15 PMIt you don't like something, there is a switch or icon on your own system that you can change to turn it off.
Correct, and if enough people opt to turn it off, then they're not going to continue broadcasting it/hosting it. The honest-to-God truth about the entertainment many of us grew up with is this: Kids aren't really into it. The list of movies and TV shows I liked as a kid that I've tried to get my kid into, and he doesn't like, is long, and he has exponentially more entertainment options than I did at his age (the three major TV networks, PBS, and a handful of independent VHF/UHF stations.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 24, 2022, 02:32:15 PMYou don't have to use the power of the copyright 'memory hole' to suppress it for the rest of us
So companies should be forced to offer every single movie and TV show they own, even if they're going to lose money doing so bc there's no demand for it? Why do you hate capitalism?
At the rate he's going, Keith Richards may not have to worry about any revenues from his song catalog being diverted from him, his heirs or assigns, for many more years.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 24, 2022, 02:46:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 24, 2022, 02:32:15 PMYou don't have to use the power of the copyright 'memory hole' to suppress it for the rest of us
So companies should be forced to offer every single movie and TV show they own, even if they're going to lose money doing so bc there's no demand for it? Why do you hate capitalism?
It's called 'copyright term expiration' and 'lapsing into public domain' (if the protection terms were of reasonable length). (Belatedly), A bunch of those reaaaalllly racy black and white Betty Boop cartoons from the early 20th century are already in the public domain.
Mike