Cheeseburger Gothic

Ah, so Agent Coulson was on Level Seven

Posted May 15, 2013 into Telly by John Birmingham

That explains how he survived dying and everything.

*Slaps forehead*.

Can't believe I didn't see that one coming.

This new trailer will explain all. Or some. Or... well, it's pretty cool anyway, and the way they keep releasing a new one, slightly longer, every day, we should have the entire pilot up by the end of the week.

Props to the Beard for the new link.

You can read a painstaking overanalysis of the new trailer at Wired.

22 Responses to ‘Ah, so Agent Coulson was on Level Seven’

w from brisbane has opinions thus...

Posted May 15, 2013

Please Mr. Whedon
Can we have an episode where S.H.I.E.L.D. crosses paths professionally with Agents Mulder and Scully?
Of course, Agents Coulson and Mulder like to butt heads a little because of their somewhat fraught back story.

I know, it would be too awesome.......just a dream.

Respond to this comment

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan would have you know...

Posted May 15, 2013

Dear god, it has it all, doesn't it? This is the X-files with less darkness, more super heroes and better production values.

John Birmingham puts forth...

Posted May 15, 2013

And Joss. It has Joss.

Respond to this thread

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan is gonna tell you...

Posted May 15, 2013

Our thoughts crossed in cyberspace, W.

Respond to this comment

Barnesm ducks in to say...

Posted May 15, 2013

Anyone worried about how pissed the Avengers are going to be when they discover Fury lied about his death to manipulate them into becoming the Avengers. Guess they will need to be renamed 'The Suckers'.

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan puts forth...

Posted May 15, 2013

This was Loki's plan all along.

Respond to this thread

elizagvrevell ducks in to say...

Posted May 15, 2013

John - I love your work.

Particulary,'He Died With A Felafel in His Hand'.

I'm actually creating a story myself, about my own share house. It's a story for radio, actually. I've been trying to find a means of getting in contact with you so sorry if this seems like an odd way to do so.

I'd love to chat with you about your share house experiences, and of course, the book.

If it's easier, email me: elizarevell@live.com.au

I'd really enjoy it if we could have a chat :)

E.

Respond to this comment

Steve has opinions thus...

Posted May 15, 2013

Wonder how quickly it will air in Aust, and where? Odds of it being available to download on iTunes?

John Birmingham swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 15, 2013

Less than zero.

Respond to this thread

TheWah ducks in to say...

Posted May 15, 2013

Is this Torchwood but written by Joss Whedon?

I demand Capt Jack in SHIELD!

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan has opinions thus...

Posted May 16, 2013

Captain Jack could do SHIELD some good.

Respond to this thread

Blarkon is gonna tell you...

Posted May 15, 2013

NextWave was better than Shield: http://marvel.com/comics/issue/3395/nextwave_agents_of_hate_2006_1

Dilph ducks in to say...

Posted May 16, 2013

Amen to that.It's the absolute epiphany of 'splodey goodness. I'd love to see it as a movie... but it'll never happen.

Is Havock actually the Captain? They talk the same...

Respond to this thread

Sudragon is gonna tell you...

Posted May 16, 2013

If it lasts as long as Mr Whedons last 2 series, the Rage will burn down the internet.

Respond to this comment

xenodyssey would have you know...

Posted May 16, 2013

So Ming-Na even if she is just the pilot is the surrogate Black Widow? Could be worse, I enjoyed her work in Stargate Universe.

I wonder if we will see the Helicarrier in the series.

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan has opinions thus...

Posted May 16, 2013

"I wonder if we will see the Helicarrier in the series."

I sure hope not. I mean, come on, it can be taken down by an arrow.

Respond to this thread

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 16, 2013

I really loved in the trailer the quip about Shield standing for someone really wanted to use the name SHIELD.

Respond to this comment

ShaneAlpha would have you know...

Posted May 16, 2013

I keep hoping Marvel will eventually do some all out comedy. Like Damage Control.

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan asserts...

Posted May 16, 2013

OMG I can't believe someone remembers Damage Control. But if there was ever a time for it to work as televison or film, it is now.

Respond to this thread

ShaneAlpha asserts...

Posted May 17, 2013

Well, this is the company that brought you "Peter Porker: The Amazing Spider Ham"

And seriously with all the superhero stuff at the moment isn't now the time for an Australian network to sign Chaloner and Devries and we get "Southern Squadron"? Because it's way too much to hope for a Hairbutt the Hippo series.

Respond to this comment

mordwa mutters...

Posted June 10, 2013

'Damage Control' featuring the TV return of Ray Romano-

Okay, that started as a joke, "but"...

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'Ah, so Agent Coulson was on Level Seven'

Agents of Shield

Posted May 13, 2013 into Telly by John Birmingham

I don't know how they're bringing back Coulson and I don't know how they can do the Black Widow without Scarlett Johansson butIdontreallycarebecausethiswillbeFUCKINGawesome!

25 Responses to ‘Agents of Shield’

TheWah puts forth...

Posted May 13, 2013

Life Model Decoy oooooor Nick Fury tells big fat porkies to motivate, Gods, Engineering Savants,Super Soldiers, Gamma Irriadiated Experiments, Men with Bows and Women with Martial Arts.

I'm also rather pumped about this show

Respond to this comment

xenodyssey mumbles...

Posted May 13, 2013

Or it could be really, really lame...

I hope they have a big enough budget. I mean a cgi Iron Man guest appearing or even a digital double of Captain America would be nice.

DNABeast puts forth...

Posted May 15, 2013

But it's not so much about the Super heroics as it is about the background lohistics isn't it? It's not trying to emulate the films so much as complement them?

I hope so. That appeals to me.

John Birmingham puts forth...

Posted May 15, 2013

Yeah, for too long now television has ignored the excitement of logisitcs.

DNABeast has opinions thus...

Posted May 15, 2013

You're mocking me aren't you?

Look at shows like Frontline and Yes Minister. That was all about the background dealings. It's like the muscleheads and ninjas are all the public face and all the faceless guys in the background are where the clever things happen.

Respond to this thread

beeso asserts...

Posted May 13, 2013

Pumped. This is whedons strength.

Respond to this comment

Bunyip ducks in to say...

Posted May 13, 2013

Talking of Whedon, did anyone spot his cameo in Iron Man III?

Respond to this comment

Lobes mumbles...

Posted May 13, 2013

I would love to see agent Coulson come back as Vision. It would break a bit from canon as in the comics Vision had its AI programmed using the brain wave patterns from Wonderman but I dont think its that big of a stretch to change the origin story like this. Wonderman was always a bit of a problematic character anyway, I think they would struggle to do him justice on screen.

Respond to this comment

Blarkon would have you know...

Posted May 13, 2013

I don't think they are bringing in Black Widow. But if they did, there were multiple Black Widows anyway.

Natalia Romanova (who ScarJo played) and Yelena Belova http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(Yelena_Belova)

There is a series of comics where they do splodey against each other wearing the better parts of the Victoria Secret catalog.

And they say comics don't have cultural significance.

w from brisbane mutters...

Posted May 13, 2013

If it is Joss Whedon, there will be a martial arts chick.
That is a certainty.

Respond to this thread

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 13, 2013

Looks like Coulson from the trailer above. I want more Maria Hill action.

Respond to this comment

ShaneAlpha swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 13, 2013

"Don't touch Lola." - I am so sold!

Respond to this comment

Trashman has opinions thus...

Posted May 14, 2013

Don't care. It's Marvel, It's SHIELD, It's Joss.

I may be unhealthily excited about this...

Respond to this comment

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan ducks in to say...

Posted May 14, 2013

I don't know about you, but this is further proof that televsion, as a whole, just keeps getting better and better. Sure there are the usual disasters, but the Walking Dead, Hell on Wheels, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, The Borgias etc. etc. etc. were not possible 20 years ago. And I believe the same is true for Agents of Shield.

Respond to this comment

tqft ducks in to say...

Posted May 14, 2013

I may have watched this trailer 2 or 3 times.

Never was a big comic fan but this stuff is fun.

Respond to this comment

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 14, 2013

Can I repeat.

More Agent Maria Hill.

Respond to this comment

Chaz puts forth...

Posted May 14, 2013

No one sees Coulsons body in the movies so maybe Fury lies a bit...

Am very happy about this series being conifmed lets jst hope the curse of Whedon doesn't mean it being canned after series 2

Respond to this comment

tqft is gonna tell you...

Posted May 14, 2013

Also for those who care about all things Joss Whedon - twitter --> JossActual

Doesn't have the verified tick when I check this morning but all signs are there it will be soon given the references the account has.

John Birmingham asserts...

Posted May 14, 2013

Where's my blue tick eh? When's it gonna be my tuuuuuurn?

tqft reckons...

Posted May 14, 2013

ask Marina Sirtis how hard it is to get ticked

Respond to this thread

w from brisbane ducks in to say...

Posted May 14, 2013

For Firefly fans, Nathan Fillion seems a very charming, funny guy.
Basically, his first job was on a U.S. soap. He is a Canadian.
In this almost 2 hr interview (good stuff), there is a classic bit about the 'soap take', that long close-up which is a staple of the genre. Fillion tells how he got advice from from a fellow cast member about how to deal with the 'soap take'.

Slide to 46:40.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl6keMLaCR8

Respond to this comment

Steve is gonna tell you...

Posted May 14, 2013

Could be a prequel to Avengers . . . . remember, SHIELD was around before the first Iron Man film.

An Idle Dad reckons...

Posted May 15, 2013

No, Wikipedia has it set after Avengers, and the description of Coulson has it that he returns from his 'apparent' death.

Respond to this thread

Darth Greybeard mumbles...

Posted May 15, 2013

Longer version trailer. http://blog.worldswithoutend.com/2013/05/agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-full-trailer/ I wish to watch this very much indeed.

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'Agents of Shield'

How much would I pay for all-you-can-eat TV?

Posted May 5, 2013 into Telly by John Birmingham

Years ago, when I was living at the beach, I took a call from a Foxtel pimp, trying to get me to sign up to a pay-TV deal. Not even tempted. Cable was still pretty new in those days and I asked this unctious spiv whether I'd be able to get stuff on demand. He mocked me for my naïveté. He would still mock me, I'd wager, although nowadays he'd probably lie and try and sell me a line of shit about all the different ways Foxtel pretends it can deliver what you want to watch, when you want to see it.
It can't. It's still way behind my wishful thinking. Not that it matters much to me, because the number of shows I have queued up on my magic box is shameful. I only just finished watching season two of Falling Skies. (More of which in a separate blog.)
Dom Knight had a great essay over at Fairfax yesterday about his idea of a perfect TV service. It's not far from my own hopes and dreams all the way back at the beach.


What I want with TV and movies is what I have with music now – the capacity to watch whatever I want instantly, at high quality, on any device, with a well-designed, convenient interface. I want instant gratification at a lowish price – something like $10 or $20 a month instead of the more than $100 a month that Foxtel wants to charge. Let’s say that I’d gladly pay up to $50 a month for all the music, TV and movies I could stream via any device. Give me that, and I’ll gladly pay it forever.


I've never thought of an all-you-can-eat media buffet before. Something that delivers TV, movies, music, even magazine subscriptions to something like an iPad. As Dom points out in his story we're seeing the outlines of a system like that emerging in the US now, with millions of people cutting the cable to put together their own personalized TV schedule from a mix of Netflix, Hulu plus and/or iTunes. (I'm not sure, but it could be that in the US at least Hulu comes as an option on iTunes). And millions more, of course, doing the same through teh torrentz.
The streaming options closer to home, unsurprisingly, are abysmal, perhaps accounting for the unusually high incidence of piracy here.
His piece is worth reading because of its deft understanding of history, technology, and psychology. But the thing I took away from it was the idea of the all you can eat buffet. How much would I pay for something like that? If I had to cobble it together from bits and pieces, as I sort of do at the moment, I guess it would cost me about $200 a month. Way too much, even for my profligate ways. I suspect most people would top out at about fifty or sixty dollars a month. The entry level basic cable price. I'd probably be happy paying a hunnert or so. It's still a lot less than I'm paying now for my premium Foxtel subscription, which in some ways is getting worse as time goes by.
For all of their crowing about delivering first-run TV within a couple of hours of the show's airing in the US – and it is something to crow about – Foxtel have recently reorganized their premium movie channels in such a way as to offer less choice for the same price.
Somewhere in his essay, Dom speculates about how devastating it would be to the local TV ecology for an apex predator like Netflix to turn up here.

There are currently too many players and formats and none offers enough of everything at a sufficiently cheap price. In particular, Foxtel seems to be trying to offer lots of different ways to watch live TV, via iPad and X-Box 360 and TBox and several other devices, without embracing the need to build a system that does proper on-demand streaming of their shows. Personally, I don’t care about channels, I don’t want schedules, I don’t need hard disk recording. I just want a mass of content that has every good show from today or the past, streaming immediately, in high definition, on any device.

If this ever happened, I'd expect at least one of the free to air networks, either Ten or Nine, to be out of business within about eighteen months.

40 Responses to ‘How much would I pay for all-you-can-eat TV?’

Moko mutters...

Posted May 5, 2013

Yeah, I don't mind paying for Game of Thrones from itunes as it's about the only show I watch ... excuding the news. I get my doco fixes off of YouTube with channels like VICE, GangstersIncDK, and Gangland, History, yadda yadda.

It would need to be a really cheap subscription for me to get on board just because I don't watch 'TV'.

Respond to this comment

tqft reckons...

Posted May 5, 2013

We record almost everything we watch due to time constraints and the ads.

Foxtel no cable, no money and I dont like satellite, had it once, was kind of sucky.

I suspect the TV stations will probably be worth more for their spectrum and rights contracts in a few years.

Is a good piece - also has a classic line about JB.

Respond to this comment

Blarkon asserts...

Posted May 5, 2013

What happened to the musicians will happen to TV. Remember that graphic that showed what an artist got per album versus what they get on Spotify? Like that.

Ultimately people will get the TV that they are willing to pay for.

Anders is gonna tell you...

Posted May 5, 2013

But also, remember that Spotify actually sends SOME money to the artists, unlike other channels that people had previously chosen to use.

Lobes swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 5, 2013

It's not really the same because making good TV costs lots and lots of money and requires many people.

Great music can be, and still is, made for free by as few as one persons.

Blarkon ducks in to say...

Posted May 5, 2013

This should give you an accurate idea of how much money Spotify kicks back to a musician.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

alexmac has opinions thus...

Posted May 5, 2013

I wonder how much the all you can eat model would have to cost/how many people would have to subscribe before it offered fair compensation to the people actually making the TV.

The reason that HBO, Showtime and FX can afford to make such quality drama is that they work on a different subscription model in the States (on top of regular cable TV) which provides shitheaps of revenue and means they're not so beholden to ratings.

Blue Tyson mutters...

Posted May 5, 2013

TV, already free.

IInet fetchtv thingo for example says you STILL NEED AN AERIAL to get the current free to air channels via their service.

Like, wtf?

Would I pay for a service that gave me all the usual channels and digital over the internet, so no reception issues or satellite dishes (thanks to cabling the country fail). Sure.

Blarkon has opinions thus...

Posted May 5, 2013

TV's not free. You've been paying for it through attention to advertisements.

Except that was broken by the Internet.

Here's an example. An advertising slow during the top rated comedy in 2000 (Friends/NBC) cost you $550,000

An advertising slow during the top rated comedy in 2012 (Big Bang Theory/CBS) costs you $270,000)

Advertising against the 8th top rated show in 2000 still cost you more than advertising against the top rated show (Sunday Night Football) in 2013.

(and that's in raw rather than adjusted dollars)

So "Free" TV isn't free. That was an illusion. Advertisers paid a lot of money for eyeballs. Because of the rise of Internet advertising, they pay a hell of a lot less.

Back in the heydey of TV, each viewer of a show was worth a couple of bucks.

Today - the "stars of youtube" who get millions of hits a week are getting about a few cents per subscriber.

Respond to this thread

Anders swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 5, 2013

I'd pay a fairly decent rate for this - $60 or so.

If it's guaranteed to put Seven, Nine and Ten out of business in eighteen months? DOUBLE IT.

Respond to this comment

w from brisbane mumbles...

Posted May 5, 2013

I don't think many people are driven enough to be that interested. I think many people just want something watchable, and don't much care what it is.

That is why sports is such desirable content, a relatively huge segment of the population, 5-10%, really must watch. Particularly, if they have a bet on.

Respond to this comment

beeso swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 5, 2013

What I don't understand is that TV is so fucking stupid. Lots and lots and lots of people are telling the program makers how they would like to PAY for their content. But they are so tied into the network deals that torrenting might just kill them.

Foxtel can rave about getting content to the market quickly, but if the major sports in this country start offering live sport from the net for pay per view, then foxtel will die and pretty quickly.

Brother PorkChop ducks in to say...

Posted May 6, 2013

Good point. I would pay to stream Rugby but not hook up to Foxtel. Even though I live in Brisbekistan, I cannot get cable and would have to arrange satellite.

Respond to this thread

Blarkon ducks in to say...

Posted May 5, 2013

Most people aren't describing how they would really behave when they say they will pay for it if it is made available. GoT is made available in Oz on iTunes soon after it is shown in the US. Very few people are paying for it because a couple of bucks is "too much" for something they can torrent for free.

It's like with the old internet tip jars that were going to ensure that bloggers got paid. You know why they went away? Because even though people said they'd chuck some cash the blogger's way if they enjoyed the story - in reality they didn't. A couple of people got some coin right at the beginning - but given the option of paying for something and not paying for it when there are no consequences for not paying for it - the vast majority of people don't.

Darth Greybeard would have you know...

Posted May 5, 2013

Unless the situation has flipped again, GoT is not available on either iTunes or Quickflix in Australia. Fox apparently killed that very smartly. Not sure If I can still get it with a US iTunes account, still looking at setting that up. Rather irritating because I could have got each episode as it was released for a total cost about the same as I've paid for the previous seasons on Blu-ray.

beeso asserts...

Posted May 5, 2013

You can get GOT this season then Fox has clamped down. No wins out of that except maybe stupidity.

Steve would have you know...

Posted May 5, 2013

I've got a GoT3 season pass on iTunes. Does this mean I won't be able to do so for GoT4?

beeso has opinions thus...

Posted May 5, 2013

Not till after foxtel have shown it.

Steve reckons...

Posted May 6, 2013

Okay, so here I am, willing and able to pay for legal downloads but not able to watch them because Foxtel want to force me onto their movies package. F*** me!

Respond to this thread

Bangar mumbles...

Posted May 5, 2013

Blarkon, Devil's Advocate Position

If no one will pay why do RRR and Dan Carlin (I pay for both) still exist? Is it that only the best will get funding or is it how they do it makes a difference?

Respond to this comment

Samwise mutters...

Posted May 5, 2013

With my VPN service, I can access free Hulu, and love it. And I would pay for the fully featured version if I had an american credit card. But it doesnt cover all my wants, mainly my Mad Men and HBO fixes.

I would also want something that would as seamlessly integrate with my entertainment system, be it via Apple TV (like US Netflix and Hulu) or possibly PS3.

John Birmingham swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 7, 2013

Tried to VPN Hulu but fucked it up somehow. This is another reason I cannot pirate stuff. Ineptitude.

Respond to this thread

w from brisbane ducks in to say...

Posted May 5, 2013

The most irritating thing about the Foxtel model is that you have to buy channels you don't want to get the ones you do.

"I would like to buy this pot plant and this book on golf.'

"Certainly, you can have that as long as you buy these ceramic ducks, 2 books about penquins and and a replacement snowmobile clutch."

Foxtel CEO, Richard Freudenstein, said there was no way to monetise the idea of allowing customers to choose which channels they want.

(Sigh)

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 5, 2013

It may not surprise you to hear all I give a fuck about is being able to see all of the live sport. All of it. Which, in NZ as increasingly in AU, means pay TV. This simplifies the 'are they showing it soon enough to its premiere' deal vs drama series, because if it's not live, it's irrelevant. Even so, there's always room for fail with networks deciding not to pay up for certain series (eg Sky NZ this year with MotoGP, or ESPN with Italian or Spanish football). For the money I pay, I expect to see everything I want. And by and large, I do. But I'd love a truly on-demand (probably online) system where you could solely sign up for the sport and all the other faff (Living Channel?? MTV???) could be fucked off. I note the rise of sports selling direct online rights to everything in their sport (eg NBA with Gamepass), interested to see how this works within the ANZ sports market.

John Birmingham puts forth...

Posted May 5, 2013

Yeah, I thought that was strong point Dom made about the need to be able to access ALL THE SPORTZ ALL THE TIMEZ.

Respond to this thread

TeamAmerica is gonna tell you...

Posted May 5, 2013

Out of curiousity, is Amazon Prime available in Australia? I currently have Netflix and Amazon (as well as cable tv), but I will likely drop cable soon. Amazon seems the better deal to me as it has a pay-to view option for newer movies, which Netflix lacks.

John Birmingham mutters...

Posted May 5, 2013

Dont think so, TA. I'm conflicted about it. I'd dearly love the convenience and cheapness, yet fear the howling wasteland it would make of the local retail sector.

accidie has opinions thus...

Posted May 6, 2013

I think it might be. But DON'T click on the link to have a look unless you plan to buy it. They take that as signing up and bill your credit card immediately. I only found out when I saw my statement, and discovered I'd paid $79 for a service which is of NO BLOODY USE TO ME because of the slow download speeds here in Woop Woop.

To be fair, they'll give you a refund. But it still smacks of trickery and skates close to fraud.

Respond to this thread

Pax swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 5, 2013

I already pay for iTunes tv season passes (a mistake I know - especially the current disaster that is the "Once Upon a Time" second season [iTunes can not supply episodes until they have been shown on the purchasing station. Channel 7 stopped at episode 9 last December...])

So yes - an "on time, when I want it" service would be worth shiny gold coins to me

Respond to this comment

Barnesm mumbles...

Posted May 5, 2013

Much like you I am currently forking over the cash for Foxtel which means I end up with a truck load of series waiting to be watched. I'd be happy to pay what I am currently paying for Foxtel. Interestingly I recently gained in the movie shuffle, getting all the movie channels I hadn't subscribed to for an additional $3 a month. I agree the people that were already payign for them got shafted.

DrYobbo puts forth...

Posted May 7, 2013

This is actually a thing. I have more shit backed up than I can deal with. I also have a lot of unwatched shows on my MySky. See what I did there. It was quite clever. But my dietary health aside, even with my aversion to series television I still have more stuff to watch than I have hours to watch stuff in. Which I think is always going to be the flaw in an 'everything on demand' model. It may be a generational thing, but I'm nowhere near as militant as some against the idea of someone else (eg a network) scheduling television for me. Saves me fucking about through the listings finding stuff I want to watch.

Blake mutters...

Posted May 7, 2013

I'm in a similar boat but must be on the other side of the generational divide.

Foxtel scares me as a concept. It's all-you-can-eat in the other sense, like having the Sizzler salad bar in your house all the time.

Sure there's quality on it but there's also a lot of rubbish and if its in my house I don't have the disciple not to stop eating.

That probably says something about me, but its also something I don't want to subject my family to. They don't need six cooking shows about cakes, when they start to watch shows about pawn shops alarm bells should ring that its time to turn the TV off and do something productive.

For some reason unlimited access to whatever you want (but the ability to choose what you want, when you want it) lets me have enough control to limit any self destructive viewing.

I'm not sure pick and pay viewing is a local content killer. Iview means I watch more ABC (although not an advertising revenue service).

If I had to pay for the episodes of the stuff I like for a similar service on 9/10/7 I would.

The really disappointing thing is fox's throwing its weight around and killing the direct d/l services that do operate here.

Most of the time I don't neeeeeed to watch it within hours of the US. But things like game of thrones survive on the buzz and Tuesday morning recap. It's hard to do that if you're 2months behind.

But I guess that's just another gen-y first world problem

John Birmingham puts forth...

Posted May 7, 2013

No I get it. I really resent having the all you can eat buffet, or paying for it anyway, whena all I ever ever watch is a couple of shows. I have almost the opposite problem to you. I feel guilty about paying for the service and not using it enough!

Lulu mumbles...

Posted May 7, 2013

Yobbo: "It may be a generational thing, but I'm nowhere near as militant as some against the idea of someone else (eg a network) scheduling television for me."

I agree, with one proviso - the problem is that they schedule the good stuff at the same time. So I should probably get a digital recorder to cover those times when Elementary clashes with Downton Abbey (yes, I'm that uncool).

Respond to this thread

ShaneAlpha swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 5, 2013

I got rid of the Foxtel when I realised I was paying $90.00 per month for 2 channels. Now I'm down to two tv shows that I can be bothered watching. One I get from iTunes and one from the free-to-air web catchup stream. It would probably have been harder if I actually gave a shit about sport anymore.

The rest of the time it's MMO timesink all the way.

Respond to this comment

Spanner mumbles...

Posted May 6, 2013

I don't watch a lot of sport but when I do I want it live and in HD. Cricket on 9 I can turn the sound down to avoid the gormless commentary but its in fuzzy SD. I can't watch it in SD.

Free to Air is pretty much dead to me it's riddled with ads in SD and is mostly crap.

My Foxbox on the other hand is chock full of series to work through. All of which come off 2 channels, FX and Showtime. So yeah I'd pretty much pay what I pay now for Foxtel for an on demand service.

Respond to this comment

pi swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 6, 2013

Which TV channel would be on the way to the knackers? The one that doesn't have a sports offering. It's also touched on in the article, but sport is, was, and always be, the killer TV app. It's current, live, and for people that want it, they don't mind paying for it, with or without ads.

Respond to this comment

tqft has opinions thus...

Posted May 6, 2013

The future of tv advertising - this is US based but looks like the trend

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/20/content-economics-part-1-advertising/

"When people like Meeker look at ad spend, they’re looking mainly at brand advertising. Brands are valuable things, and billions of dollars are spent every year to keep them that way, mostly on TV and in print. And if you have a big national brand, there’s really only one way to reach a big national audience: you need to buy ads on TV. Doing so is expensive, but it’s necessary, and it works, which explains the huge sums of money which still flow into TV every year."

...

"This, then, is the biggest reason why TV ad dollars are not going to become online ad dollars: online ads simply don’t do what TV ads do. TV ads are large and beautifully produced and expensive, and they’re presented on a beautiful screen without distractions: they fill up the screen, and 30 seconds of time, and they appear often enough that they become part of the world of the people watching 145 hours of TV every month. "

Sony Game of Thrones here we come? You know with the right DRM they could block GoT from actually showing on anything but a Sony TV.

I actually think Ch10 had the right idea with all sport with a dash of explosions to be followed by some fishing with other sport for a side, perhaps ust too soon and it was killed. But the Star Trek mini-marathons are good to kill time with when beavering away on the laptop at night.

John Birmingham would have you know...

Posted May 6, 2013

There you go. I saw your comment.

Respond to this thread

TeamAmerica has opinions thus...

Posted May 6, 2013

About a year ago at the CES in Las Vegas, a media executive said roughly that the cable tv industry would not switch to the internet, as it would then drop from a $100 billion a year biz to only $40 billion. As I recall, someone responded that young people are not into cable, so a switch may be inevitable.

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'How much would I pay for all-you-can-eat TV?'

"Ooh yeah, I farted on you when you put banana peppers in the Weeties"

Posted May 4, 2013 into Telly by John Birmingham

I don't how I managed to miss the bad lip reading phenomenon. It's one of the more twisted but compelling things I've seen in a while. It's quite brilliant. Hard to believe at times you're not watching actual dialogue. Even harder at other times to convince yourself you haven't just taken a small dose of some powerful and tightly targeted hallucinogen.

7 Responses to ‘"Ooh yeah, I farted on you when you put banana peppers in the Weeties"’

Barnesm reckons...

Posted May 4, 2013

So are these all the posts you have put up recently are those you discovered but couldn't put up until after the judges had finished looking through the display house of cheeseburger afearing our collective nerdisms would startle them.

John Birmingham swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 4, 2013

I think I hear my mother calling.

Respond to this thread

DrYobbo has opinions thus...

Posted May 4, 2013

BLR are tops. Nothing beats their Mitt Romney ones though

Respond to this comment

Moko ducks in to say...

Posted May 4, 2013

This is why sign language was invented. Lip reading is WAY to hit and miss. Great channel. Youtube is not worthy of this.

Respond to this comment

JG would have you know...

Posted May 4, 2013
I haven't seen The Walking Dead (don't you judge me!) but this is funny and clever. Crazy sick humour. They can't be syncing to the original script on The Walking Dead. Impossible.

Respond to this comment

Mayhem's Mum ducks in to say...

Posted May 4, 2013

One would wash the dog AND the laundry if one could persuade that young gentleman to be one's Sexy Beef Friend.

Respond to this comment

Timmo has opinions thus...

Posted May 6, 2013

Love it - especially the random bits...

"He said 'Dreet' and I'm about to freak out"

Respond to this comment

Respond to '"Ooh yeah, I farted on you when you put banana peppers in the Weeties"'

Walking Dead, Season 3

Posted April 22, 2013 into Telly by John Birmingham

The one upside of today's migraine was being 'free' to catch up on the last eps in this season of TWD, which had been sitting on my iQ box, taunting me since February/March. I had a little mini-marathon until my head stopped pounding. Long enough to make it through to the finale.

A few spoilers below.

Can't emphasize enough how impressed I am with the story telling chops of this series. There were sections that were nigh on unwatchable because of the tension. I avoided spoilers as best I could, and went into the last installment not knowing who would live or die. Excrutiating stuff.

There were even a few larfs to be had. A dark comedy highlight? Rick explaining to the liberated cons how to carefully fight zombies, and their completely disregarding everything he said at the first sign of a shambler.

All the character work was brilliant, as always, and with some of the more annoying regulars gone the way of all flesh (ie, eaten) I'm looking forward to the return.

I enjoyed the overaching theme of whether there is a morality of survival in the most extreme of circumstances. And I especially enjoyed the way this question played itself out over hours, weeks and months, rather than in the seven minute segment before the next ad break. The nadir for the group, i think, wasn't the 'deal' struck with the governor, but an ep or two earlier, leaving that poor hitch hiker to his fate without a backward glance.

I really thought they'd move on from that prison in the end, but I guess it's about to become something of a castle of the deep south.

Anyway, that's as much 'puter screen as I can handle. Might add a few thoughts tomorrow.

22 Responses to ‘Walking Dead, Season 3’

Stevo 73 mutters...

Posted April 22, 2013

I really enjoyed season 3, more than season 2 even though there was a parallel between the safety of the farm and the safety of the prison.

The big difference for me was a character with no redeeming qualities, the Guv. He was a nutter, I loves me a nutter and the fact that **SPOILER** he walks away means next season he still needs to be dealt with.

I was also impressed african-american-radio-dude who made a comeback and is now a total crazy, with guns, lots of guns.

Oh and of course I appreciated the sudden violent deaths of characters mid sentence, reminds me a little of an author who hangs around here. It reinforced the whole "do not get attached to ANY character" rule.

John Birmingham mutters...

Posted April 22, 2013

I dunno. Even the guvnor loved his zombie daughter. He wasn't a bigot or anything.

Respond to this thread

Spanner would have you know...

Posted April 22, 2013

I liked crazy Rick. He was too nuts to even manage his own Ricktatorship.

I'm conflicted about Merle. Just when you think he can't be anymore of a douche he does just enough not to get fed to the next bunch of brain feeding skin munchers.

Respond to this comment

Murphy has opinions thus...

Posted April 23, 2013

I had to lecture on the breakdown of Roman civilization and the coming Feudalism more than once this semester. It is surprising how easy it is to use The Walking Dead as a touchstone for so many of those historical themes. Surprising in that my students "get it" when I explain it using TWD as the example. Otherwise they struggle with the concepts.

My hope for Season Four is that they'll have moved forward two or three years, which will make Daryl's rapid growth a bit more plausible. In that time I'd like to see the prison turn into a feudal/manorial style warrior commune.

The danger, I think, is the same one BSG RDM ran into, which is the urge to Empire Build. Once you've got some stability, the easy way to wreck it is to have another war. They've done that. I think a better tack would be to have the Prison attempt to expand outward to take territory back from the Walkers. As they do so, they find it is nearly impossible due to the overwhelming numbers.

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Barnesm reckons...

Posted April 23, 2013

You concerns are well founded.

One of the advantages is with the comic material to draw on some of the risk of empire building with the story is limited it they have to stick to the flow of Kirkman's story. I suspect the series will not advance to far in time whe they return next season as they will want to play through Carl's decent in to badassness parallelling his developmental growth as a teen. You can already see how much he has physically developed from the first season.

John Birmingham has opinions thus...

Posted April 23, 2013

Yeah, I think for once the usually inconvenient aging of a child actor really, really works for the benefit of the show in this case. Carl is turning into a true child of the post apocalyplse. It's getting easier to imagine him as a child soldier of the zombie wars simply because he's getting some real age on him.

John Birmingham mutters...

Posted April 23, 2013

Murph, the sub textual stuff about how primitive tribes organise themselves, as compared to have civilised socieities do the same thing, was one of the highlights of S3 for me. There was a whole undergraduate degree in political science to had in comparing Woodberry to the prison. It should be possible to advance the story arc along these lines next season without having to get caught in the tar pits of a civl war with the Guvnor, who'll be back.

Respond to this thread

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted April 23, 2013

One of the highlights for me as a long time reader of the comix series is where it diverges from the source text. In particular in the fan favourite Daryl. You know he is a fan favourite when you see a fourteen year old at the local archery club wearing a "If Daryl dies we riot".

John Birmingham swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted April 23, 2013

Yeah, I haven't read all the comics yet, but will probaby buy them - yes, buy them - in one big splurge for my birthday. I found myself wanting more of the world after hitting stop on the magic iTunes box yesterday. (I only had the first half of the series recorded on Foxtel. Missed the second half due to mid season hiatus breaking my series link. So I paid $3.49 an ep for the second half. And it felt good).

Anyways, I went to the wikipedia entries for a few characters after trying to find if there was any info out on Season 4 storylines. It was fascinating to see just how far, or not, the TV show has diverged from the comic books. And sometimes for the better. Even Kirkman prefers TV Shane to comic book Shane.

Barnesm reckons...

Posted April 23, 2013

Me too, thatsdown to how good the actor that played Shane.

Also Carol who I also mark as one of the stand out character developements in the TV series. In the comics I think Carol was an amalgum of a couple of characters none of which stood out enough in my memory.

Murphy mutters...

Posted April 23, 2013

I am told that if one wants to buy the comics, any comics for that matter, that perhaps those with iPads should get them in that medium.

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this thread

Barnesm reckons...

Posted April 23, 2013

One of the themes I enjoyed this series was Rick's mental state, where he has to,like Odessyussail between Scylla and Charybdus, or in this case the twin extremes of psychosis portrayed on the one hand by the Governor’s controlling madness.

“What would your daughter think of you now” – Milton

"She’d be afraid of me, but if I’d been like this from the start, she’d be alive”

He knows he is a monster at this point, but he thinks a monster is what’s needed.

and the utter hopeless madness of Morgan in 'Clear'’ where he is simply lost.

“I’m sorry I shot you.”

“don’t ever be sorry”

And the whole wearing a dead man's face stuff ‘Shudder

The choice that Rick must face in his madness is:

  1. Ruling his Ricktatorship and end up like the Governor,
  2. Keep talking to ghosts on the phone and end up like Morgan,

And it was the episode 'Clear' that had the scene you referenced above Birmo about the leaving the poor hitchhiker to his fate. 'Clear' was written by Scott Gimple who takes over as showrunner in season four.

Can't wait .

Respond to this comment

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted April 23, 2013

See wouldn't this make a fantastic book club discussion.

John Birmingham would have you know...

Posted April 23, 2013

It would, but it's filed under Telly.

Respond to this thread

Murphy asserts...

Posted April 23, 2013

No reason we can't have a season finale thread at the end of Season 4.

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Barnesm is gonna tell you...

Posted April 23, 2013

2nded, though that would mean Birmo would need to watch it in a timely fashion rather than wait until a migraine laid him out and forced him to watch.

Murphy swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted April 23, 2013

I'll bet if we sent him a bottle of something expensive for his pains and told him to drink it while watching we could probably get some discussion going sooner.

Maybe some drunk tweets to boot. :D

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this thread

Stevo 73 is gonna tell you...

Posted April 23, 2013

Ok I can see that the Guv in his screwed upness can kind of justify I am the kind of monster that is needed and I keep my zombie daughter in a cupboard because I love her, but then executing all the fighters from his township when they do not want to counter attack the prison, and riding off into the sunset that just screams total nutter.

Redeeming features zero - result perfect enemy for season 4

Respond to this comment

Barnesm ducks in to say...

Posted April 23, 2013

Warning Birmo, while the TV series had some brutal moments, Carl having to shoot his own mother after giving painful birth to his sister being the one that springs to mind, the comics have their own unique brutality different and in some cases worse than the TV series.

Interested to see your take on the comics reading them after seeing the TV series.

Respond to this comment

NBlob mutters...

Posted April 26, 2013

And where the hell was I when we had this conversation?

The phone conversations freaked the p!ss out of me, testament to AWSM + television. I didn't really get that the wheels were falling off until Hershell came down.

The Govenor, actually strikes me as one of the thinner characters, perhaps its the actor.

The hitch-hiker and the laino family - pure gold.

Merle, man he's got 12 kinds of crazy going on.

Good enough to pay for. Snerk.

Respond to this comment

TC is gonna tell you...

Posted April 29, 2013

I avoided this thread until I'd finished the season, which I finally did on Friday (surprisingly only had one ep to go when I thought I had more).

I like what everyone's said - most of which I was thinking, some of which I hadn't really considered (I have zero knowledge of the comic so some of those side discussions were interesting).

One of the lines that still haunts me was when Glenn to Rick said something along the lines of "I'd rather see 100 of them dead than 1 of us", referring to anyone else apart from the main group. This stood out for me because it's so different to the usual hero mantra and different to what I expected to Rick to say (who didn't answer... but at the time he seemed to agree). When Rick brought all the people back to the prison at the very end, I felt as though his actions made it very obvious as to what his thoughts on the subject were by that stage. I'll be interested to see what Glenn thinks of the changes as we move into a new season. It's about time he did something interesting...

Respond to this comment

John Birmingham is gonna tell you...

Posted April 29, 2013
I think he did agree with Glenn when they were talking. Witness his emotionally 'dead' reaction to the plight of the hitchhiker. That was the nadir for him, I think.

But he saw his own future in the Governor's madness, in decided to pull back.

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'Walking Dead, Season 3'

Zombieland trailer

Posted April 18, 2013 into Telly by John Birmingham

We discussed this hereabouts recently and I'm sorta surprised to see the project up and running so quickly. I'm just not sure this thing isn't going to suck arse through a tube. It looks like a very poor cousin to the movie. The producers have obviously gone for the larfs, and maybe that's a smart move rather than trying to compete with TWD.

But it just feels a bit amateurish and underdone.

Amazon Prime has a page up to stream the first ep, but it appears to be borked. All you get is 12 seconds of grainy 'coming soon' graphics. There are many, many unhappy punters in the comments and so far it's getting 1.5 stars in review.

I'll wait til they figure out their streaming problems before I go nuclear or anything. Until then I'm not even gonna bother with a link.

5 Responses to ‘Zombieland trailer’

DrJon puts forth...

Posted April 18, 2013

All i got was region-blocking this morning.

Respond to this comment

TC mutters...

Posted April 18, 2013

Nah, probably not.

Respond to this comment

Barnesm mutters...

Posted April 18, 2013

yeah, given how much fun Zombieland relied on the timing of the stars I fear this one is going to suck arse. Which is a pity becuase its an idea whose time has come given how may good web series are spring up on youtube.

I love Sarah Jane

Plague

the Claymation masterpiece Zombie Maid

and Kidz just to name four off the top of my head imagine if instead of trying to copy a movie they said to these producers here make us a zombie film.

Respond to this comment

Rob puts forth...

Posted April 19, 2013

OMG whos that fat guy? I don't want to see me on screen, I want to see a ripped woody harrelson or an awesome haircut wearing brad pit with maybe a cool looking punk rock chick. All I saw was a trailer that looked like a fun well made amateur youtube movie. Thats sad, it could have been really good, like a much slicker funnier Walking Dead. even the digital effects look like some thing knocked up on a laptop.

Respond to this comment

adrian j herman mumbles...

Posted April 20, 2013

It sure isn't "The Surprising Adventures Of Sir Digby Chicken Caesar".

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'Zombieland trailer'