Entertainment desk | ||
---|---|---|
< May 16 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 18 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Not too long ago, but long enough ago that I can't really remember it, I saw a movie that ended, I think, in some sort of metal institution, where the therapy was extreme water therapy, and it turns out the bad guy was in charge of the institution or something like that? Ring any bells? It's on the tip of my tongue but I can't remember anything else about it, some sort of action film. -- 98.217.14.211 ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of timeshift channels like the ones in the UK where they play the same programs one hour later? F ( talk) 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see the intended use (to record programmes missed earlier due to other programmes or forgetfulness), but not the point, myself. It seems to be a tremendous waste of money and energy for a lot of pretty poor cable/digital TV shows, what has civilisation come to?! </rant> :-) ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I rather fear that the real reason is the TV company thinking "We don't have anything to put in this channel, but if we don't put something in it they'll take away our slot on the DVB multiplex". ITV's recent dismal financial results show that not nearly enough people are watching ITV1; it's pretty hard to believe that the viewership for ITV3+1 amounts to very much - but (in a future post-recession advertising market) that channel on the multiplex might be quite valuable, so they hang onto it with grim determination. 87.115.168.96 ( talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the cost of running an additional channel if everything that is broadcast is already broadcast on a real-time channel? I doubt it is much in comparison to another channel. Clearly the 'point' is to allow people to watch something an hour later than scheduled - maybe they get home later, maybe they're watching something else. Not everybody has a VCR or a hard-drive-recorder, and not everybody 'plans' their viewing. If you switch on and realise (like I often do) that show X started at 8pm but it's not 8.45 it's really really handy to have a channel on hand that allows you to watch the show from 9pm.
I am always frustrated by why the BBC don't offer some +1 channels - I know they have iPlayer but it's not great if you don't have a decent broadband speed (like myself). ny156uk ( talk) 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Entertainment desk | ||
---|---|---|
< May 16 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 18 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Not too long ago, but long enough ago that I can't really remember it, I saw a movie that ended, I think, in some sort of metal institution, where the therapy was extreme water therapy, and it turns out the bad guy was in charge of the institution or something like that? Ring any bells? It's on the tip of my tongue but I can't remember anything else about it, some sort of action film. -- 98.217.14.211 ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of timeshift channels like the ones in the UK where they play the same programs one hour later? F ( talk) 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see the intended use (to record programmes missed earlier due to other programmes or forgetfulness), but not the point, myself. It seems to be a tremendous waste of money and energy for a lot of pretty poor cable/digital TV shows, what has civilisation come to?! </rant> :-) ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I rather fear that the real reason is the TV company thinking "We don't have anything to put in this channel, but if we don't put something in it they'll take away our slot on the DVB multiplex". ITV's recent dismal financial results show that not nearly enough people are watching ITV1; it's pretty hard to believe that the viewership for ITV3+1 amounts to very much - but (in a future post-recession advertising market) that channel on the multiplex might be quite valuable, so they hang onto it with grim determination. 87.115.168.96 ( talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the cost of running an additional channel if everything that is broadcast is already broadcast on a real-time channel? I doubt it is much in comparison to another channel. Clearly the 'point' is to allow people to watch something an hour later than scheduled - maybe they get home later, maybe they're watching something else. Not everybody has a VCR or a hard-drive-recorder, and not everybody 'plans' their viewing. If you switch on and realise (like I often do) that show X started at 8pm but it's not 8.45 it's really really handy to have a channel on hand that allows you to watch the show from 9pm.
I am always frustrated by why the BBC don't offer some +1 channels - I know they have iPlayer but it's not great if you don't have a decent broadband speed (like myself). ny156uk ( talk) 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)