3/23 - PRE-EMPTED for the movie "True Lies"...which, in turn, has been pre-empted for the movie "The Lost World: Jurassic Park"
3/30 - Fox CLAIMS that they're going to show Teenage Mutant Leela's
Hurdles...but that's what they said about 3/12 and 3/19; I'll
believe it when I see it
4/6 - Teenage Mutant Lee-ER, UH, The Why of Fry (4ACV10)
Leela starts going out with a political aide, causing Fry to get
depressed...until he discovers he plays an important part in
saving the universe
Of course Futurama will get bumped on the 23rd, and I don't blame Fox at all in this case. The Oscars are on that night, and *every* network throws on repeats or an old movie because they know anything new will go mostly unseen opposite the Oscars--even in wartime. I can wait a week to see a new Futurama...but these past three weeknights I was forced to miss Entertainment Tonight because of an expanded NBC Nightly Newscast were unbearable. I'm sure ET aired on the UPN station in Kansas City at least.
But there's a fatal flaw in your thoughts :) This would mean, Futurama meant at least SOMETHING to Fox which would make them preempting it to save it from not being seen. Sounds not like Fox to me ;)
Yes! "The Why of Fry" is one I (and probably others) have been looking forward to for a while. Of course given the nature of Fox it probably won't *actually* air until 4/27.
Wanna know what will pre-empt every single remaining episode of Futurama? How's about Iraq War news coverage 24-7? It's already killed the prime-time line-up for most of the major networks and Fox will be doing the same as they have already this week. The war's the best thing that could've happened to FOX. Now, they have a valid reason to kill off the remaining episodes. (Though they'll air Simpsons and Malcom somehow.)
I'm baffled by this. I understand people want to keep up with the news, but you'd figure that at least one major network would stick to regular programming during this for a few reasons. First of all, not everyone wants to watch war coverage 24/7. I know I don't, I assume there are others similar to me. Second, and more important to major networks, they don't air commercials during war coverage. Therefore, they don't generate income off those ratings. So why bother? Perhaps I'm over-simplifying here, as I am no expert on these things...
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 12:34 PM:
But most people do, and those that don't probably aren't even turning on the TV or radio to avoid all coverage.
Ah, here's the crux of the issue. They do generate income on those ratings. When they sell ad time, they do it based on ratings from previous periods, not upcoming ones as those would be near impossible to predict.
Right, but how can factor ratings from time periods during which they air no commercials into the cost per ad? Or perhaps my question should instead be "Are ad agencies that dumb?"...
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 1:35 PM:
They don't! Funny huh?
Well, they used to be. With tivo and others scanning right past commercials, soon they will cease to exist in the form we now see. All ads will be not so "gently inserted" into your favorite shows, as I'm sure you've already noticed.
How long until we see Peter Jennings sipping a coke in the middle of a broadcast?
I'm still surprised that Tivo doesn't just give us the ability to record shows without recording commercials. They know how to do it. It's one of the well known "tivo hacks" which is used by many, and yet, Tivo, who doesn't really advertise commercially (at least not very frequently on TV so far as I have seen) refuses to add that capability to their systems...
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 5:16 PM:
They will, once they finally put all "ad time" inside the shows. I give it another few years to make the transition. Tivo does advertise a bunch in LA.
Right, that's a feature on the remote that you can use. I'm talking about the ability to choose not to record commercials at all. It's actually rather easy, all things considered, but Tivo just won't add the function right now.
As I mentioned before, there's a well-known hack that enables this, but it doesn't allow for active "on/off" features (say if you were recording the SuperBowl and wanted to actually keep commercials)...
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:20:57 -0500, Jason Saslow wrote:
Probably not, owing to the trouble Replay got over their commercial skip feature.
I'm not sure that it's *easy*, though. There are some signs that a commercial is on, but as Replay's commercial skip feature shows, it's hard to be 100% accurate. And some analysis may only show a commercial after the fact. For that reason, and to give a fail-safe in case the machine does misidentify program content as a commercial, it's better to record everything and edit on playback.
If there's a simple, well-known, and reliable hack to prevent a DVR from recording commercials then I just plum missed it. (I have a TiVo myself.) Got links to any sites that discuss it?
Actually, I do not have links to the HowTo's, but the concept has been explained to me before...
Everything aired on tv has a frame count (except for live broadcasts, I have no idea how it works for them). When your program begins, it starts at 0 and counts up. When a commercial starts, that commercial starts at 0 until it's finished. After the commercials end, the frame count of your program picks up where it left off. For example:
So once you begin recording, it's just a matter of halting the record when the count returns to 0 until it picks up again where it left off. Now, granted, there are open issuses as to how to begin and officially end the record, but again, I don't have the HowTo info so I don't have all the details.
Someone still has to explain to me how Reply was sued over having a commercial skip feature. I didn't know it was a Constitutional right of advertisers to have their commercials viewed...
commercial skip feature. I didn't know it was a Constitutional right of advertisers to have their commercials viewed...
I can't remember all the specifics, but what I remember that they (the studios suing replay) claimed that there was an implied social contract implying we (the public at large) were obligated to view commercials and the replay's commercial skip violated that "contract"
Personally I think that the studios are full of it and just got some lawyers to sue because they could... just my opinion though
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:23:01 -0500, Jason Saslow wrote:
Oh. That's why I hadn't heard of it -- there is no frame count in things aired on TV, live or not.
They were sued over sharing of programs over the internet. However, their commercial skipping feature was a turn-off to potential media partners. SonicBlue just sold off most of its assets, including ReplayTV.
shows without recording commercials. They know how to do it. It's one of the well known "tivo hacks" which is used by many, and yet, Tivo, who doesn't really advertise commercially (at least not very frequently on TV so far as I have seen) refuses to add that capability to their systems...
Because the major broadcasters invested in Tivo to hedge their bets against the lost advertising revenues. And the same companies sued RePlay (SonicBlue) into Chapter 11 over the commercial skipping and internet sharing features.
in article [email], Paul Hyett at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 11:51 PM:
Yes we do, the funny thing is many of our "regular" stations ( NBC, FOX, etc...) cut away to coverage from their "dedicated news" sister stations (MSNBC, Fox News, etc...) every chance they get. There was even a news break in the middle of the Oscar telecast.
But people do want to know the news and it's much better when it is harmlessly inserted in between shows instead of having to find time when you're willing to watch TV and there is nothing you want to see. Besides, most dedicated news stations are on cable. If you are lucky enough to have a dedicated news radio station in range then at least you can cope.
No need to pre-empt anything, though.
"petben" wrote in message news:BAA5E1ED.B923%[email]...