The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: The Pyramids on August 12, 2010, 08:12:56 PM
-
Steve Beverly says on his blog that on August 25 he will be on Stu's show discussing among other things if Sony will take GSN down the same path as it has with SoapNet.
Anyone know what this would mean? I just scanned the networks schedule and its what I expected, a mix of reruns of daytime and nightime soaps throughout the day.
-
So GSN will be replaced with a channel aimed at preschoolers come 2012?
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' post=\'245827\' date=\'Aug 12 2010, 08:12 PM\']Steve Beverly says on his blog that on August 25 he will be on Stu's show discussing among other things if Sony will take GSN down the same path as it has with SoapNet.
Anyone know what this would mean? I just scanned the networks schedule and its what I expected, a mix of reruns of daytime and nightime soaps throughout the day.[/quote]
IIRC, SoapNet is owned by ABC, but I think I see where you're coming from. I think it would take a bit more for GSN to fold like SoapNet has, but I think one thing that hurts the latter is that the soap industry is in pretty bad shape, and I've seen rumors here and there about the future of daytime soaps (mainly "Days of Our Lives" and "One Life to Live"), but nothing to bite your nails over, all speculation.
Honestly, if I had to guess, I'd say that DVRs being a little more common (and cheaper) may have led to SN considering it redundant to have soaps on during the day and again that same night. Not to mention that each of the Big 3 networks offer their daytime shows online, compared to just a few years ago, when that sounded like a laughable premise.
Come to think of it, I don't see too many same-day cable reruns of anything as much as I used to (i.e. "The View" airing on A&E), and I'm wondering if it's due to the latter reason I stated.
-
Some people have said that YouTube was the main reason why ratings for the older shows on GSN started going down the toilet, because why pay to watch what you want on GSN, when you can just see your favorite shows from the past for free on YouTube. What are your thoughts on this?
-
[quote name=\'gameshowlover87\' post=\'245834\' date=\'Aug 12 2010, 05:54 PM\']Some people have said that YouTube was the main reason why ratings for the older shows on GSN started going down...What are your thoughts on this?[/quote]
My thought is: who are these "some people?"
-Jason
-
Why watch on Youtube when those clips are all full of extra junk? I can watch those same shows on GSN without watermarks that cover up some important gameplay or bumpers that block the credits.
/Wait, no I can't!
-
Off-topic, but if there's one thing that I'd say has improved about mitller2006 (at least I think so anyways), it would be his pre-exisitng game show episode output. His most recent upload, a 1985 episode of Press Your Luck, didn't have any of the following:
Start-of-video bumpers
Watermarks
In other words, they were both completely absent.
-
[quote name=\'gamed121683\' post=\'245829\' date=\'Aug 12 2010, 08:26 PM\']So GSN will be replaced with a channel aimed at preschoolers come 2012?[/quote]
This.
Kind of irrelevant to make a comparison to the way SoapNet programs their network seeing as it'll cease to exist in a couple of years
-
I recently read an interview with the EP of "Days of Our Lives" regarding the show's latest ratings plunge -- he said that NBC was not "hitting the panic button," because viewership was actually stable due to the show's online feed being "the fourth-most popular TV show on the Web." While the EP's claims about NBC not panicking may be dubious, I found the latter comment to be interesting.
The daytime drama genre seems to be gaining some presence online -- not only current network shows but Web-only dramas starring actors familiar to long-time fans.
Is there a site online that lists popular DVRed shows? Thought I read somewhere that a few daytime soaps were on top of the DVR list, but I'm drawing a blank as to where I found it.
As far as SoapNet goes, the channel pretty much waved the white flag some time ago. It went the GSN route and experimented with "reality"-style programming in prime time -- all of the shows bombed. Original, in-house programming centered around the daytime genre went away a few years back, and the commercial load on SoapNet seems to be the same 4-5 promos and ads running on a continuous loop.
At least GSN appears to be still trying, given their plans to produce several new shows in the coming months.
JD
-
Plus the fact that they're starting an HD feed on 9/15, per Buzzerblog...I think the channel plus the ancillary stuff is going to keep GSN around (their WorldWinner site is apparently really profitable apparently).
-
GSN starting an HD channel makes not one damned bit of sense to me. And you're talking to possibly the biggest proponent of starting-of-HD-channels on the planet.
-
The most upsetting possibility to come out of this is GSN cropping the shows that were originally in 4:3 to give them a "fake widescreen" look. I can't tell you how much I HATE (emphasis on "HATE") "fake widescreen"!
Any show that was shot in 4:3 should be in 4:3, and only in 4:3. Period.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowlover87\' post=\'245871\' date=\'Aug 13 2010, 03:46 PM\']Any show that was shot in 4:3 should be in 4:3, and only in 4:3. Period.[/quote]
Agreed, but the resolution would be so horrific on a show cropped in that way that they would be insane to do it.
That said, we've seen their compression work.
(The solution to that, by the way, is simply to continue watching the SD channel.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'245872\' date=\'Aug 13 2010, 07:06 PM\']Agreed, but the resolution would be so horrific on a show cropped in that way that they would be insane to do it.[/quote]
There is an even worse alternative: stretching. (cringes)
That said, we've seen their compression work.
(The solution to that, by the way, is simply to continue watching the SD channel.)
I already do that with a lot of channels (Adult Swim, Bio, for starters.)
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' post=\'245873\' date=\'Aug 13 2010, 04:51 PM\']There is an even worse alternative: stretching. (cringes)[/quote]
Stretching wouldn't break my heart, honestly, as that's how I have my TV set to display SD content, so it would be the best of both worlds for me. But I agree that Forced Stretch-O-Vision is a bad thing (looking at you, Turner) and should not be forced on people who don't want it. Give us the content straight and let each viewer decide what they want to do with it.
-
If its not in HD, its not for me, period. I don't watch SD programming on ANY channel. After seeing the hatchet job Directv does with local channels, I REFUSE to watch SD anything.
As for the pesky black bars, why not use that real estate on the HD feed of GSN to do a WinTV like thing? Put facts and stuff in those bars...it meets my need of having the HD stuff, and it keeps the shows in their original ratios.
Although if the masters to WML and the B&W stuff existed, they could EASILY be converted to HD...but alas they aren't. =(
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'253385\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 03:29 PM\']As for the pesky black bars, why not use that real estate on the HD feed of GSN to do a WinTV like thing? Put facts and stuff in those bars...it meets my need of having the HD stuff, and it keeps the shows in their original ratios.[/quote]
Because all the stuff shot in SD video years ago is garbage? I really don't get what you're saying? If something SD is upconverted for the HD channel, it's still essentially SD. And the pillars would just be an awful distraction that would exist for nobody. I suspect the people who are fans of WML and IGAS wouldn't want a hugely busy screen.
Not every piece of the screen must be used every moment.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'253385\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 03:29 PM\']Although if the masters to WML and the B&W stuff existed, they could EASILY be converted to HD...but alas they aren't. =([/quote]
Don't think so, they were shot in 4x3.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'253385\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 02:29 PM\']If its not in HD, its not for me, period. I don't watch SD programming on ANY channel. After seeing the hatchet job Directv does with local channels, I REFUSE to watch SD anything.[/quote]
OUTRAGE!!!!!
You seriously bumped a six month old thread for this?
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'253411\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 08:59 PM\'][quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'253385\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 03:29 PM\']Although if the masters to WML and the B&W stuff existed, they could EASILY be converted to HD...but alas they aren't. =([/quote]
Don't think so, they were shot in 4x3.[/quote]
Besides that -- don't the "masters" still exist anyway? They're filmed kinescopes, but that's what masters were for live programming, and I doubt they got thrown away when the stuff was transferred to tape for GSN all those years ago. So yeah, all sorts of fail in that comment.
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'253411\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 05:59 PM\']Don't think so, they were shot in 4x3.[/quote]
"HD" is not synonymous with "16x9."
As Matt alluded to, they could go back to the original kinescope films and create an HD version from those -- but I have a feeling the HD version of a 16-millimeter black-and-white kinescope wouldn't be much of an improvement over the already-existing transfers.
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' post=\'253417\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 10:03 PM\'][quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'253411\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 05:59 PM\']Don't think so, they were shot in 4x3.[/quote]
"HD" is not synonymous with "16x9."
As Matt alluded to, they could go back to the original kinescope films and create an HD version from those -- but I have a feeling the HD version of a 16-millimeter black-and-white kinescope wouldn't be much of an improvement over the already-existing transfers.
[/quote]
I know, but what would be the point of making something that would then be in 16x9 from a 4x3 original and as you state, not going to be from quality stock to begin with.
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'253425\' date=\'Dec 26 2010, 07:37 PM\']I know, but what would be the point of making something that would then be in 16x9 from a 4x3 original...[/quote]
I think we're saying the same thing, but I'm not sure if you understood my "'HD' is not synonymous with '16x9'" comment -- it wouldn't be 16x9 unless GSN chose to stretch or crop it during the HD conversion, which they definitely don't have to do. TV programming can be 4x3 and still in high-definition.
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' post=\'253485\' date=\'Dec 27 2010, 09:36 PM\']TV programming can be 4x3 and still in high-definition.[/quote]
A good example of this would be the original Star Trek on Blu-ray.
BTW, for those who don't like the new effects added on for its recent syndication run, the original version of each episode (other than no Paramount logos on the Paramount-produced episodes) are included. (I don't have them yet, I just remember looking at the back of the boxes when I've gone shopping.)
-
[quote name=\'Tony Peters\' post=\'253513\' date=\'Dec 28 2010, 01:51 PM\']BTW, for those who don't like the new effects added on for its recent syndication run, the original version of each episode (other than no Paramount logos on the Paramount-produced episodes) are included. (I don't have them yet, I just remember looking at the back of the boxes when I've gone shopping.)[/quote]
The Trek TOS Blu-ray sets are fantastic. They really did a great job with it and it's a pleasure to watch.