Recent comments in /f/television

wethairlady t1_j99qcmr wrote

Reply to comment by Gamsy in Physical 100 is fucking awesome by Wegianblue

Well that’s your perspective. As a small woman I find it impressive because I know how hard it is to even budge someone that much bigger and he fell pretty hard. Even if you’re taking it easy that doesn’t change your weight and height.

2

sergiocamposnt t1_j99pup0 wrote

Reply to How do the first 4 seasons of Dexter compare to the first 4 seasons of Game of Thrones? by Artistic-Toe-8803

The first and fourth seasons of Dexter are amazing, they're on the same level as GoT S1-S4 imo.

Dexter Season 2 is great, but not as incredible as seasons 1 and 4.

Dexter Season 3 is okay. It is not a bad season, but it is not a great season either.

If I had to create a tier list comparing Dexter-GoT seasons, I think it would be something like this:

S: Dexter S1/S4, GoT S1/S2/S3/S4

A: Dexter S2

B: GoT S5/S6

C: Dexter S3, Dexter New Blood

D: Dexter S5/S7, GoT S7

E: Dexter S6, GoT S8

F: Dexter S8

2

redbullrebel OP t1_j99pj1s wrote

Reply to comment by laughland in Strong background BLUR in movies and TV series, who else gets annoyed by it? by redbullrebel

this is simple.

when i am bored of a conversation or do not find interesting i can look at the background to find different details. i love this with kubrick movies like clock work orange or with the usual suspects. that when you pay good enough attention you can figure out clues. remember star wars episode 3 when E.T. was on the background. there is lots that you can do with background if you actullay want to. i love this in the orginal blade runner as well. there is so much detail in the background.

if your a good director you give people the freedom of choice what they want to see or not. but when you focus only on 2 faces or 2 half bodies and blur our the background complete there is nothing left to see. your destroying the scene. then why not just add a blank screen behind and be done. because in real life when i am bored of a conversation i also start looking around me.

−1

Knowlesdinho t1_j99oapt wrote

Reply to Why did the 90's offer a larger variety of broadcast kids shows than the 2000's-present? by sgavary

On Saturday mornings we used to get up and watch the Saturday morning shows that were for kids, some of these shows went on into the afternoon especially in the 80s.

In fact, Saturday Telly was a big event for all in the 90s in the UK. The Saturday cartoon shows with live action studios would have adult themes running through them with 'wink, wink, nod, nod' bit of blue for the dads jokes running through them.

From 2pm onwards, it was likely you'd be outside playing with your mates, then back in to watch Baywatch, You Bet, Gladiators then bed. Dad's would be glued to the telly for the slow motion boobies, and mums didn't seem to mind because they had the Hoff to stare at.

Now kids get up and it's straight to an online game, content on the internet and everyone in the family is largely doing the same. I'm not critical of this, times change, but that's why you don't have the kids shows of the 90s etc.

8

AnotherJasonOnReddit t1_j99nlwk wrote

Reply to How do the first 4 seasons of Dexter compare to the first 4 seasons of Game of Thrones? by Artistic-Toe-8803

>I may watch it despite how much it apparently falls off

The first three seasons of Dexter each close a story off. Think of how Red Dragon/Silence of the Lambs/Hannibal are all movies in the same series, but each tells its own completed story.

You can easily watch the first season of Dexter and get a complete story told, no need to go forward if you don't want to. Same with watching the second season, and again with the third season. It's only when we get to the end of the fourth season that there becomes unresolved storylines, which is why the fifth season takes place right away afterwards (like how Game of Thrones works).

I think that's one of many reasons why Game of Thrones fell so hard. It's one big long movie, like if Return of the King was a lacklustre disappointment after the well-received Fellowship/Two Towers.

3

The_Primate t1_j99n1mb wrote

Reply to Why is it that a lot of TV shows these days have really poor sound mixing by StarChild413

It's a combination of

Lavalier mics replacing single mics for scenes so that people don't have to shout or speak clearly to be heard.

A quest for high dynamic range so that exciting explosions and the like seem louder than dialogue.

A desire for authenticity even if that means that some dialogue will be difficult to hear or even completely inaudible.

It's quite annoying to a lot of people.

39

WeDriftEternal t1_j99jwr3 wrote

Reply to Why did the 90's offer a larger variety of broadcast kids shows than the 2000's-present? by sgavary

Because of a law passed by the US putting regulations on children's TV shows during the 90s. The real effect of this wasn't quite a thing until the late 90s and got solidified shortly after in the early 2000s as all the broadcasters were on board and business models had changed.

Basically, children's TV was a free for all of all types, local, national, acquired overseas content, lvie action, cartoons, just bonkers and go crazy with it.

This lead to tons of kids programming on broadcast since it did pretty well, especially in certain hours, like before school and saturday morning. Animation became the go to here, for lots of reasons, but they aren't important.

So while the 80s and 90s were absolutely filled with all types of childrens animated shows, some good, bad, for younger kids, or teens, experimental or classic -- lots of options and the ratings were good so things were good, keep watching! Its doing great, we can take chances, and we can invest in this.

But then in the mid-late 90s a law passed earlier was more cracked down on-- it forces broadcast networks to make a certain amount of 'Educational & Informative' (called E/I) content, airing roughly 1-2 hours per day.

So this content can be anything, but it was mandatory conent, and most cartoons and stuff didn't meet its needs. Instead you'd often just purchase some shit syndicated show (like some guy with animals, or an educational cartoon). And really the only place for this, was the same time as kids TV.

So you basically cut out a big chunk of kids TV every single day.

Lots more happened, but it gets technical and less ELI5... but suffice it to say, a lot of content in kids areas got pushed out or FAR more highly selective for the same time slots, and thus, the boom shifted away from kids animation on broadcast networks more to cable nets that could content with lower ratings and more niche content. Broadcast just didn't need to recompete to regain that audience, it wasn't worth it.

69

n3rv0u5 t1_j99iyhr wrote

Reply to Why did the 90's offer a larger variety of broadcast kids shows than the 2000's-present? by sgavary

Simple answer: Kids prefer YouTube, Netflix, etc and nearly everyone has high-speed internet now. Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, PBS, etc are all available on one streaming service or another and those are getting new shows all the time, but maybe not as often.

It's not as financially viable to air a show on TV these days, not like it used to be. The commercials that keep these shows on air are not getting the viewership they would if they just advertised online.

3