Author Topic: Network Graphics, Scrolls, and Distractions (Read 26354 times)

saussage · « **Reply #45 on:** April 09, 2005, 11:20:39 PM »

Yes those overlays that GSN puts on their programing is annoying along with the time machine and shrunken credits. I wish it was still like 1999 (no Prince, stay in your hole).

Deep down inside, I wish something could be done to influence GSN in their programming decisions but the reality is that most networks don't care. As long as they can somehow get in the black and stay there, they'll do it by hook or by crook. I believe that some of their graphics tinkering is really distracting and a real turn-off except their new logo on the top right corner which is actually less intrusive. Back in the days of Game Show Network, I would always cross my fingers when I would be able to see the Pyramid ending intact (monkeys were problably asleep or too busy eating bananas) with the old Mr Plumber commercials.
(yeah, I'm a geek and a game show freak, what a wacky combo)

I wish a solution to some of these issues would be as simple as my old Vectrex game machine.

Hmmmm... overlay? Peel it off!

Casino night promo... it's in the way, peel it off!

Wow this is fun.... whoops... peeled off the darn puzzle clue from Password Plus

Sorry I didn't use quote from anyone... just wanted everyone to have a chuckle from this "not so serious" post.

Saussage
Pat, I would like buy a vowel. A sometimes "Y"

aaron sica · « **Reply #46 on:** April 09, 2005, 11:46:08 PM »

[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'Apr 9 2005, 11:20 PM\']
Sorry I didn't use quote from anyone... just wanted everyone to have a chuckle from this "not so serious" post.

Saussage
Pat, I would like buy a vowel. A sometimes "Y"

[snapback]81271[/snapback]

[/quote]

Well said, Saussage. Well said. I, too, don't like the crunches, but I'm like you - I'm also a realist about it. I'm just glad I get to see the entire show. It's speeded up a bit. So what? The credits are crunched. So what? I'm just glad I get to see the show. Where else could I find an obscure episode of a short-run game show from 20-some-odd years ago?

Some people really need to stop and realize what they have, instead of focusing on what they DON'T have.

melman1 · « **Reply #47 on:** April 09, 2005, 11:54:20 PM »

[quote name=\'Mario500\' date=\'Apr 9 2005, 07:33 PM\']Fellow posters, I assure y’all that there is indeed a silent population of Game Show Network viewers of unknown proportions who agree that the on screen graphics by the network are beyond necessary. Most of the people I’m speaking for probably don’t have a large enough platform to speak out, for example access to the World Wide Web via a computer.
[/quote]
Once again... you seem to know how to press the keys and make words appear on the screen... but you can't make anything even close to a coherent thought that anyone wants to discuss.

Quote

My writings on “GSN” and TV today may seem unusual, but that’s the point that stands out more. If the issue of graphics that interrupt and distract viewers and ruin the recordings of those attempting to archive their favorites were ever greater, we wouldn’t have these many misunderstandings

See above. Makes no sense whatsoever. None.

Is there a reason you can't just say "I don't like on-screen graphics" and just leave it at that? Why would you think the lengthy ex-rectum ramblings about a "silent majority" and the FCC would strengthen your position?

Mario500 · « **Reply #48 on:** April 09, 2005, 11:56:21 PM »

After a long day of debating a couple of issues in television that I believe needed to be brought forward, it appears that this is yet another fight that cannot be won this way. Like many struggles for others in history, fighting against the TV networks' power to add distracting graphics or shrink the credits while a classic or original program airs and the FCC's almost unbelievable act of forcing stations to inform viewers of a program's content through on screen TV ratings & "permanent" E/I logos is a battle that's useless unless there’s a good pair of supports.

Currently I feel sorry for the state of television. Who would have thought that one of humanity's greatest achievements would someday represent the power corporations can have over the public? It would have taken great optimism to think way before TV became a medium greater than radio.

Before leaving this topic up to anybody else who wishes to discuss it, I must look forward to what Game Show Network and television in general has in store in the foreseeable future. As I view "Super Password" and "Card Sharks" on a sunny today, there will at least be a moment for the ticker to scroll by. As I view "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" later in the day, I hope neither Miss "Casino Night", nor those blue horses for the now cancelled “American Dream Derby” show up during the questions. As other classic shows make their return, lets hope there are no animated promotions for "GSN's" upcoming pool program as Rayburn, Clark, or even as Mr. Daily chats with the celebrated people.

Game Show Network, or "GSN: The Network For Games", I wish y'all the best of luck. Peace!

(Leaps From His Soapbox For The Day)

Phew!

clemon79 · « **Reply #49 on:** April 10, 2005, 12:00:57 AM »

[quote name=\'Mario500\' date=\'Apr 9 2005, 08:56 PM\']After a long day of debating a couple of issues in television that I believe needed to be brought forward, it appears that this is yet another fight that cannot be won this way.
[/quote]
Through insane ramblings and poor arguments?

Quote

(Leaps From His Soapbox For The Day)

More than a day, I fervently hope.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #50 on:** April 10, 2005, 12:14:46 AM »

This has been my second-favorite Mario-induced insanity of all time.

It's hard to beat this one.

Mario500 · « **Reply #51 on:** April 10, 2005, 12:37:15 AM »

Yep, the old story "Operation Big One" neither put a dent, nor encouraged any support into ending the trolls' takeover of Alt.TV.Game-Shows. Pardon today's so-called "insanity", but I felt the need to address these Game Show Network issues and discuss them.

SamJ93 · « **Reply #52 on:** April 10, 2005, 12:43:37 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 10 2005, 12:14 AM\']This has been my second-favorite Mario-induced insanity of all time.

It's hard to beat this one.

[snapback]81283[/snapback]

[/quote]

My IQ dropped 10 points after reading that.

As to this whole graphics nonsense...don't like it, turn it off. Plain and simple. Or send a complaint to GSn, after learning to write coherently, of course.

--Sam

melman1 · « **Reply #53 on:** April 10, 2005, 12:53:09 AM »

[quote name=\'Mario500\' date=\'Apr 9 2005, 08:56 PM\']After a long day of debating a couple of issues in television that I believe needed to be brought forward, it appears that this is yet another fight that cannot be won this way. Like many struggles for others in history, fighting against the TV networks' power to add distracting graphics or shrink the credits while a classic or original program airs and the FCC's almost unbelievable act of forcing stations to inform viewers of a program's content through on screen TV ratings & "permanent" E/I logos is a battle that's useless unless there’s a good pair of supports. [/quote]
"A long day of debating?" Oh, you're just nuts. Debate means that each side knows what the other is trying to say, and nobody has been able to figure out your babble.

You were never "fighting against the TV networks", you were just yammering on about "silent majorities" and such, and nobody would buy the argument. And what the hell is "a good pair of supports?" Damn.

Mario500 · « **Reply #54 on:** April 10, 2005, 01:15:32 AM »

"Good pair of supports" is a metaphor for support on both sides of an issue. If it's true that I was "nuts" typing away about TV's obsession with large graphics, tickers, shrunken credits, and the FCC's so-called "requirements", pardon the fact that I was filled up to the brain with issues that deserve a discussion.

petek66 · « **Reply #55 on:** April 10, 2005, 01:20:01 AM »

So far, the originator of this thread has been called a whiny diehard,
whackjob, uninformed blowhard, nutjob, rambling idiot, crackpot,
and been advised to seek a non-inflatable girlfriend. Is this place
any better than usenet?

I don't mind that the issue of onscreen crap is occasionally stirred
up around here. The complacency of the average Joe towards this stuff is why it gets a little worse each year. Before long, we'll have flashing Viagra logos onscreen for the whole show. And we'll be told again that we should shut up and be happy with what we have because the majority of the viewers like getting information about Viagra during their program.

clemon79 · « **Reply #56 on:** April 10, 2005, 01:54:11 AM »

[quote name=\'Mario500\' date=\'Apr 9 2005, 10:15 PM\']If it's true that I was "nuts" typing away about TV's obsession with large graphics, tickers, shrunken credits, and the FCC's so-called "requirements"
[/quote]
You have every right to be concerned about these issues. Your problem is your utter inability to use the English language to communicate these opinions with anything resembling cohesive thought, and your delusions that lead you to believe that you are dropping some serious knowledge 'cuz you made a long post, when in fact you said nothing of any import whatsoever.

You are, I think, what would happen if irismason and Michael Brandenburg had a kid.

melman1 · « **Reply #57 on:** April 10, 2005, 02:00:13 AM »

[quote name=\'Mario500\' date=\'Apr 9 2005, 10:15 PM\']"Good pair of supports" is a metaphor for support on both sides of an issue.[/quote]

So you're claiming that you shouldn't have started the discussion because you didn't have support for both sides of the issue? Do you realize how little sense you make?

Quote

If it's true that I was "nuts" typing away about TV's obsession with large graphics, tickers, shrunken credits, and the FCC's so-called "requirements", pardon the fact that I was filled up to the brain with issues that deserve a discussion.

No, you're "nuts" because you can't intelligently make a point.

Like I said, just because you can type in some words and phrases on Mommie's computer and have them light up on the screen, it doesn't mean that you can form an intelligent point.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #58 on:** April 10, 2005, 02:04:06 AM »

[quote name=\'Mario500\' date=\'Apr 9 2005, 10:56 PM\']it appears that this is yet another fight that cannot be won this way. Like many struggles for others in history[/quote]

THINGS TO DO TODAY:

1. End slavery
2. Ban overlaid TV advertisements
3. Overthrow dictatorship

. . .

It's like talking to a reprogrammed Eliza or something. The password for today is "incomprehensible". Think about it (where applicable).

aaron sica · « **Reply #59 on:** April 10, 2005, 08:25:29 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 10 2005, 01:54 AM\']
You are, I think, what would happen if irismason and Michael Brandenburg had a kid.

[snapback]81308[/snapback]

[/quote]

No, I don't think there's any Michael Brandenburg in him. If there was, he'd spend 1/4 of his post going off on things about his personal life that no one else (except maybe Henke) could care less about.