Haha.. yes, although it may be on purpose. The site was meant to look like something thrown together out of trashy weekly magazines.
Angel: Is that what you think you are--a hero? Spike: Saved the world didn't I? Angel: Once. Talk to me after you've done it a couple more times.
'Destiny'
All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American
Discussion of episodes currently airing in Un-American locations (anything that's aired in Australia is fair game), as well as anything else the Un-Americans feel like talking about or we feel like asking them. Please use the show discussion threads for any current-season discussion.
Add yourself to the Buffista map while you're here by updating your profile.
plasmo - Dec 26, 2002 10:42:17 pm PST #1093 of 9843
{[-_-]}
John H - Dec 27, 2002 1:14:44 am PST #1094 of 9843
A friend worked on the site, Kath & Kim.
That's "award-winning" site, right?
I think it looks perfectly Kath-and-Kim like, that's its charm.
And when A Certain Person was coding the quiz, the actors who play Kath and Kim were asked to suggest the error message users got if they hit submit before they'd answered all the questions. People loved it.
Am-Chau Yarkona - Dec 27, 2002 9:25:05 am PST #1095 of 9843
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
Brits: what's going on with seasons 7 and 4 arriving on Sky One? I thought that they were showing 7.1 on 9th January, and beginning 4.1 a couple of weeks later. But now I have the new Radio Times, which says that they're showing a 'Best of Buffy' programme on the 9th, followed by Angel, which I think is 4.1.
This seems odd, and I fear they may be doing something stupid. Anyone else got stuff on this? (I'm hoping I'm mis-reading/understanding.)
Fay - Dec 27, 2002 9:27:30 am PST #1096 of 9843
"Fuck Western ideologically-motivated gender identification!" Sulu gasped, and came.
I was wondering that today - there was an ad for a Buffy-arific evening on Thursday on Sky One, but still no mention of next season. And you'd really think there would be....
gulp.
I'm sure it's all fine. Nothing to worry about.
Am-Chau Yarkona - Dec 27, 2002 9:29:30 am PST #1097 of 9843
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
I'm sure it's all fine. Nothing to worry about.
Let's keep saying that, Fay...
I saw the ad, and there's an article about the new season in the Radio Times, complete with teasing spoilers (luckily nothing I hadn't read on-line), but the actual listings aren't so hopeful.
Am-Chau Yarkona - Dec 27, 2002 9:32:48 am PST #1098 of 9843
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
Cereal: No, it doesn't look like there's new Buffy or Angel on the 9th.
It says (and there aren't any spoilers):
Sky 1
8pm Best of Buffy
A selected episode from the drama about the teen vampire-killer.
9pm Angel
Holtz insists that Connor rejoin Angel, while Groosalugg is heartbroken.
t moans. graons. whinges. whines.
evil jimi - Dec 28, 2002 10:48:31 pm PST #1099 of 9843
Lurching from one disaster to the next.
Does anyone know if the Region 1 versions of the Buffy DVDs have better picture transfers than the Region 4 versions?
I notice Joss does a commentary for both "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and "The Harvest" and I was wondering if it was worth grabbing a copy -- even though I already own season 1.
Jon B. - Dec 28, 2002 11:00:30 pm PST #1100 of 9843
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
I don't know about picture transfer, but any set that is NTSC, rather than PAL, will at least be at the correct speed.
If you didn't know, PAL is 25 frames per second, while film is 24 frames per second. When doing the transfer, this needs to be resolved somehow. The common solution is to map them 1 to 1, which means the footage runs 4% faster. They could then run the audio through a filter that adjusts for the faster speed, but more often they leave the voices slightly higher pitched. This is what they did they did with the Buffy DVDs. I notice it mostly with the male voices, especially Xander, but others have told me they didn't notice it at all. I'm fairly sensitive to pitch (theremin playing and all) so maybe I'm unusual.
NTSC is 30 frames per second, so they use an algorithm to map them down to 24. No speeding up or slowing down takes place.
That said, I've always heard that PAL looks better than NTSC because, while there are fewer frames per second, there are more lines in each frame.
evil jimi - Dec 29, 2002 12:02:23 am PST #1101 of 9843
Lurching from one disaster to the next.
I haven't noticed the difference in the voices but the transfer quality of some of the episodes, particularly in the Season 2 Part 1 set, is fucking awful. Absolutely atrocious.
Someone should sue Fox for releasing something so blatantly sub-standard.
bon bon - Dec 29, 2002 12:07:57 am PST #1102 of 9843
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
If you didn't know, PAL is 25 frames per second, while film is 24 frames per second. When doing the transfer, this needs to be resolved somehow. The common solution is to map them 1 to 1, which means the footage runs 4% faster. They could then run the audio through a filter that adjusts for the faster speed, but more often they leave the voices slightly higher pitched. This is what they did they did with the Buffy DVDs. I notice it mostly with the male voices, especially Xander, but others have told me they didn't notice it at all. I'm fairly sensitive to pitch (theremin playing and all) so maybe I'm unusual.
(Jon is so smart.) There was something on the discovery channel today on Leon Theremin-- did you know he did important work for the NKVD/KGB? Among other things, he invented an ingenious type of sound recording device that was behind Averill Harriman's desk for 7 years.