- MI-5 Widescreen?
- Posted by Rob559 on December 18th, 2003
Anyone know if the MI-5 Box set will be anamorphic widescreen?
Rob
- Posted by Derek Balling on December 19th, 2003
In article <20031218113649.15352.00001357@mb-m03.aol.com>, Rob559
<rob559@aol.com> wrote:
It seems to me the Spooks(R2) box set is, and the only thing that
should be different is the opening credits, so I don't see why it
wouldn't be.
D
- Posted by Joshua Zyber on December 19th, 2003
"Derek Balling" <dredd@megacity.org> wrote in message
news:181220032034454794%dredd@megacity.org...
It *potentially* might not be, because the US broadcasts on BBC America
have been cropped, and BBC America is distributing the DVDs.
However, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the DVDs will be
widescreen just like R2. Don't have a source for that, unfortunately.
- Posted by Tallulah Blanket on December 19th, 2003
Rob559 wrote:
Given they dumbed the name doubt, probably not.
- Posted by Derek Balling on December 19th, 2003
In article <EuuEb.553$IM3.472@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>, Joshua
Zyber <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote:
Yeah, but the US Broadcasts of Coupling and Monarch of the Glen were
both cropped, but the DVDs were blissfully widescreen. BBC America
seems to "get it" in that they'll show fullscreen on TV since that's
still what the majority of folks have, but since they've got HD masters
sitting on the other side of the pond, that's what they use for the
DVDs. :-)
cheers,
D
- Posted by jayembee on December 19th, 2003
"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote:
Except that it was A&E that aired the show here, not BBCA
(unless BBCA had aired it prior to A&E acquiring it).
-- jayembee
- Posted by Joshua Zyber on December 20th, 2003
"jayembee" <jayembeeNoSpam@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:d3aeee5b.0312190534.107d81b3@posting.google.c om...
Hmmmm... Dammit, I have too many cable channels! I can't tell them apart
anymore!
- Posted by KazamaSmokers on December 20th, 2003
Tallulah Blanket <beulah@peelmeagrape.com> wrote in message news:<77zEb.58166$aT.18835@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
I wouldn't call the name change a dumbing down... it was unfortunately necessary.
- Posted by Derek Balling on December 20th, 2003
In article <574b34e6.0312201254.5ed7067c@posting.google.com>,
KazamaSmokers <hunthurst@earthlink.net> wrote:
and why exactly was it 'necessary' again? I seem to have missed that.
D
- Posted by ZC TGS on December 20th, 2003
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:43:18 -0500, Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org>
wrote:
I did read somewhere that in the US the word 'Spooks' as a racial slur
to it.
- Posted by Derek Balling on December 21st, 2003
I honestly don't think anyone has used "Spook" as a racial slur since
like the 50's or 60's.
The OP was correct, it was "dumbed down" because Americans are believed
to be too stupid to realize it's entirely possible for a word to have
two meanings.
Cheers,
D
- Posted by KazamaSmokers on December 21st, 2003
Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org> wrote in message news:<211220031003218204%dredd@megacity.org>...
It's still used, though not often... but you seem to imply a
correlation between frequency of use and degree of offense.
Which seems disingenuous because it implies that the offensive meaning
somehow vaishes.
Yeah,
- Posted by poldy on December 21st, 2003
In article <574b34e6.0312201254.5ed7067c@posting.google.com>,
hunthurst@earthlink.net (KazamaSmokers) wrote:
How is MI-5 a dumbing down compared to "Spooks?"
- Posted by Joshua Zyber on December 21st, 2003
"KazamaSmokers" <hunthurst@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:574b34e6.0312211122.2b4b6802@posting.google.c om...
I think it's much more likely the title was "dumbed down" because an
American audience would think a show called "Spooks" would be about a
haunted house or something.
Besides, "MI-5" is a better-sounding title, frankly.
- Posted by ZC TGS on December 22nd, 2003
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:08:47 GMT, "Joshua Zyber"
<jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote:
On the other hand, 'Spooks' is a far more better sounding title,
certainly from a UK perspective.
