|
Please login to reply
| 1 of 1 |
|
|||||
|
[#136839]
Written by: osmosis [20/06/2010, 19:58] |
|||||
| hmm what\'s this now? | |||||
|
[#136841]
Written by: tstrong299 [20/06/2010, 20:23] |
|||||
| unaired episode from the uk. | |||||
|
[#136842]
Written by: h0ns [20/06/2010, 20:31] |
|||||
|
banned by fox -good enough for the uk banned why? possible spoilers, though just a rough coverage of touched themes
|
|||||
|
[#136849]
Written by: sexybrent [20/06/2010, 23:08] |
|||||
|
episode is titled "partial terms of endearment" unaired on fox due to abortion topic production number 7acx10 so it was meant to be in the middle of the season, it will be on th dvd's when they are released |
|||||
|
[#136859]
Written by: itorrent [21/06/2010, 05:15] |
|||||
|
it's a shame the majority of people who want to see this won't get a chance to, well at least until the dvd comes out. i hope the topic and the ep has gotten some press in the us (probably not on fox) i just find it stupid that for a country that prides it's self on freedom of speech and all the other stuff that this still happens in 2010! great episode and i hope the boys can keep it up for the next season. |
|||||
|
[#136883]
Written by: Dramonicous [21/06/2010, 09:52] |
|||||
|
gaah what a crappy episode this was, i was actually dreaming that i was watching a family guy ep before i woke up n watched this, the dream version was aloooot better, it was a stewie ep where he wants to be on some stupid tv show where a kid hunt rats and slap them to death (somehow it got cancelled due to low ratings), i dont remember all of it but it ends with a portal opening and a future stewie (hes tall but head the same) comes out with lots of gadgets that the present stewie then offers to the goverment in return for bringing back the tv show with him as star. dont u agree that my dream version was better?`lol , only things that doesnt add up to the franchise is that stewie dont need gadgets from future cuz they r already futuristic, and stewie have always been the same size when they have looked into the future. |
|||||
|
[#136896]
Written by: smakdy [21/06/2010, 13:42] |
|||||
|
great episode. too bad no one i know iwll have seen it due to the ban. anyways, was it me or was that not mila kunis' voice performing meg on this ep? |
|||||
|
[#136921]
Written by: toodle [21/06/2010, 18:34] |
|||||
|
so i did a bit of googling, out of interest. http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/07/family-guy-abortion-fox-broadcast.html  here, a fox press statement is quoted: [i]fox will not air the |
|||||
|
[#136938]
Written by: WCK [21/06/2010, 22:23] |
|||||
|
the only sad thing here is the fact that family guy has become extremely boring. all the jokes are incredibly lame and the plot is so drab and predictable. don't get me wrong. i love inappropriate humor. i'm not at all offended by the edgy material. in fact, i agree with the message the show tries to present. but the way they present these controversial issues is just so boring. it's barely convincing, and along with that the jokes are predictably stupid. i don't mean stupid as in silly, like family guy's earlier work. family guy hit their peak and are now just dying. personally, i think the only reason they are still on the air is because they keep pushing controversial issues that get people talking. the only thing that made me laugh in this episode was peter's flashback of watching grass grow. i expect more from this show than 1 damn giggle. |
|||||
|
[#137162]
Written by: toodle [24/06/2010, 23:10] |
|||||
i think it was mila kunis' voice. but since this originates from british tv, i.e. pal, i.e. 25 fps rather than 23.976 fps, all audio is slightly sped up, so all voices a little higher-pitched. it's not a big difference, but well noticeable if you're really used to some voices, or a theme song for that matter. on a different note, controversial topic as it may be, but i really liked the episode, best one in a while. and i must say they treated the abortion issue rather respectfully, presenting all the actual arguments for as well as against abortion, and not taking a side. (instead they 'resolve' the issue in typical family guy manner, which i won't spoil here.) |
|||||
|
[#141141]
Written by: MIDURIX [09/09/2010, 05:28] |
|||||
i think the audio speed up thing might be a myth. from where i have worked and what i have seen, if you take 100fps video and play it back at 30fps it will look like whatever you have filmed is happening at about 3 times slower (there are some mobile phones with video which do this), now what you are saying is that a company would leave it at that and you would see everything moving really slow but that isn't the case! lets make things easier and think about video being shot at 100fps and played as 25fps, so you will see everything moving 4 times slower, but only if you play every single frame. what happens if you cut out 3 out of every 4 frames? if by magic the video you are now watching is running at normal speed! so you are playing 100fps video with 3 out of 4 frames removed at a new speed of 25fps. so instead of seeing 4 times as much stuff, you are seeing enough material to fill 25fps and run at normal speed! so why would companies not just remove one frame out of every 25 to take it from 25fps down to 24fps and then play it at 24fps and not 25fps? |
|||||
|
| 1 of 1 |
|
|||||
