backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 254 comment(s) - last by tcsenter.. on Jan 3 at 11:48 PM

"Transformers" director expresses conspiracy theory against Microsoft

Michael Bay has always been a big Hollywood director, but following his smash hit Transformers, Bay himself transformed into a high-definition controversy mogul.

Responding to a question posted on Michael Bay’s official web forums asking once again why Transformers was released only on HD DVD and not Blu-ray Disc, Bay expressed his believe that Microsoft is behind a scheme to sabotage both high-definition disc formats. Mind you, Microsoft is one of the pioneers and largest backers of HD DVD.

“What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads,” wrote Bay. “That is the dirty secret no one is talking about.”

Paramount, the studio behind Transformers, and DreamWorks signed an exclusive HD DVD agreement on August 20, thus ending support for Blu-ray Disc for those two companies. According to numerous reports, the deal to secure the allegiance of Paramount and DreamWorks was in the neighbourhood of $150 million, which the Hollywood director takes issue with.

“That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray,” continued Bay. “They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth.”

Similar sentiments against Microsoft were expressed over a month ago at a Blu-ray Festival by 20th Century Fox’s president Mike Dunn. Microsoft’s Kevin Collins, director in the Microsoft Consumer Media Technology Group, later retorted, “The [Blu-ray] camp’s claims about Microsoft’s desire to have a format war are baseless. Microsoft has over 100 people working on HD DVD interactivity and we believe that HD DVD is the next-generation optical format.”

Bay’s recent comments are just the latest in a long string of criticisms from the flashy director. At the time of Paramount and DreamWorks’ announcement, Bay threw a virtual fit over the decision that would see his Transformers film released only on one high-definition format.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me," exclaimed Bay in August. Amusingly, Bay later backpedalled on his blog to a different tune, praising HD DVD’s affordable hardware pricing and said that he might indeed be back to direct Transformers 2.

The director then reignited the controversy in October when he said, “As a director, my critical eye is that Blu-ray is where my money is. Consumers are smart, and they are going to wait it out.”

Upon the release of Transformers on HD DVD, the film immediately broke home video release records on October 16. Transformers on HD DVD became the fastest selling high-definition release in history, with 100,000 copies sold on the first day.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Michael Bay
By SeeManRun on 12/5/2007 4:50:21 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't Michael Bay the leader of the Film Actors Guild? He seems like he would be the leader for the Film Actors Guild, as he personifies everything involved in being a member of the Film Actors Guild!




RE: Michael Bay
By ninjit on 12/5/2007 5:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Is there a reason you felt compelled to repeat the words "Film Actors Guild" 3 times in such a short span


RE: Michael Bay
By T4RTER S4UCE on 12/5/2007 5:28:49 PM , Rating: 1
Film Actors Guild
F.A.G.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 9:18:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it's ok to throw out a word that means "humans so unimportant we can burn them alive"
Wow you've certainly been brainwashed by the politically correct machine. He said a word, he didn't burn anyone at the stake. He didn't even imply he wanted to. He merely (very vaguely) insinuated that he finds homosexuality in some way distasteful. And you want to crucify him for that?

Believe it or not, free speech matters. Protecting unpopular speech is most important of all.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 12:26:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
a group of people that have had countless injustices done to them
Let's name some other groups that have had "countless injustices" done to them:

Women
Blacks
Chinese
Japanese
Irish
Italians
Poles
Jews
Hispanics
Slavs
Atheists
Christians
Mormons
Muslims
etc, etc, etc, etc.

In other words-- pretty much the whole damn country. And he wasn't standing up for anyone's rights, he was questioning the OP's right to consider certain actions distasteful. I don't have any moral problems with homosexuality itself, but I certainly respect other people's right to regard it so.

quote:
I take it you throw around the N word because it's unpopular right?
Wow talk about prejudice and jumping to conclusions. I'm intelligent enough to realize its just a word. Actions are what count, not words. If you think you're really accomplishing anything good by maintaining some prissy list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" words, you're fooling yourself.


RE: Michael Bay
By tcsenter on 12/7/2007 3:12:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Let's name some other groups that have had "countless injustices" done to them:
And furthermore, let's look at some of these injustices:

Blacks - oppressed because of skin pigmentation, which can't realistically be modified or concealed to avoid oppression and discrimination

Women - oppressed because of reproductive anatomy and biology, which can't realistically be modified or concealed to escape oppression and discrimination

Homos - oppressed because of BEHAVIOR, which is as easy to modify or conceal as one's preference for particular undergarments

History is replete with homos who reached pinnacles of social, professional, and economic status, provided they exercised a little discretion about their paraphilias, just like heterosexuals had to.

Everyone else throughout history had to exercise a little discretion about their paraphilias and deviant practices if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination. I don't know what makes homos so f-cking special.


RE: Michael Bay
By LogicallyGenius on 12/9/2007 9:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Shutup offTopic mongers

The real reason is : PS3 has BluRay


SHUTUP OFFTOPIKERS
By LogicallyGenius on 12/9/2007 9:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
Shutup offTopic mongers

The real reason is : PS3 has BluRay


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/11/2007 4:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone else throughout history had to exercise a little discretion about their paraphilias and deviant practices if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination. I don't know what makes homos so f-cking special.


Except whatever the norm is right? Strait, white males desiring other white, disrespected women in their commercials. Good thing any other culture has to "sell out" to be accepted. You in just one post showed exactly what's wrong with democracy, and America. Plato called it the worst choice but the only one that will work. It like any other kind of government: they put faith in the one thing that asses like you don't allow: a strong common sense and good nature. Again, what an ass.


RE: Michael Bay
By tcsenter on 1/3/2008 11:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
But certainly no more of an ass than someone who would attempt to equate the 'oppression' of socially unacceptable behavior in which one freely elects to participate with oppression based along anatomical features that are completely beyond one's control and impossible (or extremely difficult) to conceal.

I'm not singling out homosexuals, as should have been perfectly clear when I included heterosexuals with various paraphilias and deviant sexual behaviors as being among those who had to and still do have to exercise a little discretion if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination.

However, you don't see a heterosexual BDSM lobby trying to get cultural diversity programs in elementary schools to promote tolerance and acceptance of the BDSM lifestyle and sub-culture, nor lobbying for such "constitutional rights" as prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for injuries or health problems resulting from BDSM practices (e.g. I have a constitutional right to stick whatever I want up my rear and have as much unprotected anal sex with multiple strangers as I want, and you have to pay for the medical and health consequences).

As an identifiable group, LGBT are the only game in town who is working politically to gain protected class status for a freaking paraphilia and its attendent sub-culture and lifestyle. Well, pedophiles and pederasts do have a small lobby in some countries, but have had little influence in the West after most (but not all) of the LGBT community decided in the 1970s to distance itself from the pedophilia and pederasty movement, with whom they shared inextricable ties until that point, purely as a self-serving (though effective) public relations strategy.

My point was that - unlike real oppressed groups such as blacks and women - history is replete with homos who rose to pinnacles of society in every category of measure, provided that they exercised a little discretion about their sexual predilections (just like heterosexuals had to), a luxury that was not available to blacks and women who wanted to avoid or escape worse oppression and discrimination.

How many actors or writers or public servants or whatever profession you care to name from the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s have we learned were homos (posthumously or otherwise)? And yet they died rich, or famous, even beloved, and with blown-out sphincters nonetheless. i.e. exercising a little discretion about their deviant paraphilias didn't prevent them from engaging in it.

Take Rock Hudson, for crying out loud. We would never have known that Rock Hudson was a homo, except that he died of complications resulting from a blown-out sphincter that made it extremely difficult NOT to come out. There are surely thousands upon thousands more who achieved notable successes personally or professionally that we may never know about.

Do you know of any blacks or women who reached any noteworthy successes, all the while they were concealing the fact they were black or female? Nope.

Thus there could be no sane comparison between the plight of homos and any of the aforementioned groups who suffered REAL oppression. There are only contrasts, mostly glaring ones.

As for what's wrong with America, I'm sure homosexuals enjoy much more acceptance in progressive countries like China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, and other cultural melting pots. America is not a culturally diverse and tolerant society? Puh-leeze!


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 1:20:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Defending the right to express hate is the most important of all?
Defending the right to express unpopular ideas is the most important of all. No one needs to defend "popular" ideas. It's minority positions that need defense.

quote:
Try making smart remarks using words like the N word
The "N" word? Do you mean Netherlands? Narcotic? Nancy? It's amazing someone in this day and age is prissy enough to dance around a string of characters.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 2:51:41 PM , Rating: 4
> "Sorry but free speech wasn't designed as a way to defend idiots who want to run around calling people a fag."

For what do *you* think free speech was designed?

The OP was right. The more unsavory the majority finds an idea, the more violently we should protect the right to express it. Otherwise "free speech" becomes a meaningless facade.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 4
> "I guess you are down with protecting neo nazi's right to hate just about everyone "

Of course. It's their right. As long as they don't translate the opinions into criminal action (or incitement to criminal acts), they're not hurting anyone.

The rationale is really very simple. Let me walk you through the logic. Take two hypothetical, contradictory ideas. Which of the two is the "better" one? Eventually, society will decide on its own...but how can it, if both ideas aren't allowed free expression? If the unpopular idea isn't voiced, it never has a chance. If its voiced, but inferior, then society won't adopt it anyway.

Let me point out that pretty much every ideal we hold dear today was once extremely unpopular-- some you've had once gotten assaulted or killed for publicly voicing. If we didn't have free speech, things like woman's suffrage, religious tolerance, etc, would have never taken root.

Free speech is nothing more than the democracy of ideas in action. Banning unpopular speech is equivalent to an election in which only one candidate is allowed to run.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Society as a whole and it's members should have the ability to determine reasonable from unreasonable..."

They have that ability. It's done by allowing people to express even the most unpopular of ideas, then either accepting or rejecting them.

It's a far more enlightened path than the Medieval practice of jailing anyone who doesn't agree with you.

> "...without having to blindly support even the most ridiculous opinions"

Your confusion lies in the belief that allowing someone to express their opinion equates to your "supporting" that opinion. It does not.

And by the way, I'm not an admin. I'm merely one of the many who author a blog here.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"When said person rejects that idea and comes out denouncing it, then gets told he shouldn't speak out against it because it is the other persons freedom of speech to say it,"
The original reply didn't attack the OP's idea; it rejected his right to use an unpopular word. Then you chimed in, saying certain ideas were just too offensive for free speech, and that voicing them should be illegal.

If you've changed your mind about all this, then by all means speak up. No need to keep beating a dead horse, right?


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "Saying I said it ought to be illegal is what YOU twisted it into"

Your exact words were, "there should be a law against gathering in a public place and shouting white power and sneering at blacks...."

That's pretty hard to misinterpret. It mentions words only. It said nothing about actions , such threatening people by burning crosses on their lawn.

If you're backing down from your original position, simply come out and say so.


RE: Michael Bay
By Hase0 on 12/7/2007 12:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is exactly what happened in this case, user A uses an offensive term, user B is offended and says hey you are an ignorant ass. User C says hey you can't say that to him, it's his right to speak his mind.


Actually yeah it is freedom of speech, since person C was simply stating his opinion which was "hey I don't think you should be saying that" more or less. It was simply his opinion no one actually enforced it, and there is no reason why you should take it as fact or law.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 3
You're wrong, that's exactly what it is meant to protect.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 1:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Saddly, yes it is... Unfortunetly once you start down the path of saying "morally unacceptable speach is now illegal" you run into a certain issue... Who defines morally unacceptable? Certainly I don't think *ANYONE* posting in this forum would agree with Adolf Hitlers idea of morally unacceptable. And no, we can't just sit here and say "well that will never happen again so it doesn't matter". The germans at the time they ELECTED Hitler didn't think he would actually do the things he did, yet look at history.

As distasteful as such speach is, it's critical that we allow people to prove to the world exactly what the quality of their character is.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "What makes the right to express something like I think gay people are horrible, more valid than saying I think the Jew's are horrible? "

Nothing at all...which is why both should be equally protected.

> "50 years ago you could have tied a gay person to a tree and beat them to death "

Surely you can distinguish between expressing an opinion and engaging in assault and murder.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
While I actually don't care about the issue much personally, for arguments sake let's pretend I'm dead set against allowing gay people to marry based on religious grounds. Obviously there are posters here that would take such a position as expressing dislike for gays...

Does this mean that my stating "I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry because homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ/Mohammad/whoever" is a crime? If it is a crime then what punishment do you propose? Should I be jailed for life? Does this mean then that freedom of religion also no longer applies to me and my (specifically in my case) fellow Roman Catholics (anyone following any christian faith or Islam, please count your selves as being in the same boat as me)?

If that is the case then what relgion will the state officially sanction as being legal? Will everyone have to become athiest? It's possible as most of the major religions in the world do happen to condem homosexuality...

Brilliant savage, just brilliant.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
Some people consider it to be quite equivilent... I once dated a girl that was appauled by the fact that I was very appathedic about the idea of gay marriage. Got grilled about "well what if you have a child that turns out to be gay"...

Savage, you have a very very bad habbit of thinking that whatever you think is right, and that everyone in the world just sees things your way. Big shocker here, there are people out there that equate "gays should not be allowed to marry because it goes against the teachings of Jeasus Christ and basic morality" with hate speach. If it was up to them, this would be a crime punishable with time spent in prison. Thankfully the founding fathers of my nation are quite a bit smarter than both them and you.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, your last paragraph just proved my point... Thankfully, as a US (and Italian) citizen have the freedom to be a Roman Catholic, and the legal freedom to either beleive what I'm taugh wholly or selectivly. If you don't like it, then well that is your problem because I can't be prosecuted for being religious.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where does hate for gays come from? the religious teachings that tell people it's wrong. Thats where 99.9% of hate comes from, religion.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 3:32:23 PM , Rating: 1
Right, now show me where I said we have to ban all religion?

That's where the concept of right and wrong, morality originates from.

You've taken a simple statement of opinion and turned it around to try and say I feel religion should be policed.

That's called pulling suppositions out of your ass.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you ban or attack free speach, by default you ban or attack freedom of religion, and then all of our basic freedoms. What you don't understand is free speach (i.e. defending peoples rights to gather up in a square and shout "white power") is the foundation of all of our basic freedoms. With out it we have no freedoms.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 4:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "There is a point at which people should draw a line and decide not all ideas are worth being defended."

Who decides which ideas are acceptable, and which you should be jailed/assaulted/killed/whatever for speaking? You?

> "I would like to see how far American free speech actually goes if someone were to organize an al-queda rally and see what the reception is."

And a hundred years ago, you'd see an even worse reception for a civil rights rally or a gay rights parade. By your own logic, that means that neither of those two ideas are worth defending.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 4:17:16 PM , Rating: 1
And you think in 100 years we will be having an-queda rallies and neo nazi marches that are considered a good thing by the majority?

If so that will mean that our society at a whole is not what it is now.

Any given society dictates what is and what is not acceptable in it in it's given state. In ours you are going to be pretty hated for organizing a neo nazi march or an al-queda rally. That doesn't make it right for anyone ever to go and harm said neo-nazis or al-queda supporters, It might mean that there should be a law against gathering in a public place and shouting white power and sneering at blacks.

You are comparing extremist examples of persecution from other societies to reasonable blocking of something society as a whole deems unacceptable. Ideas that incite racial hatred, hatred based on sexual orientation, are not of any value to anyone, at best. At worst they incite acts of violence against those targets. I won't ever see a point in defending them.

As to expressing hate for the other rather smug poster in this conversation. That is personal one on one dislike of one person to another person, based on that persons behavior. A big difference from hatred toward a race or religion.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
As long as no specific threats are made, why not? Why would an al quida rally be baned short of rally members chanting about attacking specific targets? The only limitation where speach is not protected is specifically in the case where you are threatening specific harm, or where it actually endagners the lives of people. Short of that benchmark, you can say anything you want (as it should be).


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 4:47:02 PM , Rating: 1
If an organization is threatening by it's nature, IE it's fundamental goal is something harmful or illegal why shouldn't it be blocked. If the message is to kill yanqui infidels, or that the death camps need to be reinstated for the Jews, even if that isn't whats openly said but the ultimate goal of the organization. why is that a message that should be allowed to be spread.

There is a difference between blind freedom of speech and reasonable. If the underlying goal of an ideal is to cause harm or commit crime, it is of no value.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 4:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
Al Quida it's self is a terrorist organization, I'm not sure what laws apply regard being specifically affiliated with a terrorist organization. Having a rally which does not specifically threaten anyone but does support an organization such as al quida isn't nessesarly illegal, nor should it be.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "you think in 100 years we will be having an-queda rallies and neo nazi marches that are considered a good thing by the majority?"

That's really what you're afraid of, isn't it? That people might *like* some of these unpopular ideas, and therefore you feel justified in repressing them.

You've just made the case for free speeech. The Majority always supports the status quo, and fights against any change. Freedom of speech and people daring to express unpopular ideas is why we no longer live in a 13th century society, with 13th century ideals. Because some of those ideas eventually took root, and changed society.

Society once believed that slavery and torture was appropriate, that heretics should be put to death, that those of differing races were to evil by default, that unwanted children or the elderly should be allowed to starve to death. Anyone suggesting otherwise would be quickly shouted down, or worse. Since the Majority had already decided which ideas were right and which weren't, there was no need to allow anyone to express a contrary opinion.

Thank free speech, or we'd still be living in such times.

> "Ideas that incite hatred based on sexual orientation are not of any value to anyone"

Necrophilia, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality are all sexual orientations. By your logic, speaking out against any of those should be banned as well. Starting to see the problem yet?

"But thats different!", you'll cry. "Those are bad, and homosexuality isn't!". Well at one time society thought the exact opposite. Which society was right? And if ours is...why did opinions change?

Ingrained in your attitude is the very essence of parochialism. You feel your own opinions and belief-set, the ones you hold right now, are all true, perfect, and incapable of any improvement. So why listen to any of those new-fangled ideas, when you're already got the perfect set already, eh?

Myself, I'm willing to listen to unpopular ideas. It doesn't mean I have to accept them. More importantly, I'm willing to let other people listen, and let them judge for themselves. That's what freedom means.

Why not try it yourself sometime?


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "What defines something as a good idea or a bad idea is whether it supports the idea of harm to individuals or groups"

Exactly. Saying "homosexuality is bad" does't advocate harm. Saying "Let's go kill all those damn queers" does. The former is protected by free speech, the latter is not.

It's really very simple, isn't it?

> "If someone wants to speak out against pedophilia it is justified, pedophilia is illegal"

At one time, homosexuality was illegal and pedophilia legal. Had we followed your logic, we'd still be jailing homosexuals and allowing the rape of children, because no one would be allowed to speak out against it.

> "In the same turn if joe redneck farmer wants to marry his pony...let him have at it if it isn't causing anyone or anything harm."

Ah, but society has decided that bestiality IS harmful. It is illegal...and by your logic, you shouldn't even be allowed to say what you just did.

See? You're just digging yourself in deeper.

> "[homesexuality] does not cause harm to an unwilling party."

At one time, society believed it did. Their opinions changed...because people were allowed to disagree and speak their minds.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 5:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
No I see that you are arguing in a circular manner and quoting selectively to support your opinion.

You completely ignored the entire concept of what makes things right or wrong.

I explicitly stated that my opinion is that something wrong is determined by whether it causes unwanted and unreasonable harm to someone else. You chose to reinterpret my initial statement that society equates law with right and wrong as my belief.

You know I don't have much use for someone that converses with such a smug attitude as yourself, grossly twisting and manipulating others statements into their own version of it and putting out smug remarks about them "digging themselves in deeper"

I would have to suggest to perhaps get over yourself.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:08:06 PM , Rating: 1
> "You completely ignored the entire concept of what makes things right or wrong"

No, I specifically identified and addressed it. "Wrong" spech is that which directly advocates harm or criminal action. "Right" speech is anything that does not, no matter how unpopular or unsavory we find it.

> "You know I don't have much use for someone that converses with such a smug attitude "

I prefer it to simply shouting "idiot, "moron", and "asshole" as a certain someone has been doing.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 6:46:09 PM , Rating: 4
This is just painful to watch. Everyone else on both sides is arguing fairly intelligently, but Sir Potato is just getting torn to shreds. I don't think he even realizes how bad he's making himself look :(


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/11/2007 4:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I prefer it to simply shouting "idiot, "moron", and "asshole" as a certain someone has been doing.


Isn't that what I did? Good job backing me up.

Funny by your own dumb logic, I'm hurting the ideals of free speach by calling this guy an ass... Doesn't that mean he's hurting the ideals of free speach by calling homosexuals fags? Again good one.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 5:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who decides which ideas are acceptable, and which you should be jailed/assaulted/killed/whatever for speaking? You?


Well that's an easy one for me. If you joke about killing someone. Religion aside. Cause let's be honest; try and argue how this has been, is, or ever will be, an acceptable human ideal. I never said the guy should be jailed, killed or anything of the like. I just posted that he's an ignorant ass. And that I bet he's filled with even more ignorant information that he only has the balls to express online.

Now this other moron decides to defend him, yet another ignorant person. Why? Because the first poster had a right to free speech? No. Of course he has that right, I never debated it. It's the same right I have when I call both guys ignorant. Why did the second poster decide to argue? Because he obviously has nothing better to do than assume I'm knocking free speech. Spend your time elsewhere, arguing with people who enjoy arguing. I don't. I just meant to point out that the OP was an ass. I mean unless you don't think he's an ass. Cause then you'd be agreeing with him and you think it is funny to use slang that means to burn someone alive. Then you're an ass.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Because he obviously has nothing better to do than assume I'm knocking free speech."

When you say its not "OK" to use a specific word, or to state specific ideas, you're knocking free speech.

> "...to use slang that means to burn someone alive"

Nonsense. First of all, you've accepted an urban myth about the etymology of the word "faggot". Second of all, even if it did originally have that meaning, it no longer does. All words drift over time. At one time, the word "awful" meant almost the exact opposite of its contemporary meaning. So if someone says "gays are awful", does that mean they're really giving a compliment? The current meaning is what counts.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nah I never said it's not "OK". "

You said sarcastically, "I guess cause it's online and no one can trace you, it's ok to throw out a word...". That's a clear implication you felt it was not OK.

And that's a clear rejection of free speech, whether or not you realize it.

> "Haha, you're arguing that fag isn't offensive, nice"

I said no such thing. It's clearly perjorative, and I made that very clear. The fact remains that the etymology of the word faggot is not definitive. Stating it means "to burn someone alive" is simply incorrect. If it did mean that long ago, it certainly doesn't any longer. Words are defined by contemporary usage. Accept it, and move on.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 5:56:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You said sarcastically, "I guess cause it's online and no one can trace you, it's ok to throw out a word...". That's a clear implication you felt it was not OK.


WTH are you talking about? I said it's not ok WITH ME, that he said that. I never said, ban him from talking or posting. You don't even know what you're arguing anymore just stop. Again not about freedom of speech at all.

quote:
The fact remains that the etymology of the word faggot is not definitive.


Since when does the etymology need to be distinctively defined for it to mean something? Again you're arguing for the sake of arguing, which by all means is Ok for the forums and for the world, but it's not OK with me so I'll complain, sorry.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "WTH are you talking about? I said it's not ok WITH ME"...I never said, ban him from talking or posting

You implied it wasn't OK. Period. In any case, others followed your post with claims that free speech didn't matter, and even going so far as to say we should illegalize unpopular ideas.

Now, if you didn't mean to imply that, then have at it.

> "Since when does the etymology need to be distinctively defined for it to mean something?"

You've misunderstood. A word means what it means today. Etymology has nothing to do with it.

The word "fag" does *not* mean "to burn someone alive". If someone claims it does, then they're referring to a highly questionable version of etymological origin, which has zero bearing on current usage.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:49:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The fact remains that the etymology of the word faggot is not definitive.


quote:
Etymology has nothing to do with it.


You brought it up and two posts later said it had nothing to do with it... brilliant.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "You brought it up and two posts later said it had nothing to do with it... brilliant. "

I didn't bring it up. I replied to the person who did to demonstrate it wasn't relevant.

Seriously, are you intentionally trying to be dense, or did you just misread the thread?


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/7/2007 12:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
You said I couldn't find it an offensive word because it isn't proven where the word comes from. You then later say, that has nothing to do with it. So can I find it an offensive word again? Pls tell me, cause I'd like to know.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 2:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "You said I couldn't find it an offensive word because it isn't proven where the word comes from. "

Lol, I said nothing of the sort. I suggest you reread the postings. Perhaps you confused my original reply to SavagePotato with one to you.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/7/2007 4:50:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The word "fag" does *not* mean "to burn someone alive". If someone claims it does, then they're referring to a highly questionable version of etymological origin, which has zero bearing on current usage.


Define it for me please. Please define the origins of the word, followed by it's current meaning, and also explain how the current mindset of the people who use the word, is in no way shape or form under the same mindset of the Known origins of the word, aka causing harm towards homosexuals.

quote:
When you say its not "OK" to use a specific word, or to state specific ideas, you're knocking free speech.


How is that knocking free speech btw? So it's impossible for me to believe in free speech, and be offended by what someone says? Please explain that one to me. Cause free speech means the ability to speak freely, and your clear definition: Being allowed to say anything without offending someone. I take it your some random barely religious white dude that's never had to feel the pains of any sort of real racism. Get off your high horse, and maybe admit you had some problems with another poster's ideals on free speech but that you have no basis to argue with me being offended by the OP's post.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 5:14:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "Please define the origins of the word, followed by it's current meaning"

Why not simply admit you misunderstood the entire debate? My position was crystal clear from the start. Yet you've consistently managed to misinterpret the plainest of English, and wind up believing I said the exact opposite of what I actually did.

As I said earlier, perhaps you misread a post. But its pretty hard to misinterpret statements like "the word fag is definitely perjorative" as "fag isn't an insult". It's even harder to convert "the origin of a word isn't relevant to current meaning" into "if we don't know the origin of a word, it has no meaning at all".

> "How is that knocking free speech btw?"

I don't know how much clearer I can make the explanation. When you state someone's use of a word is "not OK", then you're implying they have no right to use it. Changing your statement to "not OK with me" is a wholly different meaning...but that wasn't the original statement.

Now, if your original post was simply unclear and you didn't mean to suggest such, then this discussion is moot. If you want to be offended at the OP's speech, have at it. I'll fight to the death to defend your right to do so...and his right to offend you.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/7/2007 5:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
I stopped debating the issue yesterday because I very quickly got the idea that littlebitstrouds is more continuing to argue based on an assumption that we're somehow trying to defend gay bashing which is what neither of us were ever trying to do. In fact, I personally didn't jump in until certain other hot headed posters started making sweeping statements about how such speech should be illegal, a rather distasteful idea to me.

So, to littlebitstrouds... I guess if you want a clear statement of our position here... Gay bashing an prejudice is wrong, but that doesn't mean we should make the words that express gay bashing and prejudice illegal. That's all that is being said really. I think everyone just got a little too carried away with their arguments.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/7/2007 7:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll fight to the death to defend your right to do so...and his right to offend you.

Basically it boils down to so being so noble haha. What an ass. Go waste someone elses time pls.

Next time you write any kind of opinionated piece... I'll be there to make sure you type out... I think *statement*. Cause usually it's implied that any opinionated statement is an admission of one's own beliefs, otherwise there'd be a footnote. Sorry let me make that more clear for you: I think it is usually implied that any opinionated statment is an admission of one's own belief. And I think that otherwise there'd be a footnote.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 5:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
Can't speak for masher2, but I didn't join in until Savage decided to start railing against free speach hard core. I completely agree that Homophobia is wrong, but just because that's how I feel doesn't mean we should start talking about making such speach illegal (this is what savage has basically been rallying for this whole thread).


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
New ideas are always unpopular. If you ban unpopular speech, you ban anything and everything that could possibly advance society.


Didn't know hateful behavior advanced society. Good to know. Get back on topic, we're calling the OP an ass... please please please argue against that idea. No, don't pick apart how, or why we did it, express why you think he isn't.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "Didn't know hateful behavior advanced society."

You've missed the point. Any idea which differs from society's current view is unpopular. By definition. If you ban the expression of unpopular ideas, you ban all social progress. There's no way to say, "let's ban the 'bad' new ides and let the 'good' ones through". It just doesn't work that way.

> "Get back on topic..."

The original topic, as defined by you yourself, was that it was "not OK" to use certain words. If you no longer hold that position, then we're in agreement.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "people are intelligent enough as a society to decide what kinds of ideas ought to be shot down for being promoted"

They are? That's why they were shooting down ideas like "slavery is bad" and "we ought to let women vote" not that long ago? And why society in certain other places is still shooting down ideas like freedom of religion and education for women?


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 6:52:58 PM , Rating: 1
You are seriously comparing modern day north American society to the same society that instituted slavery, or preventing women to vote.

Apparently you haven't bothered to look at just how far things have progressed in the last 50 years in the way of tolerance. This is a totally different age, one where information is exchanged instantly around the world. Enlightenment is spreading, more slowly in some places than others.

If we need such severe training wheels at this point that we cannot make a judgment that something like pedophilia isn't something we want advocated openly then we are going nowhere.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:46:21 PM , Rating: 1
WOW. So your argument style is simply frustrating the other person and not actually come up with your own idea? I just answered the question you just asked and you ask it again. I said the original poster, I believe, is an ass and it's not ok with me. Hold up let me retype that since Bold seems to be your only way of listening. I said the original poster, I believe is an ass and it's not ok with me . I mean are you trying to change my damn point of view that I should be accepting of people saying hateful things around me? If that's the case, lemme come to your house and call your wife a bitch and see if you are so accepting. What a damn moot argument. Again I challenge you, to argue against what the OP and I have obviously disagreed on. If you argue your own damn beliefs, I could care less but for Gods sake, stick to that.

Man, I could care less about the damn free speech question. That debate will go on forever. Rest assured you're ideal isn't right either. Since you seemed so obliged to let someone else know that thinking theirs is was right was sooooo very wrong of them, I'll go ahead and do the service for you.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 3:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "You sir are a total and complete moron, and an a-hole"

You put this in the same post speaking out against "spreading hate"? Does anyone else find this funny?

> "I believe religion is a sham, thats that"

Not that long ago, you'd have been burned alive for saying that. Eventually a few free thinkers managed change that, by their persistently voicing a very unpopular idea. See how important free speech is?

By the way, in a few countries even today, your statement would be considered as "inciting hate", and you would be prosecuted accordingly.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
What most amuses me is that one the one hand he talks about how all this hate speach is not at all defended by freedom of speach, yet on the other hand where I present a senario where I would be imprisoned for life due to my religious beleifs causing me to share the opion that homosexuality is wrong he back tracks and denies he ever stated that we shouldn't have these freedoms... Which is it? I mean really... You can't pick and choose what you allow under free speach... Savage just isn't getting that.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 5:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does this mean that my stating "I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry because homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ/Mohammad/whoever" is a crime?


Oh yeah, ha, yeah that is a crime. One we somehow seem to overlook everyday. Separation between church and state. In fact marriage as a religious ideal shouldn't even been "sanctioned" by the U.S. Government. If you think Gays want to get married for religious acceptance, than you're an idiot. Most couples want to get married for tax breaks, insurance, and other perks of marriage. I just think it's funny cause in like 50 years we'll laugh about the whole thing the same way we laugh about slavery. In like a, wow what a stupid idea that was huh?

Further down someone compares crap like pedophilia and others to homosexuality, what a joke. It's something not even worth rebutting, as you obviously have no idea what the issue is.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 5:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to not understand the meaning of seperation of church and state in any way shape or form... Using religion to justify "my opinion" that gays should not be allowed to marry does not violate the sepeartion of church and state. Why do you ask? Because I am not making the statement in any official governmental capacity. I'm simply, as an individual stating that "I beleive gay people should not be allowed to marry due to my religious beliefs"... Heck, I can even say "My christian faith teaches me that homosexuality is an aboration, therefore I don't think we should allow them to marry". Again, this is ok because the statement doesn't threaten anyone, it simply points out my feelings as an individual.

It should be noted yet again, that I don't personally subscribe to these idea's. I'm using them as examples of what protected speach is.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 5:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about the government not allowing people to marry. Didn't realize the big public debate was actually being waged in the Vatican and not in congress at all. Silly me.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 5:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
It is being waged in congress as we speak, though even then the issue of allowing homosexuals to marry isn't directly a religious one. I know people who are both athiests, and oppose allowing homosexuals to marry. So the statement about gay marriage somehow violating the sepearation of church and state would be false, even if most people do use religion to justify their beleifs.

An example of violating church and state would be forcing students to pray before starting classes at public school (oh yes, I did just go there and open a whole new can of worms). The reason why this would violate church and state is because the "state" in the form of a public school is suddenly endorsing religion, and mostly likely christianity specifically.

Again, on the other hand if a law were to be passed dissallowing gay marriage, the fact that supporters of the law used religion to justify their position is not a violation in and of its self.

To be perfectly honest I think at this point this is about the last post I have for this subject. Yes, gay bashing is wrong. Sure, probably gay people should be allowed to marry (I could care less either way). On the otherhand I do love the fact that the new domestic partner laws mean that if I find my self dating a girl who lacks medical insurance my company will be forced to provide her coverage, I see that as a huge positive resulting from the current compramise with the religious right. Anyway, yes hateful speach is wrong and I certainly do hope everyone would choose not to listen to such words. But sadly I do have to hope that the clan is never barred from having another sickening pro white rally, because I shudder to think of what the consequences of dening them that right will be.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is being waged in congress as we speak, though even then the issue of allowing homosexuals to marry isn't directly a religious one. I know people who are both athiests, and oppose allowing homosexuals to marry. So the statement about gay marriage somehow violating the sepearation of church and state would be false, even if most people do use religion to justify their beleifs.


Eh, I'll be nice, cause I think you're in the right place, and only got caught up in the free speech talk like most of us. But I'm interested what these atheist have against gay marriage, like their actual arguing points? I personally feel like the true heart of the matter is that to many of the Christian ideals are woven into our politics and that's what's effecting the vote every time. Try running for congress and saying you don't believe in God, that won't get you elected anytime soon. It's a catch 22 unfortunately.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 6:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
In answer to your question, some people are simply homophobic, or at the very least adverse to anything they consider "normal". I hope you don't see these posts as attacks against you or anything like that, I've just grown tired of people being attacked for expressing their opionions about whatever the hot button issue of the day is...

I'll forgo my examples because some of the issues that anger me most are still hot button issues and sure to start a whole other tangent with DT forum members calling for eachothers blood. It's bad enough that we do so over issues such as HD DVD v. blu ray...


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 6:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, and the debate as to whether Bay's transformers accuratly captures the spirit of "Transformers" is just classic... No nerds in this forum, nope I don't see any nerds here at all!

(Like, I'm not a hugo nerd m'self or anything ;) )


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/7/2007 4:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
To sum up:

1. I just wanted to point out that I thought the OP was a jerk, pointless probably, seeing as he's probably just some immature 19 year old that likes to OC his new Intel and make such posts online.

2. Masher likes to argue pointlessly cause he probably likes to hear himself talk, and needs to find a better cause for arguement.

3. Transformers was one of those movies you see and while watching you enjoy it but suddenly you realize you won't watch it again probably, and if the sequel comes out you'll probably go and see it just cause you're a huge nerd.

4. I hate this dual format war, I'll just wait till the dust settles, as I don't have a few hundred to throw away if I guess wrong.


RE: Michael Bay
By Hawkido on 12/6/2007 5:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with F.A.G
Matt Daemon and Ben Aflack are members.

LOL I think i pee'd myself writing that.

Clearly this is s case of "Certain People" needing to watch more television.


RE: Michael Bay
By mezman on 12/8/2007 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha...Maaaatt Daaaamooooon.....


RE: Michael Bay
By SeeManRun on 12/5/2007 8:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
Team America


RE: Michael Bay
By gsellis on 12/7/2007 7:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
You know what is really funny? F.A.G. is a joke in Team America. MB is not the president of the Screen Actors Guild .


RE: Michael Bay
By gsellis on 12/7/2007 7:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
Dang it, replied at the wrong post


Idiot
By TomZ on 12/5/2007 4:35:02 PM , Rating: 5
Michael Bay is an idiot. He should stick to making movies and keep his mouth shut when it comes to "corporate politics" and high-definition formats, since he clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

And I personally hope that Microsoft legally takes him to task for asserting that they paid for the exclusive deal (does he have any evidence of this?) and for trying to derail the formats.

After all, what would Microsoft have to gain from everything going online? Microsoft doesn't own ISPs or other service providers that would directly benefit from this. So his assertion doesn't even make any logical sense.




RE: Idiot
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/5/2007 4:41:18 PM , Rating: 5
While I don't doubt digital downloads will supplant doom HD disc formats, Microsoft is very much looking forward to making money between then and now too.


RE: Idiot
By JSK on 12/5/2007 9:20:40 PM , Rating: 3
I still feel that it will be sometime before streaming or downloads become a mainstay.

For one, noting that most of us here at Dtech arent average tech consumers, the average person in my experience still prefers hard copies of their movies. Its slowly changing, much like it did with music. However dvds/blu/hd are still considered a solid value by a majority of people I have come in to contact with.

I think of my friends for example, while not exactly techy, they get around enough to download movies and tv shows, yet they still burn them to discs to play on their dvd/divx players. They dont like to keep their content on their hard drive like I prefer to. And thats just the semi knowledgeable crowd.

Add to that the fact that for the most part broadband speeds around the country arent fast enough for the average person to be downloading your standard HD content. x264, etc, maybe.

I dont feel downloading this content will become a standard ala dvd, till well after these formats are done. Id say its a safer bet that it happens around the time of the next "big" format, holographic, or whatever it may be.


RE: Idiot
By Blight AC on 12/6/2007 10:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
One of the things that has surprised me is Netflix's streaming service. I've watched streaming movies, like Heroes episodes streaming from Netflix and was pretty impressed with the quality. It's not exactly, cable quality, as there are occasionally noticeable compression artifacts, but considering I'm streaming it over a wireless connection that runs about 250-350kbps (which is about 1/3 my current home bandwidth), it's not bad at all.

If I get a Wireless N adapter for my Laptop, I'll be able to run full throttle and should be able to stream at HD cable quality, for high quality video on demand with maybe a minute of buffer. The only real problem is Netflix's streaming movie selection is a bit lacking, but that they are offering both Dexter and Heroes Seasons 1 and 2 available for instant viewing is pretty nice.

If I could eventually watch all my TV/movies on demand, without needing a DVR, I'd be a very happy person. But I'd much rather pay a monthly fee for it, like Netflix offers, then a often much higher per show/movie download, like that offered by Microsoft.

The only problem with on demand media is some stupid limitations. Netflix has a limited selection, and has a limited amount of time that you can view monthly (number of hours based on your monthly service fee, $15/mo = 15 hours), but I've never reached the limit because they don't have enough content I'm interested in. Microsoft has absurdly high rental cost for an effectively 1 time view of a movie (ooh, I can watch it again in the next 24 hours, it's retarded) and I basically have to download the full movie before even watching it. Time Warner Cable offers on demand, but most of the on demand content is standard definition, and their HD on demand content is severely lacking (at least the last time I checked).

If one company could get it together, offering popular streaming content of at least 720p quality, for either a decent monthly fee, or a respectable per hour fee, it would probably be the new media, at least for those who have at least 3 Mbps internet connections. This whole per movie rental fee, is so... 90's. If the shows that I currently enjoy watching were available on this service I'd gladly pay the money I currently do for cable TV to replace it with a $1 per hour streaming video service.


RE: Idiot
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2007 4:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
> "I personally hope that Microsoft legally takes him to task ..."

Unfortunately, such a suit would cost them far more than any settlement they'd get. Bay would get massive airtime for his conspiracy theories, and a compliant media would cast Microsoft as a corporate bully attempting to restrict free speech.


RE: Idiot
By Dactyl on 12/5/2007 4:46:54 PM , Rating: 3
Plus, with civil discovery obligations, Microsoft would have to open up a tremendous amount of private information for Mr. Bay's team to look at. Every big company rightfully values its privacy. It's just not worth it.


RE: Idiot
By mcnabney on 12/5/2007 11:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Discovery doesn't work that way.


RE: Idiot
By phattyboombatty on 12/6/2007 9:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it does. If Microsoft sued Bay, it would definitely have to pony up all internal correspondence, emails, agreements, etc., having anything at all to do with Microsoft's actions regarding HDDVD. A defense to a defamation action is for the alleged defamer to prove that the alleged defamations are true. In order to do that, Bay is entitled to (almost) all documents in Microsoft's possession that could show whether his statements were true.


RE: Idiot
By mcnabney on 12/6/2007 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Bay, and by default, his company has accused another company of bribery or collusion. That is an actionable event since it makes the specific accusation that Microsoft made a specific payment in exchange for some sort of consideration. It will be very easy for Microsoft, a publicly traded company who would have to account for that extra $100 million, to show that they did nothing. Microsoft would have more difficulty showing actual damages. Because of the media coverage and Bay's current standing, they might be able to.


RE: Idiot
By aharris on 12/6/2007 9:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
Would you care to enlighten us then?


RE: Idiot
By mcnabney on 12/6/2007 12:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
Discovery is a process of requesting specific documents, disclosures, and depositions during the pre-trial phase. It is not the fishing expedition that everyone thinks it is. All requests need to be identified specifically and they must be directly related to the case being addressed. Discovery will never make your case for you. It does assist in understanding what the opposition is doing.

For example. The plaintiff has a witness they wish to use. Discovery would allow the defense to interview and gather relevant information on the purpose of the evidence that witness will relay. That allows the defense a chance to "get their ducks in a row" to impeach and cross-examine that witness during trial.

People think that discovery rules allow the defense to request a copy of everything that Bill Gates has every written because it might be relevant. Wrong.


RE: Idiot
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 1:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "People think that discovery rules allow the defense to request a copy of everything that Bill Gates has every written "

I don't think you're aware of quite how large a "fishing expedition" the discovery phase of many large civil suits becomes.

In this specific case, it would most certainly allow Bay to subpoena every email Gates (and every other upper-level management employee) of Microsoft has written on the topic of HD-DVD, Blu Ray, next-gen media formats, digital downloads, and a whole host of other topics peripherally related to his accusation. It would likely run into the millions of documents and (since many of those documents would also cover wholly nonrelated topics) reveal quite a bit else as well.



RE: Idiot
By jconan on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Idiot
By DrKlahn on 12/6/2007 10:04:53 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure it's very plausible. With HD movies being in the 30-50GB range and requiring at least 20Mb/s in bandwidth to stream, how practical is this with the U.S. broadband infrastructure? I'm sure downloads will happen, but it will be years before we have the needed bandwidth into every home.


RE: Idiot
By DarkPrime on 12/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Idiot
By boogle on 12/5/2007 4:48:30 PM , Rating: 1
I almost wish MS were sending of big cash sums like that, at least then one format would get universal studio support... well, apart from Sony.


RE: Idiot
By cubby1223 on 12/5/2007 4:54:19 PM , Rating: 4
You don't make logical sense.

Apple doesn't own ISPs or other service providers, yet they directly benefit from music downloads. Likewise, Microsoft most definitely *can* benefit from video downloads. Not to mention lack of interest in high def media on optical hurts PS3 sales, and who benefits from that? Our answer is once again, Microsoft! Microsoft benefits if HD DVD wins out over Blu-ray, and Microsoft also benefits if there is an unpopular stalemate resulting in poor sales on both sides.

The math is all right there.


RE: Idiot
By danz32 on 12/5/2007 4:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
And, of course at some point in time all DVD media is going to be replaced by digital downloads (when internet/download speeds are sufficient enough to handle it). So in a strange sense Bay is right

However, at this point both formats are far enough where I don't see one nessecarily failing. Some people will get Blu-Ray, others will get HD-DVD


RE: Idiot
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2007 5:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "Apple doesn't own ISPs or other service providers, yet they directly benefit from music downloads"

It seems fairly obvious that the owner of hte largest music download service will benefit from music downloads. However that's Apple-- not Microsoft.

Can Microsoft figure out a way to benefit from downloads as well? Probably so...but given they have zero market penetration there at present, they can as easily, if not moreso, benefit from media-based distribution. Meaning they have no reason whatsoever to stifle it.

Furthermore, Bay's conspiracy theory goes against historical fact. Microsoft tried quite hard to get its HDi interactive layer on Blu Ray as well, which would have given it a stake in promoting both formats.


RE: Idiot
By RamarC on 12/5/2007 5:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
apple "owns" itunes which contributes a large share to its earnings. they make money directly from media sales. microsoft's still trying to figure out how to sell music and video (to the general public outside of xbox live) and make a profit. does urge ring a bell?

microsoft doesn't benefit from hd dvd sales. i don't even think they make any money from vc-1 licensing since (someone will correct me if i'm wrong) they gave their implementation of the codec to the mpeg standards body. microsoft xbox got on the hd dvd bandwagon because, like all other high def dvd 'players', they have to pay a licensing fee for the format they're supporting and no one's gonna pay fees to both hd media camps.

vista has no built in hd dvd or bluray support. they only implemented the drm protection necessary because they want to remain 'friends' with content providers and they want to increase sales of vista and make it os of choice for high-definition media. what high definition media makes no difference to microsoft when it comes to vista.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/mi...


RE: Idiot
By Oregonian2 on 12/5/2007 6:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Likewise, Microsoft most definitely *can* benefit from video downloads.


Likewise, Microsoft most definitely *can* benefit from HD-DVD.

Likewise, Microsoft most definitely *can* benefit from Blu-Ray.

Not much of an argument because the *can* benefit from something. Microsoft can benefit from most anything if they build a business around it.

I think directors named Michael must be idiots (Moore being the other that comes to mind).


RE: Idiot
By wetwareinterface on 12/6/2007 3:58:13 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
I think directors named Michael must be idiots (Moore being the other that comes to mind).


I'd tend to agree if it weren't for Michael Mann. And while Miami Vice was a let down...

Heat
Collateral
Last of the Mohicans

all were extremely good.


RE: Idiot
By Oregonian2 on 12/5/2007 6:28:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Apple doesn't own ISPs or other service providers, yet they directly benefit from music downloads.


You're making an argument that Microsoft can build a business by selling 20-GB movies for online download (to match HD/BLU quality) and justifying it because Apple can make a business selling 2-MB (or whatever) sized songs for download. Even when Microsoft can't match Apple's success for songs (and even then, Apple's success isn't in the selling of songs, it's in the selling of iPods).

Not a strong argument, IMO.


RE: Idiot
By Orbs on 12/5/2007 4:55:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
He should stick to making movies


No he shouldn't. His movies are terrible. Transformers was a mockery. It had 3 things going for it which had nothing to do with good directing...

1. Good looking cast.
2. Great special effects (the transforming and wonton destruction were awesome).
3. Callbacks to the cartooon (transforming sounds, Prime's voice, "One shall stand and one shall fall"...)

The plot was abysmal, the dialog was horrendous and sadly was his best film to date.


RE: Idiot
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2007 5:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Come on now, The Rock and Bad Boys were both good, solid entertainment. Bay's never going to be labelled a great artist, but he can make a decent movie now and then.


RE: Idiot
By Mitch101 on 12/5/2007 5:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else feel Michael Bay is one comment away from Making Man-Bear-Pig the movie with Al Gore?


RE: Idiot
By feraltoad on 12/5/2007 5:54:01 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, the comments on the blog are really written by the Michael Bay character from South Park, which subsequently escaped from Imagination Land. I'm cereal.


RE: Idiot
By ImSpartacus on 12/5/2007 7:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, now it makes sense. I am super duper cereal!


RE: Idiot
By Orbs on 12/5/2007 5:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I did like those two, and forgot he directed them.


RE: Idiot
By Noya on 12/5/2007 6:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at IMDB, they were his first two big-budget movies. Guess he's gotten kind of lazy or lost his touch...


RE: Idiot
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 3:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
It happens quite often...look at Tarantino for instance.


RE: Idiot
By wetwareinterface on 12/6/2007 4:08:34 AM , Rating: 3
the ONLY decent michael bay film to date has been The Island.

every other michael bay/jerry bruckheimer film has been a disaster of re-hashing the same damn overdramatic, voiced-over by background charachter telling you how bad ass the hero is, oversaturated color, overhead to pan down to up-the-nose shot moment with swelling heroic music playing crap.

it's in bad boys
the rock (3 times even, once for sean connery's character's background and again for the bio of General Hummel by the seal team leader, and the difficult decision by the president speach)
armagedon (twice again, billy bob thorton both times talkin bout how blah blah blah bad ass drilling bruce willis character is, and how end of the earth the comet headin for us is)
pearl harbor (roosevelt talkin about how america needs to have a symbolic victory etc... lets go bomb japan)
etc...


RE: Idiot
By logaldinho on 12/6/2007 10:02:40 AM , Rating: 1
if you are suggesting that the island was better than armagedon, or the rock then something is wrong with you. im not even submitting that arma or rock were good movies, but that were enjoyable. something that i cannot say for the island, a horrible POS with absolutely no acting range from the leads. btw i have loved more than a few of ewans films so i can only blame the director for not bringing the performer in him out.


RE: Idiot
By HaZaRd2K6 on 12/6/2007 7:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
If you think that's his only decent film to date, it's because it was actually based on a book.

Go out and read "The Experiment" by John Darnton (I think, not 100% sure on the author). I read that book years ago and pretty much everything in "The Island" correlates to something in that book with very minor differences in the plot.


RE: Idiot
By EnderJ on 12/5/2007 6:37:11 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not alone after all.

I hated Transfomers. All the memories I had from watching the show as I grew up were tossed on the floor and stomped on by Bay's mockery.

Optimus Prime was a Cabover, not a long nose Peterbuilt! And WTF is with all those Flames?

The cop car Transfomer was an Autobot, not a Decepitcon.

They look like crap, they spent way too much time making tiny lil details that I could care less about.

Bubble Bee was not a Camero, sure I like Cameros better then VW Bugs, but still.

Ratchet was an Ambulance, not a Search & Rescue Hummer.

The camera work sucked, if theres a fight going on I don't want to be watching it from the inside of an SUV through the windows!

Starscream was on of my fav's He said one damn line in the movie, and his voice sucked, nor was he constantly trying to stab Megatron int he back..

Last but not least..

Who the F*** is Sam? What did he do with Chip?


RE: Idiot
By noirsoft on 12/5/2007 7:12:32 PM , Rating: 5
You not only don't remember your childhood very well, you didn't read up on the reasons why the movie designs were what they were:

1) The reason for this was to map Optimus taller. Also, there aren't many trucks the style of classic Optimus on the road anymore.

2) There were several "cop car transformers" -- While the first (Prowl) was indeed an Autobot, there were ones on all sides. Barricade is a character new to the movie. So what?

3) So? Some people like those details. They certainly looked alot more plausible than the cartoons & comic versions did, and alot more dynamic than the toys.

4) VW (And BMW too) have said that they will never allow their car images to be licensed for "violent toys" like Transformers. So there was no way they could make Bumblebee a VW bug. Hardly Bay's fault.

5) So what? Next you'll be saying that since Jazz isn't a Porche 911 with racing stripes on it, that's a flaw too. Are you aware of how many Transformer characters have been re-used for new designs? Most of them. Just because Ratchet is one of the few that hasn't seen the name used since G1 doesn't make him holy.

6) This you can blame Bay on. I thought the camera was abit too busy myself.

7) You didn't mention that Megatron didn't turn into a handgun as a flaw! What kind of Tfan are you? Back to reality... Very few of the Decepticons talked at all in the movie. Starscream lived up to the character (coward) even if he didn't have all the lines. Again I must say "So what?"

You seem to feel that any change from the G1 characters is inherently bad without any justification. You give fans abad name.


RE: Idiot
By xsilver on 12/5/2007 10:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
1) Having Optimus as a long nose was fine but the flames made him look too wannabe aka Rodimus prime. The moving mouth didnt help either and was too reminiscent of beast wars rather than G1.

2) There were no police / rescue vehicles as decepticons in the original G1 series. You're thinking of repaints when they tried to hock more toys off to collectors. It made it very easy to identify autobots and decepticons in G1, in the movie there was no distinguishing theme for either the autobots or decepticons.

3) Cant disagree there, although I would have liked more subtle destruction of transformers than was shown. eg. a TF getting an arm blown off or at least metal bits falling off when they were hit.

4) Throw Porsche in there as well, but the real problem lies within the fact that the whole damn movie looked like a GM commercial. Also what was the deal with bumblebee being able to change from an old comaro to a new one? why not change into a abhrams tank instead? that totally didnt make sense?!

The whole movie for me was reduced down to about 5 minutes of action where they were fighting over a shoebox (spark).
That whole scene where they were trying to find the glasses at his house was memorably bad.

In comparison to other sci-fi franchises; x-men and spiderman have probably done their hard core fans a bit more justice. Here's hoping the second one turns out a bit better.


RE: Idiot
By Spotacus on 12/6/2007 12:06:32 AM , Rating: 3
Just wanted to say that there was a distinguishing theme for the movie:

Autobots were GM vehicles and had blue eyes.

Decepticons were Ford/military vehicles and had red eyes.


RE: Idiot
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 12:11:38 AM , Rating: 3
Right, blu is good and red is evil, ironic isn't it?


RE: Idiot
By Blight AC on 12/6/2007 10:31:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
That whole scene where they were trying to find the glasses at his house was memorably bad.


Actually, that was the worst of it for me. I can't believe how retarded that scene was, and for how annoyingly long it stretched out for, if it was a mere minute, ok... but it was just so annoyingly drawn out. Most of the rest of it was acceptable for me, and I always have my 20th Anniversary, Transformers: The Movie DVD if I want REAL transformers action.

The camera angle was annoying, but the idea behind it was to view the fight from the "person on the street" view. I don't think it came off well at all, but I could see the artistic goal of it, just not fitting for the Transformers world IMO. You can't enjoy bigger then life Transformers at a 6 foot height.


RE: Idiot
By therealnickdanger on 12/6/2007 12:21:50 PM , Rating: 3
IMO, the spirit of TF was brought forward in the movie exceptionally well, despite nagging changes from G1 "canon". I use "canon" lightly. I consider myself a pretty hardcore G1TF fan, and I loved the movie - I thought it was the most entertaining movie I've seen in a LONG time. It's campy, corny, and cheesy... just like the original cartoon.

I rewatched all the toons on DVD and if you can claim that there is consistency about the G1 series, then I have to laugh in your face. The production studios frequently screw up color schemes, proportions/scale, plot devices, and even character voicework. Every single episode is exactly the same: Megatron steal Energon, Optimus defend, some stupid human/alien gets caught in the middle. The movie portrayed this part better than I could have hoped.

The movie wasn't perfect, but it was sure-as-hell more consistent and better acted than the cartoon ever was. I agree that Bay spent too much time with human side-stories, but they were relevant and entertaining. My only gripe with the whole movie, honestly, was the Jar-Jar-Binks-like character in the form of Frenzy. It was cool when he would fight, but not when he would talk... ugh.

TF-film-haters, you can have your opinion, but I submit that your opinion of the original series is built up too much in your memory. In the end, the cartoon was horribly produced with weak stories, yet with suprisingly excellent voicework: all just to sell toys. The movie gives more credibility and caters to the spirit of the franchise more than the cartoon ever did.


RE: Idiot
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 1:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent post, Nick. I'd rate you up if I could.


RE: Idiot
By glitchc on 12/6/2007 4:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please. Transformers canon doesn't just come from the original cartoons. Much of it was expanded by the multiple recent (90's) TV series' such as Beast Wars and Beast Machines. Granted, Beast Machines was a little odd, but Beast Wars really added a lot of depth and character to the Transformer universe.

For a species that happens to be far smarter/wiser than us humans, the movie definitely portrayed them as a bunch of imbeciles. The characters were half-drawn, one-dimensional. Even Optimus Prime came off as rather impatient and childish. Not something you would expect from someone so wise. Much of the cleverness and politicking that made Megatron so characteristic was missing from the movie. Megatron was NEVER the type of character who preferred total destruction. Rather than make the movie about the robots, as it should've been, it was focused primarily on the two humans. This anthropocentric approach, which struck me as very egotistical, completely turned me away from what could have been an excellent movie about two alien factions fighting over something with humans caught in the middle.

The camerawork was just the icing on an incredibly tasteless cake.


RE: Idiot
By xsilver on 12/6/2007 7:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I've always wondered when people say they are "hardcore" fans, what does that mean?

you have all the dvd's?
I think to be hardcore you have to have all the toys. (g1)

That is where the true canon of the series comes from, takara created the microman and diaclone series in the 70's.
For me the toys sold the show, not the other way around.

While I admit, the movie, even before it came out was probably going to be a lose lose situation. I just didnt expect the movie to turn out with so many glaring oversights. I dont really hate the movie but its not something i'd go out of my way to watch again.

The cheezy campy humor was done well in the original movie because watching back today the jokes played out to both kids and adults. In the new movie, it felt like all the jokes were aimed at 8 year olds and I literally cringed for those jokes.

btw. I kinda did admit above that I own all the G1 toys; thats not actually true - im still missing 1 or 2 (the most bloody expensive ones!)


RE: Idiot
By retrospooty on 12/5/2007 11:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Your a mega dork for knowing all that ;) and as for the movie, its all GM cars, notice the theme? GM some way or another paid alot for the changes.


RE: Idiot
By retepallen on 12/6/2007 8:24:05 AM , Rating: 2
GM supposedly paid $3M for the use of their cars in the movie.

It's a bit sad for hardcore fans, but money does talk.


RE: Idiot
By AstroCreep on 12/5/2007 5:22:41 PM , Rating: 1
It would be more effective (and better for Mother Earth) if MS just hired a hitman to take care of Mr Bay instead of an attorney.


RE: Idiot
By gumbi18 on 12/5/2007 7:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Michael Bay is an idiot.


Michael Bay may very well be an idiot but I'm sure that his comments are very damaging to Megatron... Oh wait sorry Microsoft...


RE: Idiot
By DOSGuy on 12/6/2007 3:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
He definitely does need to keep his mouth shut. Actually, maybe it would be better if something he said came back to bite him in the ass. I wish he would just get it over with and start jumping up and down on Oprah's couch so that the world could write him off as crazy and stop reporting his rants as "news".


RE: Idiot
By grampaw on 12/10/2007 5:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Michael Bay is spot on correct - chaos in the marketplace is good. Chaos lets an outsider (digital downloads) restore stability and take control. The wild card here nobody seems to realize, is Apple. If I were a betting man, I would place my money on Apple eventually taking control of the video digital market, complete with Studio contracts and user-friendly hardware, and leaving Microsoft and Sony in the dust with their hi-def DVD containers war.


Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Mitch101 on 12/5/2007 5:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible.


I would like Michael Bay to enlighten me on the difference between 1080P on HD-DVD and 1080P on Blu-Ray and point out visually where Blu-Ray is superior to HD-DVD.

If there were a superior format I think Marketing would have pointed this out already.




RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By baloubic on 12/5/2007 7:01:34 PM , Rating: 1
Blu-ray has a higher data transfer rate for video and audio (54Mbps vs 36.55Mbps). The greater capacity and data transfer rates for Blu-ray allows movie studios to release their movies with higher quality video and audio than the HD-DVD format.

Sadly, the BD version is often the same as the HDDVD version in dual format releases due to the extra cost of making two different HD versions of the same movie. Exclusive titles, though, sometimes use bitrates higher than is possible on HD-DVD. Which, in turn, equals better picture quality than would have been possible with HD-DVD.

The resolution, 1080p, doesn't say much of the quality. Thats why the picture quality is noticably worse on HD television channels, even though resolution might be the same as HD movie releases.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Locutus465 on 12/5/2007 7:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, you are mistaken... Bitrate at these levels isn't making much of a difference at all, take for instance Transformers winning best HD Disc audio recently at the HD Disc awards. This bitrate myth holds about as much water as the MHz myth did in the P4 v. Athlon64 war.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By deeznuts on 12/5/2007 7:19:55 PM , Rating: 1
The audio on transformers won best audiio, they didn't win "can't be better perfection audio." THe excellent sound engineers could have made an even better track with Hi Res capability.

Uncompressed or Lossless audio is better than a DD+ track, period. It just so happens the transfomers DD+ track was better than those released this year across all movies.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Locutus465 on 12/5/2007 8:30:07 PM , Rating: 3
Why is it impossible for BD people to admit to the merits that HD DVD has? And admit to the fact that HD DVD is capable of putting out exactly the same quality video/audio as blu ray (a fact which has been proven repeatedly)? No one is trying to say that blu ray is meritless bad hardware, it's good hardware.

BD's problems are the following:
In consistent standards (see profiles)
Price
Region codes

That's it, that's the whole reason why I perfect HD DVD to BD. As far as superior bit rates making BD so much better than HD that HD can't even compare, I will defer to the HD Disc Awards and basically the whole of all published independent reviews of both formats.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By deeznuts on 12/5/2007 11:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is saying that HD DVD isn't good or can't be damn good. It is however NOT capable of putting out exactly the same quality video/audio as BD. Are you going to sit there and tell me DD+ is equal to Uncompressed PCM/TrueHD? Features supported by HD DVD by the way. In the case of transformers, at a video bitrate the studio decided to use, there wasn't enough space. Plain and simple, if there was enough space, the studio themselves would have included it, because it is better. Essential? No. Better? Yes.

High Def Awards: As stated, the sound was superb on the Transformers disc, but most likely would have been better. Without a PCM track, you can't say PCM/TrueHD is unneeded, in other cases, HD Digest has said, it has been better.

Since you want to refer to the HD Disc Awards, POTC:Dead Mans chest won best picture quality; and here is the kicker, only the Blu-Ray version of 300 won the "Title of the Year" category.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 12:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
In theory, PCM is better... In practice you run up against the wall of what a human being can detect. With Dolby TrueHD (and heck, really well done DD+) we're pretty much already at that point, so the question is what does PCM really add? In my (admitingly limited) experience the answer is not a lot, this is backed up by every reviewer out there (waiting for savage to jump in and start calling highdefdigest a bunch of HD DVD shills about now).

Again, BD is fine technology, I just don't know whether it's all entirly justified at this point in time given the price delta between HD DVD and the mess that is Sony's profiles. If BD does eventually ever produce a disc that can't be replicated on HD then fine, but to this date desipte the best combined efforts of Sony, Disney and Fox BD in general has failed to prove that the technology is capable of anything HD DVD is not (citing HD disc awards and all review material I've ever read anywhere). The current extra storage is nice, when (if) it ever really becomes a problem HD will move ahead with the (approved) tripple layer discs.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By theapparition on 12/6/2007 9:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
I love all this bickering about audio quality, from people who are listening to this from speakers that are assuridly discount store specials. And to give you a point of reference, Bose, JBL, and Polk are crap. Or even worse, some logitech 5.1 setup hooked up up to a PC.

Speakers will ALWAYS be the weekest point in an audio system, by far. Compounding the problem, is that imperfect speakers are now placed in a very imperfect room, with varying absorption/reflection characteristics. And people sit here and think they can tell the difference.....get real.

As Locutus465 points out, it is almost impossible for anyone to tell the difference in a home setting from TrueHD and lossless.

Not many people may like this post, but it's true and I'm telling it like it is.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By deeznuts on 12/6/2007 12:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As Locutus465 points out, it is almost impossible for anyone to tell the difference in a home setting from TrueHD and lossless.

Not many people may like this post, but it's true and I'm telling it like it is.
I don't like it because you don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is arguing TrueHD vs. PCM. Do you know what TrueHD is? It's LOSSLESS compression, which means when decoded it didn't lose anything. As I've stated in this thread it is essentially PCM zipped, when it gets to your receiver (or player in the case of the PS3) it gets decoded into ... a PCM signal. So of course you can't hear the difference, it's almost the same thing.

The one advantage that TrueHD has over PCM is with limited space sometimes studios downconvert 24/48 master audio to lower 16/48, but at this point, yes it would be harder (not impossible) to discern the difference.

The discussion is about DD+ vs. PCM/TrueHD/DTS-HD MA.

Thank you for assuming everyone in here discussing audio quality listen to "assuridly" discount store specials. What is assuridly, a synonym for crappy? ;)


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 1:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "Do you know what TrueHD is? It's LOSSLESS compression, which means when decoded it didn't lose anything"

It still loses all frequencies above the Nyquist limit. And before you point out the human ear can't hear those, remember that's the same information that lossy compression schemes remove-- what the human ear can't hear.

As long as audio compression isn't carried too far, there is no perceptual difference between lossy and lossless compression.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 1:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, the decoding process doesn't lose data regardless. Its the ENcoding process that loses data, both for lossy and lossless compression.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By ArneBjarne on 12/6/2007 6:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
By definition, a loseless encoder loses no data. If you are still refering to frequencies, then those were never there in the PCM you fed to the encoder to begin with.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 9:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
> "By definition, a loseless encoder loses no data"

Only if the data it started with was already digital...which audio sounds are not.

Let's take a hard example, shall we? Say you have a 24-bit, 48 khz lossless encoding of an analog microphone input. Right away you're losing 1/2^24 in quantization error, plus any and all frequencies above the Nyquist limit of 24 khz. Compared to that, the difference between lossless and a reasonable bitrate lossy encoding is like an extra drop of water during Hurricane Katrina.

So why is lossless encoding useful? For single-pass operations like playback, it isn't. But for doing mastering and extensive postprocessing, lossless encoding means you can make multiple re-encode/decode passes without losing a little bit more each time.

The fact remains that lossy encoding is so good now, though, that a lot of actual Hollywood-level mastering doesn't use lossless encoding. Even several reencodes doesn't usually degrade the signal enough to be audible.

Lossless for single-pass playback is about as useful as "Monster Cables" are. It sounds impressive, but the real-world advantage is nil.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Locutus465 on 12/7/2007 9:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
Shhh, we don't want it getting out that you can fully enjoy a movie encoded in DD+.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By ArneBjarne on 12/7/2007 10:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only if the data it started with was already digital...which audio sounds are not.


The decoder starts with PCM, which is indeed digital. Expanding the definition of encoding process to include everything that happened prior to the actual encoding is rather silly.

By your definition, the zip encoding process is lossy when encoding picture files, but not when encoding a eg. a word documunt. Or rather it is lossy when encoding a word document, if the document contains for instance a picture.

So again, your definition is silly and completely useless.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Vertigo101 on 12/6/2007 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And to give you a point of reference, Bose, JBL, and Polk are crap.


Sir, I must beg to differ. Just because you decided to purchase Martin Logan's, or something similarly high priced, does not make JBL speakers crap. JBL has been a highly respected speaker company since the 70's. Don't get me wrong, their low-end speakers are as flawed as everybody else's, but they do posses a roster of very impressive speakers. For the price, their Studio L series are amazingly responsive and detailed across the spectrum... and their synthesis systems are spectacular.

...And everyone knows that even Polk puts Bose to shame.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Mitch101 on 12/6/2007 4:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

I use JBL's. Most of their speakers do require a subwoofer. Of course this is normal of a lot of bookshelf speakers. If you listen to them without a sub they don't sound complete because they lack the lows. I would fault anyone that demo's JBL's without a subwoofer going. JBL's are probably the best priced speakers on the market.

I would also highly recommend people listen to Boston Acoustics.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Mitch101 on 12/6/2007 10:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
Thats so true. I compared AC3 to DTS and most of my friends prefer AC3 over DTS. The first Matrix movie is an excellent example to use for this test. My wife prefers Vinyl scratches to CD. She thinks CD's sound tinny and lacks warmth.

I think the problem lies in people knowing the technical specifications and not actually trying the items. Sound is very personal what sounds good to one person may not sound good to someone else. Hence the lousy American Idol people who think they can sing and the people around them who think they can sing. Everyone who asks me about my audio config I tell them the same thing. Take a disc you like to the store and mix and match the receiver with the speakers you like the sound on.

Bose is an example of a company that doesn't reproduce sound exactly as it should be but reproduces sound the way most people prefer. Does that make bose inferior? To people who look at the tech details yes but to those who like the sound of Bose its a worthless argument. I have found $30.00 alarm clocks that would rank with a Bose sound system.

To prove is try this alarm clock out for yourself blindfolded so you don't know which system is playing and I would bet most would pick the Emerson over the $500.00 Bose.
http://www.lnt.com/product/index.jsp?productId=220...

I think Audio is an area where people don't explore it enough like they should and just get stuck in the technical details and think they have perfect sound as apposed to listening to the equipment and determining what sounds best to them. Also consider room acoustics play a role in your sound. How many of you have used a mirror and sound reducing materials placed in the room properly to avoid audio bounce? I'm betting 1 in 50,000 do that or less. But again what sounds good to me might not sound good to my wife or friends. Sound is so personal.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By deeznuts on 12/6/2007 12:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
TrueHD = PCM essentially. They're essentially the same thing so I'm not sure what you mean in your first paragraph.

Profiles, in my view, and the extra fluff provided are a red herring. Get the movie right is all that I ask. I don't think I'm in the minority either. Hey I have nothing against HD DVD, I'm just a couple of days away (ok maybe weeks after Xmas) from buying the Toshiba drive that goes into the Xbox add-on to put in my HTPC. I have Netflix, so HD DVD can be rented with no extra costs. This is all just for Battelstar Galactica though, Love that show.

I just don't see HD DVD winning. It's getting killed in Japan 9;1, Europe is 4:1, Australia they it's about 84% Blu-Ray. They are doing decent in the US at 2:1.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 1:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's official... As of now(ish) you need to spend $800 to get any sort of BD player which is capable of the kind of SF's I can take advantage of on my $130 AD-H2.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?p=5...

Of course that will be after at least one firmware update, and even then you'll be lucky to find any studio willing to put the kind of time and effort Warner is putting into HD DVD supplaments considering only people who buy this player will be able to take advantage of them.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 10:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
In fact, here is more proof that HD DVD is in fact capable of offereing the *EXACT* same quality as Blu Ray. Warner's Harry Potter and the Order of the phonix... Now I know you want to knee jerk to "well, dual format release, they're mastering the DVD once and putting it out on both formats with the exact same specs"... That is *ABSOLUTLY NOT* the case with OOTP. In fact, Blu Boys will like seeing that while the HD version has 480i/p extra videos, the BD version does have 1080i/p varients, additionally the BD version does use 48kHz/24-bit 5.1 PCM rather than duplicating the HD DVD's TrueHD track, so if what you're saying is true and a person can hear the difference then the BD version should be clearly superior.

One other thing comes out in this dual format comparison, something HD DVD people have been saying all along... In this case the HD DVD version of the disc got the nod for being ever so slightly better because of the HD extra's (which are littlerly not possible with BD). Most notibly the community screening Feature and the Shared Fav. Sceens feature.

Blu Ray
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/harrypotter_ordero...

HD DVD
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1122/harrypotter_or...


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 10:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
So let's review here.

You expect anyone to put stock in a review by a known hd-dvd biased site. The same site that awarded Transformers a 5 out of 5 on audio despite noting distortion in the same review.

Sorry but I won't be abandoning logic anytime soon based on the opinions of reviewers on a borderline hd-dvd fansite.

Having HD special features is somehow not as good as being able to go use some stupid online function?

Yeah, I really trust the non bias of that thought process...


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 10:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
There we are... A little later than I thought, but here's the bs "highdefdigets is a bunch of hd dvd shills" response... Have you ever even bothered reading the site? They like Blu Ray every bit as much as they like HD DVD, and they have no problem recommending a BD version of a release over an HD version as they did with the Domestic The Brothers Grimm v. Japanese import version of the same movie in HD (ironically mastered by Toshiba).

You can try dismissing the evidence all you want by trying to claim the site is biased, but anyone who actually takes the time to read the reviews will see very quickly exactly how wrong you are.


RE: Hey Michael Enlighten me.
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 11:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
Right, I'm wrong and an internet special feature is enough to trump HD special features all by itself. Transformers deserves a 5 out of 5 for audio that notedly had distortion.

Most important of all I should believe that a 30mbps transfer is identical to 48mpbs totally disregarding logic and understanding of why high def looks better than standard def in the first place.

Ill sign up for subscribing to those beliefs right after my visit to santa claus down at the mall to see how things are going up in the north pole.