Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 04:00:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length

"Dogs" are everywhere

Started by difbrook, August 10, 2005, 03:49:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: "Blumf"Aren't they there to fuck up any video recordings you make (possibly to stop piracy).

Horrible little things.

I thought they used Graham Norton for that now.

Quote from: "Blumf"Aren't they there to fuck up any video recordings you make (possibly to stop piracy).

Horrible little things.
That's one of the reasons why the MTV network introduced them (i.e. so you can't get a 'clean' recording of music videos).

A lot of it might be contractual. Or something. The BBC pays design companies a lot of money to design DOGs, and I guess they want them to be used. Its probly a few Execs who've got it in their heads that DOGs are "good design" and "brand orientated" and helps strengthen the "corporate image", and if the plebs don't understand "good design", screw the ignorant fee-paying twats.

"We're so good at tell-ie" etc.

Personally I'm not too bothered by DOGs in general, although they are unneccesary and symptomatic of useless graphic design being used for no reason other than the fact it is graphic design. But the BBC's reaction is a bit nasty. A bit superior and patronising and rude.

Morrisfan82

Quote from: "Tibetan Singing Bowl"A lot of it might be contractual. Or something. The BBC pays design companies a lot of money to design DOGs, and I guess they want them to be used.
Hmm, that's a bit like saying 'I paid a lot for my new car, I suppose I want to use it'.

Quoteif the plebs don't understand "good design", screw the ignorant fee-paying twats
Yep, from the people that brought you


QuotePersonally I'm not too bothered by DOGs in general
I used to feel the same, having only ever had terrestrial telly. Then recently I got a Freeview box and realised how intrusive and ugly it is on programmes I'm trying to enjoy.

Quote from: "Muteki"Yep, from the people that brought you
(picture)

I don't mind that old BBC2 logo really. It was very much of its time, but it wasn't awful. I expect we'll look back on the current BBC Gill logos in 20 years and view them a bit differently to how we do now, in a similar manner.


Quote from: "Almost Yearly"TJ is away.

Eh?

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: "Almost Yearly"TJ is away.

Right, let's slag him off!

Clinton Morgan

QuotePerhaps though, on reflection, you might conclude that there are more important things to get cross about.

My sister gave me The Secondary Phase of 'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy' as a present yesterday (my first ever exposure to it). Now, whenever I hear an argument like that I will instantly think of The Total Perspective Vortex and how it came into existence.

Purple Tentacle

BUMP

It's a bit creepy when someone quotes something you said a year ago, however....

Quote from: "Dark Sky"I don't like 'em.  Especially the ones on kids' channels like Nickelodeon or Disney or whatever where they take up almost a third of the screen (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea).


The other night I thought 'Hmm, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles are on DisneyCinemagic tonight, I've never seen either, I might as well watch them;' the other night.

Fucking jesus titchrist, have you seen the size of the cunting DOGs on the Disney channels? Much to the ire of the wife, I got a tape measure out... the size of MICKEY FUCKING MOUSE's fucking cunting head, stuck in the corner of the bastard screen, was almost one third of the fucking height. More than a quarter, anyway.
The width was one fifth of a 16:9 screen. Maybe some clever person can tell me what percentage of the screen this is.

Unbelievable. Finding Nemo has lots of shots of wide, open sea, where composition is important, and there's the ever-present fucking Mouse logo lurking, not just in the corner, but practically in the middle of every fucking shot.

How many millions of dollars go into the animation on these films? These artists are some of the world's greatest animators,  the effort and love that's gone into making these films look fantastic is phenomonal, and some fucking cuntfuck in an editing suite has stuck a massive corporate logo over all the hard work.

If you think I'm over-reacting, you really really really have to see it for yourself. It's fucking massive, and unbelievably intrusive. (Also when the screen fades to black, all you can see is the mouse.)

Now, even assuming that DOGs are necessary, for piracy or whatever, which I dispute, but anyway, why make the cunt so big? Why not a BBC/Sky style writing logo in the corner?

It's a fucking kids channel. I can only see two ways they can justify this:
1) Kids are idiots who know nothing, so they won't mind.
2) Kids LOVE the Mickey Mouse brand (they don't), so let's give them brand awareness, brand advocacy, brand urrrrgrhhhorriblesalesbollocks

What REALLY baffles me is that they're shitting on their OWN films! They're plastering their own ugly logo over their own work, madness. Why not just put the fucking logo on the original negatives? The logo is even worse than one I saw about 10 years ago, the three circles of Mickey fucking Mouse's head as primary colours, completely fucking up Nightmare Before Christmas.

Anyway, I can't face watching The Incredibles now, they can fuck off. Does anybody know who I can write a letter of complaint to, to get this shit off my screen?

fanny splendid

Quote from: "Purple Tentacle"The width was one fifth of a 16:9 screen. Maybe some clever person can tell me what percentage of the screen this is.

20%

tee-hee!

Alberon

I've seen that DOG since Disney went from being a premium channel to a standard subscription one on Sky.

The only reasoning I can see behind such a ridiculously huge DOG is maybe Disney thinks kids are watching this on portables in their bedroom much of the time and wanted a DOG that can clearly be seen on a 15" set.

I doubt most kids care about it, so I can't see it being effective against home taping. So maybe it is more a brand identity thing.

Catalogue Trousers

Heh, buy the DVDs, PT...that does sound truly noisome, though.

DOGs irritate me greatly. So do oversized signers on such things as the screening of P'Tang, Yang, Kipperbang! t'other week.

The piracy argument is really a pretty piss-poor one - if Joe Public wants a complete run of (say) Life On Mars, then I still reckon that he's gonna want a nice shiny new "ofiicial" VHS/DVD collection rather than some hooky piece of crap from the local Derek Trotter, even if it's a couple of quid cheaper.

Oh, and re the "Mighty Boosh should have DOGs that get bigger and bigger" idea from Slackboy a page or so back - good idea. Hopefully they'd quickly blot out the entire screen while that shite was on. Or else fall on Noel Fielding and crush the pointless fucker to pulp.

Purple Tentacle

Quote from: "fanny splendid"
20%
tee-hee!

In TWO dimensions, Mr Flaps.

Suttonpubcrawl

Quote from: "Catalogue Trousers"DOGs irritate me greatly. So do oversized signers on such things as the screening of P'Tang, Yang, Kipperbang! t'other week.

Jesus, will you stop going on about that? And it's in a completely different category from DOGs, signers clearly provide a benefit to deaf people.

Quote from: "Purple Tentacle"
Quote from: "fanny splendid"
20%
tee-hee!

In TWO dimensions, Mr Flaps.

One third multiplied by one fifth is one fifteenth (unless I'm reading your post incorrectly), or 6.667%

Purple Tentacle

Bah, it doesn't sound so big now!

It was though. Massive. Bigger than Digby, the Biggest DOG in the World, and boy, he's one big fella. You can be sure of it.

Catalogue Trousers

Suttonpubcrawl wrote:

QuoteJesus, will you stop going on about that? And it's in a completely different category from DOGs, signers clearly provide a benefit to deaf people.

Sorry if I offended! Although I only posted about it once, which prompted some further discussion. And, as I made clear, I have nothing against signing, it is a good thing - but surely there's an effective way of doing it which doesn't take up a quarter of the blummen screen?

Anyway, DOGs...

lordaxil

Quote from: "aaaaaaaaaargh!"
Quote from: "Purple Tentacle"
Quote from: "fanny splendid"
20%
tee-hee!

In TWO dimensions, Mr Flaps.

One third multiplied by one fifth is one fifteenth (unless I'm reading your post incorrectly), or 6.667%

But wasn't it one-fifth of the width, so height is 9*0.2/16 = 0.1125, making the percentage area even lower, about 2.25%.

However, since this area of the screen is 100 times more annoying than the rest, maybe it actually appears to occupy 70% of the screen?

Utter Shit

Quote from: "Purple Tentacle"Anyway, I can't face watching The Incredibles now, they can fuck off. Does anybody know who I can write a letter of complaint to, to get this shit off my screen?
Wind it in, for fuck's sake. If you're willing to do yourself out of watching a movie you want to watch (incidentally, The Incredibles is crap) over something as petty as this, then you need to have a word with yourself.

chav

But he can't see the movie in question, there's a big logo in the way. Have a word with yourself!

Utter Shit

My sister watches that channel on a regular basis. It's a pretty big logo, but it's a massive overstatement to say it makes the shows unwatchable.

chav

In your view. Different people have different tolerance levels of such shit. It doesn't have to be that big, now, does it.

The Duck Man

I thought the Incredibles was good.

Utter Shit

Evidently they think it does. If they thought it would be beneficial to them to make it smaller, I'm quite sure they would do it.

Utter Shit

Quote from: "The Duck Man"I thought the Incredibles was good.
I remember seeing it in the cinema, and it was a reasonably good film, except that it seemed to drag on, and on, and on, ad nauseum. I was genuinely surprised when I came out afterwards (har har har) and found it was only 80 minutes or so. I think what made it seem to go on forever was that there were about three legitimate 'endings' before the final ending. So every time I thought it was about to end, it was "oh wait, not quite done yet", by the end I'd convinced myself it was going to go on until the end of time.

Maybe with the uptake of digital tellie, they could assign an 'opt-in' button that you press on your remote control to display an overlayed D.O.G. But no doubt if they can do this, they won't (or at best they'd make it 'opt-out').

Quote from: "lordaxil"But wasn't it one-fifth of the width, so height is 9*0.2/16 = 0.1125, making the percentage area even lower, about 2.25%.

However, since this area of the screen is 100 times more annoying than the rest, maybe it actually appears to occupy 70% of the screen?

Bah, I messed up the calculation assuming a square telly for some reason, however, if you take a look at the calculation below I seem to have got the same answer (this assumes a 16 x 9 unit screen)

1/5 x 16 = 3.2
1/3 x 9 = 3

3 x 3.2 = 9.6 square units = area of DOG

16 x 9 = 144 square units =  area of screen

9.6/144 = 6.667% of screen taken up by DOG

Oh yeah, DOGS annoy me too.  No doubt I've got the above wrong as well

imitationleather

I demand a torrent of this DOG.