A_M_Swallow
Regular
Bravo is a pay to view tv channel available on satallite and cable. It has both UK and US branches.
-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Rangers on Region4 DVD. Will other regions follow?
- Thread starter Lord Refa
- Start date
then let me rephrase. I don't have sattelite or cable tv, so I have no way of seeing it anyway. All I've got, is what I've got. terrestrial tv, a vhs player, and a dvd player.
somehow i just gotta see this tv movie to complete a collection (oh, and Sic Transit Vir of course).
somehow i just gotta see this tv movie to complete a collection (oh, and Sic Transit Vir of course).
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Do you have any idea when the dvd or video is set for relese in the uk or dose any one know wher you can get hold of it from any where else ? E.G. another region dvd or a ripped copy of the dvd? /forums/images/icons/confused.gif
[/quote]
Rangers hasn't been released anywhere on DVD, so there are no "rips" of it. It hasn't even been officially announced for DVD release as yet. TV Zone in the UK evidently listed it for a July 2002 release based on a single source at WHV, Ltd. or a marketing firm connected with them, but later changed the listing to "to be determined" and gave "2003" as the release year.
The R4 listings seem to be based on similar information, especially given the January 2002 release dates. Until and unless Warner Home Video in the various regions actually issues a real announcement, with pricing, specs and a release date, this is pretty much all rumor. (Various sites, including Best Buy and Amazon.com in this country, took pre-orders for Titanic based on probably accurate rumors of Paramount's plans for the film. But when Cameron and the studio changed their minds they had to withdraw the offers. In the event Titanic didn't actually arrive on DVD until more than a year after the initial spate of pre-order listings.)
I'd consider this a rumor until some more hard facts come in, although it is a promising sign. Creating a DVD version for one region means that at least 90% of the work needed to release a film in other regions is done, so there is little other than marketing considerations to justify holding it back from the rest of the world. A more general release then becomes pretty much inevitable. But we still have to wait for definite news on that first release.
Although I've been skeptical about Warner Bros. doing anything with Rangers (or any of the other TV movies) on DVD before the release of S1, it could make sense for WB to release it around the same time as the S1 release, especially outside the U.S., in countries where it has not been broadcast. Since it is the newest of the films, it would probaby require the least work to prepare for DVD release. (Paramount released the Trek feature films in reverse order precisely because the older films needed more "clean up") There is also a built-in market since eager fans have not had a chance to see it on television. And the series has done well on home video in many overseas markets, sometimes better than it has done in the ratings. WB could well end up making more money from the project with a DVD release than they could by selling it for broadcast in various contries.
I just hope that Canada ends up on the list so that U.S. fans can also buy it, even if there is no official U.S. release until later. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Regards,
Joe
Do you have any idea when the dvd or video is set for relese in the uk or dose any one know wher you can get hold of it from any where else ? E.G. another region dvd or a ripped copy of the dvd? /forums/images/icons/confused.gif
[/quote]
Rangers hasn't been released anywhere on DVD, so there are no "rips" of it. It hasn't even been officially announced for DVD release as yet. TV Zone in the UK evidently listed it for a July 2002 release based on a single source at WHV, Ltd. or a marketing firm connected with them, but later changed the listing to "to be determined" and gave "2003" as the release year.
The R4 listings seem to be based on similar information, especially given the January 2002 release dates. Until and unless Warner Home Video in the various regions actually issues a real announcement, with pricing, specs and a release date, this is pretty much all rumor. (Various sites, including Best Buy and Amazon.com in this country, took pre-orders for Titanic based on probably accurate rumors of Paramount's plans for the film. But when Cameron and the studio changed their minds they had to withdraw the offers. In the event Titanic didn't actually arrive on DVD until more than a year after the initial spate of pre-order listings.)
I'd consider this a rumor until some more hard facts come in, although it is a promising sign. Creating a DVD version for one region means that at least 90% of the work needed to release a film in other regions is done, so there is little other than marketing considerations to justify holding it back from the rest of the world. A more general release then becomes pretty much inevitable. But we still have to wait for definite news on that first release.
Although I've been skeptical about Warner Bros. doing anything with Rangers (or any of the other TV movies) on DVD before the release of S1, it could make sense for WB to release it around the same time as the S1 release, especially outside the U.S., in countries where it has not been broadcast. Since it is the newest of the films, it would probaby require the least work to prepare for DVD release. (Paramount released the Trek feature films in reverse order precisely because the older films needed more "clean up") There is also a built-in market since eager fans have not had a chance to see it on television. And the series has done well on home video in many overseas markets, sometimes better than it has done in the ratings. WB could well end up making more money from the project with a DVD release than they could by selling it for broadcast in various contries.
I just hope that Canada ends up on the list so that U.S. fans can also buy it, even if there is no official U.S. release until later. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Regards,
Joe
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
OK, I\'m an idiot
Completely forgot that an Australian website would follow the European convention of expressing dates as "dd/mm/yy" instead of correctly as "mm/dd/yy". /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
So they're actually indicating that Rangers will be released on DVD on November 1st, and the S1 set on October 1st, 2002. This is certainly more plausible, and a further indication that this is based on something more substantial than wishful thinking. I'll still feel more certain about the whole thing when a few other sites pick up the listing, and some technical details that can only come direct from Warner Bros. start showing up.
Regards,
Joe
Completely forgot that an Australian website would follow the European convention of expressing dates as "dd/mm/yy" instead of correctly as "mm/dd/yy". /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
So they're actually indicating that Rangers will be released on DVD on November 1st, and the S1 set on October 1st, 2002. This is certainly more plausible, and a further indication that this is based on something more substantial than wishful thinking. I'll still feel more certain about the whole thing when a few other sites pick up the listing, and some technical details that can only come direct from Warner Bros. start showing up.
Regards,
Joe
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
There is also a built-in market since eager fans have not had a chance to see it on television. And the series has done well on home video in many overseas markets, sometimes better than it has done in the ratings.
[/quote]
That would be me, a perfect discription /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
oh, and dd/mm/yy all the way. That way its in ascending order, the date, then a step up to the month, then another step up to a year. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif Otherwise it would come out totally backwards like "Kill Londo! Acchh!" (The Long Night)
There is also a built-in market since eager fans have not had a chance to see it on television. And the series has done well on home video in many overseas markets, sometimes better than it has done in the ratings.
[/quote]
That would be me, a perfect discription /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
oh, and dd/mm/yy all the way. That way its in ascending order, the date, then a step up to the month, then another step up to a year. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif Otherwise it would come out totally backwards like "Kill Londo! Acchh!" (The Long Night)
Jade Jaguar
Regular
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
Face it Joe, most of the world does it dd/mm/yy, unlike us in the US. But LightNZ, 26 September, instead of September 26 sounds very strange to me! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Face it Joe, most of the world does it dd/mm/yy, unlike us in the US. But LightNZ, 26 September, instead of September 26 sounds very strange to me! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
A_M_Swallow
Regular
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
Try Year Month Day Hour Minute Second . bits of second
Try Year Month Day Hour Minute Second . bits of second
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Face it Joe, most of the world does it dd/mm/yy
[/quote]
Most of the world does a lot of things that we don't do. That doesn't make them right. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Regards,
Joe
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Face it Joe, most of the world does it dd/mm/yy
[/quote]
Most of the world does a lot of things that we don't do. That doesn't make them right. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Regards,
Joe
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
true - it just makes you freaks /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif - jokes /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
the thing is weith September 26 2002 - it looks wrong having the numbers all together - and is more clear the other way around hahaha /forums/images/icons/smile.gif - hoe much fun
true - it just makes you freaks /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif - jokes /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
the thing is weith September 26 2002 - it looks wrong having the numbers all together - and is more clear the other way around hahaha /forums/images/icons/smile.gif - hoe much fun
its logical as well. makes sense.
otherwise it would be like having the minutes before the hours on a digital clock, eg 11:42am might look like 42:11? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
mm/dd/yy - chaotic, invented by the Shadows
dd/mm/yy - nicely in order, invented by the Vorlons
must be
otherwise it would be like having the minutes before the hours on a digital clock, eg 11:42am might look like 42:11? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
mm/dd/yy - chaotic, invented by the Shadows
dd/mm/yy - nicely in order, invented by the Vorlons
must be
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
the thing is with September 26 2002 - it looks wrong having the numbers all together
[/quote]
Of course, those of us who use the MM-DD-YY form aren't stupid enough to put all the numbers together. When written out such a date would appear as September 26, 2002 or September 26th 2002. Very clear. And if you're used to writing dates out this way it is the most natural thing in the world to write purely numeric dates in the same fashion. Either version, like the very notion of "dates" itself, is purely arbitrary and neither is inherently "superior" (despite some rather labored attempts to prove as much above.)
But efficiency and clarity suggest settling on one form or the other. In this case I think it makes the most sense for the world to use the system adopted by the country with the largest economy and most nuclear weapons. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Regards,
Joe
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
the thing is with September 26 2002 - it looks wrong having the numbers all together
[/quote]
Of course, those of us who use the MM-DD-YY form aren't stupid enough to put all the numbers together. When written out such a date would appear as September 26, 2002 or September 26th 2002. Very clear. And if you're used to writing dates out this way it is the most natural thing in the world to write purely numeric dates in the same fashion. Either version, like the very notion of "dates" itself, is purely arbitrary and neither is inherently "superior" (despite some rather labored attempts to prove as much above.)
But efficiency and clarity suggest settling on one form or the other. In this case I think it makes the most sense for the world to use the system adopted by the country with the largest economy and most nuclear weapons. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Regards,
Joe
A_M_Swallow
Regular
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
Neclear weapons - just do not write it in Russian.
28 Jul 2002
Neclear weapons - just do not write it in Russian.
28 Jul 2002
Jade Jaguar
Regular
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
LNZ, putting the month first makes sense to me. In some contexts, when someone asks you what day it is, they know the month, so you just give the number of the day. But when someone asks WHEN did something, well past, happen, Giving the month first gives the time of year, often the most salient point of the question, and the exact day is only a detail. Saying the month is like saying in the winter, or in the fall, but more accurate. I do admit, that in scientific terms (nukes aside) /forums/images/icons/grin.gif , DD/MM/YY makes the most sense, but general usage in not usually based on science. If you want to call us in the US stupid for not adopting the metric system however, I will agree on that. We'd probably have had one more successful Mars probe to show for it if we had!
LNZ, putting the month first makes sense to me. In some contexts, when someone asks you what day it is, they know the month, so you just give the number of the day. But when someone asks WHEN did something, well past, happen, Giving the month first gives the time of year, often the most salient point of the question, and the exact day is only a detail. Saying the month is like saying in the winter, or in the fall, but more accurate. I do admit, that in scientific terms (nukes aside) /forums/images/icons/grin.gif , DD/MM/YY makes the most sense, but general usage in not usually based on science. If you want to call us in the US stupid for not adopting the metric system however, I will agree on that. We'd probably have had one more successful Mars probe to show for it if we had!
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Re: OK, I\'m an idiot
There is one more reason. Not every language allows conveniently saying or writing what may seem somewhat readable in English. Considering the traditions of some languages, September 26, 2002 might seem odd.
When numeric dates are used, not having a sequence of increasing/decreasing magnitude just causes confusion -- because you lack clues to determine which is which. Hence I must officially conclude that...
...do it the way you like. In fact the Grey Council, after studying the works of Valen for nearly nine years, demands that you do it the way you like, lest consequences be very regrettable (such as shipments arriving on schedule).
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif
There is one more reason. Not every language allows conveniently saying or writing what may seem somewhat readable in English. Considering the traditions of some languages, September 26, 2002 might seem odd.
When numeric dates are used, not having a sequence of increasing/decreasing magnitude just causes confusion -- because you lack clues to determine which is which. Hence I must officially conclude that...
...do it the way you like. In fact the Grey Council, after studying the works of Valen for nearly nine years, demands that you do it the way you like, lest consequences be very regrettable (such as shipments arriving on schedule).
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Re: Rangers on Region4 DVD. Will other regions fol
sorry about that i didnt realise it was copyright protected as it hasnt been realsed yet but has been on scfi channel in the U.S. i thought other people in other countrys might like to know where they could get hold of it as it came off the tv .
once again sorry about that wont let it happen again /forums/images/icons/frown.gif
sorry about that i didnt realise it was copyright protected as it hasnt been realsed yet but has been on scfi channel in the U.S. i thought other people in other countrys might like to know where they could get hold of it as it came off the tv .
once again sorry about that wont let it happen again /forums/images/icons/frown.gif
