- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:4000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1483 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 20985
I totally forgot it was on tonight, watching on iplayer.
|>>|| No. 20986
The camera angles seem a bit odd to me.
|>>|| No. 20987
In about ten years time, a generation of young women will be wondering why their boyfriends want them to dress up in a blue boiler suit and put on an Irish accent.
|>>|| No. 20989
I was out last night so had to record it.
Fuck me, Carbide got stuck in and Team Razor once again proved that the best robot can be outdone by the worst pilots.
|>>|| No. 20990
It was very disappointing. It all seemed incredibly low budget. It was like watching remote-control cars bumping into each other in a church hall.
|>>|| No. 20992
I was comparing it to what it was like in the previous series. It all just seemed a bit... flat in comparison. I'll give next week's a whirl, but I certainly didn't miss Cocaine Craig.
|>>|| No. 20993
>>20992 I'll admit that the camera work was a bit ADHD, but it was always pretty budget.
|>>|| No. 20994
I think the problem is that it's too high-budget - all the lasers and swooping cameras make the robots look a bit shit. The old Robot Wars was a bit grungy and rough around the edges, which was a very sympathetic presentation.
The arena looked like something that your mad uncle would build in an abandoned warehouse, not something that a bunch of set designers spent months slaving over. You could imagine Craig Charles MCing a night of bareknuckle boxing in the back room of a Southend pub in exchange for a big lump of crack. The slightly ramshackle nature of the presentation made it feel more real, more dangerous.
To quote the Golbinator:
>Do you think Craig Charles ever really knew what he was doing on Robot Wars? Do you think Craig Charles thought all six years of his Robot Wars reign were just a particularly troubling hallucination particular to him? I do. Craig Charles doesn't realise anyone else can see Sir Killalot. He thought it was just him. Dara O'Briain does not give the impression that he isn't 100 percent sure Sir Killalot is real.
|>>|| No. 20995
I enjoyed it. It had issues but this show hasn't seen the light of day in ten years. I thought the arena was sort of overdone as said before with lasers and such, I liked that we got to see more in the workshop including better looks at the damage done. House robots were pretty useless and didn't engage as much as I'd hoped, it's true they're not fighting robots and are more obstacles that are part of the design of the arena but still they're not worth being there if they aren't going to do anything even when they have the opportunity. Scanlon seemed fine, Dara didn't seem suited though, it needs the craziness of Craig Charles. Cuts of the audience are bloody annoying. Camera positioning seemed off.
The main attraction is the robots though and we had some interesting ones, new and old. Sad to see razer out so quickly but Carbide looks like a lot of fun.
Im not sure what you were looking for.
|>>|| No. 21040
Just one month left of watching this before it becomes a criminal offence. Why does the government hate poor people so much?
|>>|| No. 21043
I wouldn't say that these changes are targeting poor people specifically, but the younger generation in general. I know a lot of yuppie types who watch iPlayer for free whilst paying for Netflix, Now TV, Sky TV and the rest so it's not like they couldn't afford this extra cost.
|>>|| No. 21044
You're on a fucking computer you cunt, you don't qualify as "poor"
I mean if you want to be a stingy cunt that's fine, whatever, just stop pretending like it's anything out of your control
|>>|| No. 21045
Computers are cheaper and far more useful than tellies these days. If I had to choose one and only one, I'd choose the computer. Anyone who chooses a TV over a computer isn't poor, they're just a fucking mong.
|>>|| No. 21047
Nobody who has the ability to ever spend £100 on a chromebook can be considered poor? How about someone who can afford a £20 Vodafone smart first?
|>>|| No. 21048
Gee, I'll remember the next time I've not eaten in days that I could flog my PC for a score and be rolling in cash. Good fucking plan, Holmes.
|>>|| No. 21049
Stop pretending this is anything to do with 'the poor' and whether or not you have a fucking computer.
|>>|| No. 21050
There's nothing more first world problems than complaining that you can't load up your tablet and watch robots hit each other over your broadband connection for free, and rather have to pay a small amount of money each year to help fund said program, and claim that this is an attack on the poor!
|>>|| No. 21051
£150 is not a small fee to a lot of the poorest people in this country, and for some it'll be a big enough barrier to rob them of a few hours enjoyment every week. But they have a toaster and don't live in Somalia, I guess, so that clearly isn't a problem.
|>>|| No. 21052
>a big enough barrier to rob them of a few hours enjoyment every week
Oh come off it, it's not like there aren't alternative ways of viewing Robot Wars for the tiny percentage of the tiny percentage of the population who fall in the crossover region between "would be significantly affected by not being able to watch Robot Wars" and "are genuinely too poor to save £150 over the length of a year". At a cursory glance I found links to working streams at the second site I thought to check.
The point of the license isn't to unfairly penalise the poor, it's to fairly levy those that can afford to use the service.
|>>|| No. 21053
So your solution to poor people feeling legally prevented from enjoying entertainment they'd become accustomed to is to break a different law?
|>>|| No. 21054
>it's not like there aren't alternative ways of viewing Robot Wars for the tiny percentage of the tiny percentage of the population who fall in the crossover region between "would be significantly affected by not being able to watch Robot Wars" and "are genuinely too poor to save £150 over the length of a year".
Erm, yes. Indeed it is, in fact, like there aren't alternative ways of viewing it legally. That's an important qualifier, because if you're going to allow illegal methods in your argument then you might as well just let them nick a laptop instead.
|>>|| No. 21055
Have you lads ever met an actual poor person? I'm yet to meet one who doesn't have a 50" TV and possibly Sky, too. There are things there'll go without and one of those things is not a telly. They're obsessed with status symbols.
|>>|| No. 21056
What you don't realise is that one can have a 42" telly and Sky subscription for as little as £40 a month these days. A big TV is not the status symbol middle class pricks think it is, it's a cost effective way of enduring the grinding tedium of life at the bottom of UK society.
|>>|| No. 21057
>if you're going to allow illegal methods in your argument then you might as well just let them nick a laptop instead.
Now you're just being wilfully obtuse; clearly accessing a streaming website is not comparable with stealing a laptop unless you have a severe mental problem. I don't care about your "but... but... muh laws!" argument, this is plain common sense.
Are you by any chance the same lad who thought the 5p bag charge was going to drive millions of our nation's poorest into starvation?
|>>|| No. 21059
>I don't care about your "but... but... muh laws!" argument
Mate, that's the entire fucking point of the discussion.
|>>|| No. 21061
Do keep up, we're now discussing whether said criminialisation is going to "rob" people "of a few hours enjoyment every week". It won't.
|>>|| No. 21062
On what basis do you say that? Hint: illegal streams (including iPlayer itself) don't count for obvious reasons.
|>>|| No. 21063
Because this thread is about robot wars, not 'poor' cunts and BBC license fee policy.
|>>|| No. 21065
I met a lot. They used to come to my Internet Cafe and spend a quid for an hour's worth of internet. This one homeless guy used to spend £3 for five hours worth of internet time, and he spent most of it watching Nature Documentaries on the iplayer before fucking off to his cardboard home after I closed the shop.
I also met a homeless man who used to be a professor. I actually googled him and read one of his papers.
Then there were all the eastern Europeans who would come and use the services to Skype with their loved ones. The fucking Romanians were barred though. Fucking cunts used to try and steal everything not bolted down.
Anyway, I hope it doesn't go behind a paywall.
|>>|| No. 21066
iPlayer is not being paywalled. All that's happening is a minor tweak to the Communications Act, to include on-demand services as well as live TV.
You have always needed a TV license to watch live-streaming of BBC programmes on iPlayer. There's no enforcement, just a pop-up to remind you of this fact. The BBC has no interest in operating a paywall - it'd cost more to implement than it would recoup.
Personally, I'm in favour of a German-style system. Their TV license applies to all households regardless of whether they have a TV, but people on benefits are exempt.
|>>|| No. 21068
So will they chuck you in jail for not having a TV license now, or can you still get away with it by just not telling them and giving your mum and dad's address if you ever need to buy a TV or TV related equipment?
|>>|| No. 21071
So to clarify, do you think the BBC should find its money else where, or do you think it shouldn't exist?
|>>|| No. 21072
>Hint: illegal streams (including iPlayer itself) don't count for obvious reasons.
Why? It's not like the old bill are going to be kicking down your door because you watched a couple of episodes of Robot Wars on the sly. You're placing 'illegal streams' in the same category as theft despite the fact there is a massive gulf in how these laws are enforced.
At this point mate you just sound like a schoolkid calling on his everything-proof shield.
|>>|| No. 21073
I worked there for a couple of years. In that time, I only ever stopped a dozen men from watching porn.
|>>|| No. 21074
Does anyone know how you enter robot wars? I assume they have a critirea they publish somewhere for open entry, but if the do they seem to have hidden it. I don't have a robot or anything I'd just like to read the entry criteria and imagine.
|>>|| No. 21076
Any of you nutters want to team up with me next series? I figure that whichever of us wears the robot suit can just put on really really big fuck off metal boots and just punt the others cunts right down the pit or if they're small enough right into Dara's scarily round and shiny smug face. When we win the series finale we'll do the big reveal and run around gloating how humans are fucking awesome and fuck robots and shit. C'mon it'll be great.
|>>|| No. 21077
It isn't a hugely difficult hobby to get into if you're reasonably handy. Robot Wars is the big televised showcase, but there are regular competitions across the country. Building a heavyweight robot is a massive undertaking, but just about anyone could have a go at building an antweight (<150g) or beetleweight (<1.5kg) robot.
Robot Wars is conducted under a slightly tweaked version of the Fighting Robots Association rules, which you can read at the link below:
|>>|| No. 21078
>You're placing 'illegal streams' in the same category as theft despite the fact there is a massive gulf in how these laws are enforced.
That might have something to do with said fact being irrelevant to the point at hand.
|>>|| No. 21079
>>21051 I'm poor and I pay monthly, much easier.
Also, stop being so bloody dramatic. Being asked to pay for a product is hardly unreasonable. It's not like the BBC is the NHS.
|>>|| No. 21080
>Being asked to pay for a product
It isn't quite like that. If you want to watch any TV, then you have to fund the BBC.
|>>|| No. 21081
That's not true. You can still watch the on-demand services of all the other broadcasters.
|>>|| No. 21082
>You can still watch the on-demand services of all the other broadcasters.
But, as he correctly pointed out, not the television services of all the other broadcasters.
|>>|| No. 21083
Well I'd have said it's fair to equate the watching of ondemand services on a television set with the consumption of a television service, but you're very welcome to point out why that's unreasonable.
|>>|| No. 21084
Does listening to a cassette/CD/MP3 player through your car stereo equate to "listening to the radio"?
|>>|| No. 21085
If it's a recording of a radio show, then in a very reasonable sense, yes.
|>>|| No. 21086
I'm assuming from the fact that you aren't geofagged to Rio that you didn't make the mental gymnastics team for the Olympics.
|>>|| No. 21087
It's been like that for decades though. Not saying it's right or wrong but that's not the point of the discussion - which is the recent changes to how the BBC's online on-demand services are licensed. As it is a service the beeb are very much within their rights to charge people for the viewing of programs online.
Out of interest, does anyone know if there are plans to offer discounted "online-only" licences or will online viewers have to pay the full wack?
|>>|| No. 21088
>As it is a service the beeb are very much within their rights to charge people for the viewing of programs online.
No, they are not. It's part of their public service obligations. The awfully-named "iPlayer loophole" came about because of a perceived difference between the BBC's public service obligations and the requirements of the licensing regime. (That's also an awful way of describing it, since the licensing regime had an "iPlayer loophole" the same way it has a "radio loophole" or car insurance rules have a "no-car loophole".)
>Out of interest, does anyone know if there are plans to offer discounted "online-only" licences or will online viewers have to pay the full wack?
Three guesses, and the first two don't count.
|>>|| No. 21090
>It's part of their public service obligations
Could you point to any source that explicitly says the BBC are obligated to provide online streaming services for free? Because I would be very surprised at that.
Face it, the facts are that fewer people are watching conventional TV (whether than be via antenna, cable or satellite) and more are watching TV programs and films through the internet. In the past when iPlayer was mostly used as an additional catch-up service to accompany the main channels it wasn't worth changing the licensing legislature but now that online streaming accounts for a greater share of total views it doesn't make sense why online viewers should get a free ride compared to those who watch the conventional TV channels. BBC Three becoming online-only is another piece of evidence for how the BBC's business model is changing with the times.
Even though an online-only option would be nice, £145 per year isn't actually that much in the context of other streaming services - that's less than a yearly subscription to the Entertainment and Sports packages from Now TV for example. Personally I'd much rather pay and get a better online service from the BBC, so that they are better able to handle the increasing number of online viewers and continue providing high quality original programmes but that is just my opinion - if you aren't happy paying for the BBC you're very welcome to subscribe to Now TV, Netflix, Sky Go etc instead.
|>>|| No. 21092
>Could you point to any source that explicitly says the BBC are obligated to provide online streaming services for free?
"For free" doesn't come into it. They have a public service obligation. Independently, you have a licence obligation. The two don't interact - you're not paying for TV and getting radio and iPlayer for free in the bargain, just like paying VED does not mean you're paying for the roads.
In that light, the rest of your post is meaningless.
|>>|| No. 21093
>They have a public service obligation.
For what exactly? The onus is on you to prove that this obligation explicitly includes online services without requiring a licence - otherwise I don't really understand what you are arguing for.
|>>|| No. 21094
>without requiring a licence
You really seem to be having difficulty with this, don't you?
>They have a public service obligation. Independently, you have a licence obligation. The two don't interact
|>>|| No. 21097
Ha ha ha. I assume from your lack of proper response that you have indeed pulled this "public service obligation" line from up your arse.
It may pain you to admit it but the BBC has to function in largely the same way as any other business. Sure there are exceptions, they don't show commercials and they are expected to put on programmes for the public good as well as mindless entertainment, but they need licence payers in order to pay for said programming.
|>>|| No. 21098
>It may pain you to admit it but the BBC has to function in largely the same way as any other business.
No, not really. The BBC answers only to the BBC Trust, an independent body who decide the activities of the BBC. They compete with commercial broadcasters only to the extent that the Trust see fit. The Trust are guided by both the Royal Charter and the BBC agreement with the secretary of state for Culture, Media and Sport. This structure is profoundly unlike the management structure of any private business.
The BBC collect the license fee, but they don't decide who should pay it or how much it should cost - that's parliamentary business. Parliament has decided that people who watch iPlayer on-demand programmes are liable to pay the license fee.
|>>|| No. 21099
Let's try this again.
The BBC has an obligation to provide its public services in the UK. Words like "for free" or "without a licence" don't remotely come into it. Asking whether the BBC has to provide iPlayer without a licence is like asking whether the local council has to maintain roads for people that don't pay car tax.
|>>|| No. 21100
OK so now your just splitting hairs over whether it is the BBC's Trust or Parliament who decides on how the licensing works. What point are you trying to make, other than trying to be a smart-arse?
|>>|| No. 21101
That your entire mental model of the relationship between the BBC's services and holding (or not) of a TV licence is completely wrong.
|>>|| No. 21102
At the end of the day, it is licences that pay for BBC programming and it is right and fair that online viewers share the burden of supporting the BBC along with TV viewers. The specific ins and outs of the BBC's management are not relevant when talking about the service as a whole. Comprende?
|>>|| No. 21103
Yeah, no. You might as well be saying "living within our means" or "student loan debt" and your understanding would be no less wrong.
|>>|| No. 21104
>"living within our means" or "student loan debt"
Are you trying to start a war here?
|>>|| No. 21107
>You could imagine Craig Charles MCing a night of bareknuckle boxing in the back room of a Southend pub in exchange for a big lump of crack. The slightly ramshackle nature of the presentation made it feel more real, more dangerous.
I love how .gs has some creative writers. We should write a book together.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]