# Sony Movie channel HD is live now



## trido (Nov 7, 2004)

Sony Movie channel HD is live now on CH 563.


----------



## Sim-X (Sep 24, 2009)

Cool, I'll check it out when I get home


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

On for several hours...old news. :lol:


----------



## Mark Walters (Sep 21, 2009)

Great, isn't it so exciting to welcome Sony to D*!- NOT :nono2:. This month's featured movies are Dick & Ghostbusters II. Let me make some popcorn. Wow, what year are we in? It gets better, can you guess what movies premier next month? The Natural, Oliver, Multiplicity and The Muppets Take Manhattan. Ok, to be fair more old-ass lame movies premier next month along with these, but I couldn't stomach the urge to type any more of these garbage films. We already have plenty of crap channels, but D* goes, what's one more to throw at us to alleviate the upcoming rise in fees. 

I know, I know, people are going to disagree and say this is like the Lord's second coming. That's because you're used to mediocre garbage and you think it's cool to add another channel to the HD number even though it's as relevant as an infomercial channel in regards to how much time you're going to spend watching it.

I don't know about you, I'll stick with watching new things that are current with this century. These old films, are well old and non seem to be blockbusters that would solicit a second watch. 

This is a complete waste of space, air, channel, and my time writing this post. How about a national HD channel for goodness sakes.

Disclaimer - This is one person's opinion. Those who are thrilled about this channel, ENJOY! Those who would rather have a new national HD channel, get stoked about the upcoming hike in programming fees because this Sony channel ain't freee!


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

I want a national channel TCM so I can watch all of the great OLD movies.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mark Walters said:


> This is a complete waste of space, air, channel, and my time writing this post. How about a national HD channel for goodness sakes.
> 
> Disclaimer - This is one person's opinion. Those who are thrilled about this channel, ENJOY! Those who would rather have a new national HD channel, get stoked about the upcoming hike in programming fees because this Sony channel ain't freee!


The very same argument has been made about Starz and other premium channels. I could make a case that having all the current HD movie channels is redundant. While I personally anticipate very limited viewing on this new HD channel, I also understand that its about providing diversity in HD channel content to the overall viewing audience.

Every time a new channel is launched...we get the "why are they wasting the bandwidth" comments...

It's also an expansion of the Extra Pack, which until this year...which was a very small offering for the extra $$$. Now the number of channels in that optional package has grown. Since its optional, people can decide for themselves if its "worth the $$$" on their own.

One person's HD poo-poo is another's HD treasure.

With plenty of bandwidth remaining fopr yet more coming down the pike...no harm, no foul.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Sim-X said:


> Cool, I'll check it out when I get home


+1


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Thanks for letting me know about Muppets take Manhattan, I'll set that recording up.

But really, if you don't like the channel, don't watch it. If you don't find value in the HD Extra Pack, unsubscribe. It's not a requirement on a contract. That simple. Will there be a price increase in Feb? Most likely, but the primary reason isn't channels being added. Channels they already carry want more money when they renegotiate the contracts. It's usually negotiated down from what the channel owner originally asked for, but usually still higher than the old price. Other costs of business increase.

The Extra Pack needed to be filled out some more, it was pretty sparse on the channels. I liked the idea of the Smithsonian Channel, but it seemed very heavy on the repeats.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mark Walters said:


> It gets better, can you guess what movies premier next month? The Natural, Oliver, Multiplicity and The Muppets Take Manhattan.


Glad I read your silly diatribe so I found out that Oliver! is on next month. Terrific movie that I have not seen in HD yet.

BTW, didn't know that the CENTURY a movie was made in made it a good or bad movie. Nice to know that movies made in this century are so much better than those made in the last one. I guess I am going to have to rethink my opinion on the Star Wars movies. The newer ones *must be* better.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> The Extra Pack needed to be filled out some more, it was pretty sparse on the channels. I liked the idea of the Smithsonian Channel, but it seemed very heavy on the repeats.


Yep, sometimes I'll scroll through their schedule for 2 weeks and find 99% of the shows are ones that were in the schedule 6 months ago. They do have some good new stuff on once in a while.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Mark Walters said:


> Great, isn't it so exciting to welcome Sony to D*!- NOT :nono2:. This month's featured movies are Dick & Ghostbusters II. Let me make some popcorn. Wow, what year are we in? It gets better, can you guess what movies premier next month? The Natural, Oliver, Multiplicity and The Muppets Take Manhattan. Ok, to be fair more old-ass lame movies premier next month along with these, but I couldn't stomach the urge to type any more of these garbage films. We already have plenty of crap channels, but D* goes, what's one more to throw at us to alleviate the upcoming rise in fees.
> 
> I know, I know, people are going to disagree and say this is like the Lord's second coming. That's because you're used to mediocre garbage and you think it's cool to add another channel to the HD number even though it's as relevant as an infomercial channel in regards to how much time you're going to spend watching it.
> 
> ...


If anyone understands what you're saying, it would be me. I'm so sick of HD additions that cost the customer more. What a shocker, SonyHD is not a "freebee". If you want to watch it, you'll have to pay $4.99 a month (above and beyond your normal monthly bill). However, I'll take this channel in a heartbeat over a number padding redundant PPVHD channel.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Mark Walters said:


> Disclaimer - This is one person's opinion. Those who are thrilled about this channel, ENJOY! Those who would rather have a new national HD channel, get stoked about the upcoming hike in programming fees because this Sony channel ain't freee!


Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I suggest in the future though, start a counter or different opinion thread as not the encourage dissension in a thread of one direction. I suspect it will encourage like minded individuals to build on their opinion even more, instead of encouraging contention. We should all play nicely with one another.

I will take a look at the new channel and make an informed decision on empirical data once I have time. I'm undecided at the moment.


----------



## coolyman (Oct 4, 2007)

trido said:


> Sony Movie channel HD is live now on CH 563.


This is a blank screen for me even after a refresh. 
And after a menu reset.


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

Been waiting for this since the channel's announcement.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

coolyman said:


> This is a blank screen for me even after a refresh.


You may need to update your favorites list to make sure 563 is on *your* list.


----------



## coolyman (Oct 4, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You may need to update your favorites list to make sure 563 is on *your* list.


It is.


----------



## ans2004 (Oct 28, 2008)

personally i want to thank directv for adding this channel. i am a movie lover and to see a new hd movie channel is gold in my eyes. Not everyone watches sports all the time. Hopefully they add epix in the future. i too would like to see bbca, amc, fox movie channel and tcm in hd. thanks directv....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

coolyman said:


> It is.


...and you have the HD Extra Package, right?

...because I see it fine on 2 HD receivers and 3 HD DVRs here right at this time...

Hmmm....???


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

No problem adding it here.

As opposed to the normal practice, I sure hope Sony is paying DirecTV to air this channel. I looked through the movies for as far forward as my guide would go (maybe a week). I couldn't find one I wanted to watch. What a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Glad I read your silly diatribe so I found out that Oliver! is on next month. Terrific movie that I have not seen in HD yet.
> 
> BTW, didn't know that the CENTURY a movie was made in made it a good or bad movie. Nice to know that movies made in this century are so much better than those made in the last one. I guess I am going to have to rethink my opinion on the Star Wars movies. The newer ones *must be* better.


Think that's bad, one of the best movies I've ever seen isn't even a talkie. Don't think I'd laughed so hard during a movie in a long time, as I did when I rented The General. What's sad is when someone won't watch something because it's in B&W, or saying it's a waste of a Blu-ray. An old B&W movie, properly restored etc, can look fantastic in HD. The resolution is there, even if it isn't widescreen.

Makes me feel kind of old, liking old movies made in the 80's or 90's, in the last century. I'll take Back to the Future over Hot Tub Time Machine any day.


----------



## coolyman (Oct 4, 2007)

103(ca)
*
1-8* N/A
*9-16* 70 15 67 17 65 15 59 14
*17-24* 59 0 42 0 45 0 39 0
*25-32* N/A

Are these supposed to be that low??


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

coolyman said:


> 103(ca)
> *
> 1-8* N/A
> *9-16* 70 15 67 17 65 15 59 14
> ...


No...

Those should all be at least around 90 plus levels - seems a Dish alignment to get 103 improved is timely there. Are your 103 (cb) levels also low like that?


----------



## coolyman (Oct 4, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> No...
> 
> Those should all be at least around 90 plus levels - seems a Dish alignment to get 103 improved is timely there. Are your 103 (cb) levels also low like that?


103 (cb)

*1-8* 76 46 75 51 73 46 72 45
*9-16* 73 42 71 42 72 39 N/A N/A
*17-32* N/A

They look a little low but not like 103 (ca).

Just got off the phone with them and a technician will be here tomorrow since I have the Protection Plan and a realignment is probably warranted. This was the best experience I've ever had calling them. Wow.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

coolyman said:


> 103 (cb)
> 
> *1-8* 76 46 75 51 73 46 72 45
> *9-16* 73 42 71 42 72 39 N/A N/A
> ...


Those are also sub-standard.

I recommend a Dish realign.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

smiddy said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I suggest in the future though, start a counter or different opinion thread as not the encourage dissension in a thread of one direction. I suspect it will encourage like minded individuals to build on their opinion even more, instead of encouraging contention. We should all play nicely with one another.
> 
> I will take a look at the new channel and make an informed decision on empirical data once I have time. I'm undecided at the moment.


This thread is about the SonyHD channel. Good, bad or indifferent. It's not about being a fan of the SonyHD channel. One poster expresses their opinion, now they're not "playing nice"? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we got SonyHD. I cannot wait to check it out once I get home. In fact, I thanked DIRECTV for this channel in the anticipation thread. We should let people express their opinion even if it's not pro DIRECTV. That is what makes DBSTALK such a cool place. Peace Smiddy.

Now, to stay on topic , is SonyHD 720p or 1080i?


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Now, to stay on topic , is SonyHD 720p or 1080i?


1080i.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Hdhead said:


> 1080i.


Right on!


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol: DirecTV adds new HD channel, they get *****ed at. They don't add a new HD channel, they get *****ed at :lol: Endless source of amusement for me, even better than watching TV, is watching the snits on this board.


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

coolyman said:


> It is.


I do not have HD Extra Pack, but did open up my Guide to include these channels for the upcoming free preview. I noticed that all of them are dimmed out except for SONY HD, which is as bright as the channels I do receive. However, when I tune to 563, I receive the notice that the channel is not purchased...


----------



## sdirv (Dec 14, 2008)

Hutchinshouse said:


> If anyone understands what you're saying, it would be me. I'm so sick of HD additions that cost the customer more. What a shocker, SonyHD is not a "freebee". If you want to watch it, you'll have to pay $4.99 a month (above and beyond your normal monthly bill). However, I'll take this channel in a heartbeat over a number padding redundant PPVHD channel.


My "normal monthly bill" includes the $4.99 for the HD Extra Pack. I've found value in it since the beginning. Additions to it are welcome.

I would "assume" SD only customers would be "sick of" all the HD additions too, since it benefits them not at all......

Years ago I went car shopping. As much as I lusted after a brand new Corvette, my checkbook bought me a new Camaro. And I was pleased.......


----------



## spaul (Jul 19, 2009)

I,agree with most that this is a good addition to HD Extra Pak. In reference to redundance of airings most others do as well but, that,s what is good about cruising the guide and record the gems to DVR. In noting already scheduled The Graduate to record this week a very good one also,mentioned by someone with access to this channel before said logo was anoying.It seems less as anticipated since it.s some what translucent.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

sdirv said:


> *My "normal monthly bill" includes the $4.99 for the HD Extra Pack.* I've found value in it since the beginning. Additions to it are welcome.
> 
> I would "assume" SD only customers would be "sick of" all the HD additions too, since it benefits them not at all......
> 
> Years ago I went car shopping. As much as I lusted after a brand new Corvette, my checkbook bought me a new Camaro. And I was pleased.......


+1
I added HDEP the week it went live. Sony makes it even a better value.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Well, this one channel will cost you about $0.63. You get eight HD-only channels for a mere $4.99. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. A great value though.


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

Had to refresh my DVRs to get it, but it is working now.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

Checked the guide and there is nothing I care to watch at least for the next 14 days.


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

November looks more promising at their website --The Natural, On the Waterfront, Das Boot, Taxi Driver, Starman.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

smiddy said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I suggest in the future though, start a counter or different opinion thread as not the encourage dissension in a thread of one direction. I suspect it will encourage like minded individuals to build on their opinion even more, instead of encouraging contention. We should all play nicely with one another...


 Smiddy, I respectfully disagree... should I start another thread to say that? To have a thread where everyone agrees would be painfully boring, something like

+1
+1
+1
+1

It's the discussion, agreement, debate, disagreement, differences of opinion and the back-and-forth on a topic that makes most threads, and this board in general, interesting. I don't believe that is inconsistent with _'playing nice'_ with each other, is it? After all, if we can all agree that when we do disagree, to do so agreeably. On any given topic, where there are different views, let us not separate our opinions into pro and con threads, but rather, enjoy a spirited exchange of ideas?


----------



## Mark L (Oct 23, 2006)

Mark Walters said:


> Great, isn't it so exciting to welcome Sony to D*!- NOT :nono2:. This month's featured movies are Dick & Ghostbusters II. Let me make some popcorn. Wow, what year are we in? It gets better, can you guess what movies premier next month? The Natural, Oliver, Multiplicity and The Muppets Take Manhattan. Ok, to be fair more old-ass lame movies premier next month along with these, but I couldn't stomach the urge to type any more of these garbage films. We already have plenty of crap channels, but D* goes, what's one more to throw at us to alleviate the upcoming rise in fees.
> 
> I know, I know, people are going to disagree and say this is like the Lord's second coming. That's because you're used to mediocre garbage and you think it's cool to add another channel to the HD number even though it's as relevant as an infomercial channel in regards to how much time you're going to spend watching it.
> 
> ...





Carl Spock said:


> No problem adding it here.
> 
> As opposed to the normal practice, I sure hope Sony is paying DirecTV to air this channel. I looked through the movies for as far forward as my guide would go (maybe a week). I couldn't find one I wanted to watch. What a waste of bandwidth.


I'm with you guys.

I rarely see any decent movies on the movie channels.

Of course everyone has their own subjective tastes, but can I please get some 'Coming to America', 'Trading Places', 'Beverly Hills Cop' 

I can only take so much 'XXX' (Vin Diesel flick, get your minds out of the gutter :lol and 'Step Brothers'


----------



## bones boy (Aug 25, 2007)

Why did this channel not get added on a Wednesday? Isn't that unusual?


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

bones boy said:


> Why did this channel not get added on a Wednesday? Isn't that unusual?


Moderately unusual by recent practice, but not unprecedented.

Some evidence they meant to go live last Wednesday and hit a snag of some sort that pushed it back a little.


----------



## Cpt Guavaberry (Oct 16, 2007)

ans2004 said:


> personally i want to thank directv for adding this channel. i am a movie lover and to see a new hd movie channel is gold in my eyes. Not everyone watches sports all the time. Hopefully they add epix in the future. i too would like to see bbca, amc, fox movie channel and tcm in hd. thanks directv....


Now I'm truly disappointed. All this time, I thought everyone watched sports at every opportunity. :nono: Really? D* has more movie channels available? When would I have time to watch them?:rolling:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Nick said:


> Smiddy, I respectfully disagree... should I start another thread to say that? To have a thread where everyone agrees would be painfully boring, something like
> 
> +1
> +1
> ...


Couldn't agree more. This forum and AVS are among the most genteel forums I have visited. Try a baseball forum and you'd be amazed at the rudeness and crudeness of the members.

Without dissent what's the point? We'd be like sheep. This country came to be because of open dissent.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mark L said:


> I'm with you guys.
> 
> I rarely see any decent movies on the movie channels.
> 
> ...


I've seriously considered canceling my Premier Package. Just because of the redundant content. The only excuse I have for keeping it is the various series such as Dexter, et al.

I just watched Spartacus, Blood and Sand on NetFlix and it was much better than watching it on Starz. Not sure why, perhaps the better PQ, but it was definitely a better experience.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

markrubi said:


> Checked the guide and there is nothing I care to watch at least for the next 14 days.


Disappointing, no?

Rich


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

Well, I guess a kibble is better than nothing.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

If someone has an issue with a particular channel being added by DirecTV, they should direct their angst towards DirecTV. This would be more productive than complaining to members in a thread who are simply reporting that a channel has been added. Basically, don't shoot the messenger. If you want to complain, but cannot be bothered to let your provider know that or change providers...then you must like to hear yourself complain.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mark Walters said:


> How about a national HD channel for goodness sakes.


...Sony Movie Channel is a national HD channel.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

JeffBowser said:


> :lol: DirecTV adds new HD channel, they get *****ed at. They don't add a new HD channel, they get *****ed at :lol: Endless source of amusement for me, even better than watching TV, is watching the snits on this board.





Hoosier205 said:


> Well, this one channel will cost you about $0.63. You get eight HD-only channels for a mere $4.99. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. A great value though.





Skyboss said:


> Well, I guess a kibble is better than nothing.





Hoosier205 said:


> If someone has an issue with a particular channel being added by DirecTV, they should direct their angst toward DirecTV. This would be more productive than complaining to members in a thread who are simply reporting that a channel has been added. Basically, don't shoot the messenger. If you want to complain, but cannot be bothered to let your provider know that or change providers...then you must like to hear yourself complain.


Interesting to see the feedback posts every time *ANY* new HD channel is added.

Deja Vu.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Looks fine on this end 1080I Doby 5.1 watchable movies,it must be a Hdextra pack addition it's in that area.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> No problem adding it here.
> 
> As opposed to the normal practice, I sure hope Sony is paying DirecTV to air this channel. I looked through the movies for as far forward as my guide would go (maybe a week). I couldn't find one I wanted to watch. What a waste of bandwidth.


I've seen things there worth watching. Some that I may watch for the better HD picture as I watched or have them on VHS or Beta Max.

I'm not a fan of most of the newer movies. I've never watched any of the 3D ones for example, I've never seen Avatar or had a desire to do so.



dpeters11 said:


> Think that's bad, one of the best movies I've ever seen isn't even a talkie. Don't think I'd laughed so hard during a movie in a long time, as I did when I rented The General. What's sad is when someone won't watch something because it's in B&W, or saying it's a waste of a Blu-ray. An old B&W movie, properly restored etc, can look fantastic in HD. The resolution is there, even if it isn't wide-screen.
> 
> Makes me feel kind of old, liking old movies made in the 80's or 90's, in the last century. I'll take Back to the Future over Hot Tub Time Machine any day.


When I was younger I used to watch the old Classic silent movies with a piano accompaniment on one of the local PBS Channels, I do not remember which one of the three it was unfortunately. I used to look forward to that night for them.

Enjoy the Sony Movie Channel and if you don't want to watch it, be nice and don't dump on those that do. That sounds like the if it isn't Wide-screen I'm not interested type of person that caused Stretch-O-Vision.

If I had youngsters in the house I'd be all over that Muppet movie.
Cheers


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

So this channel is part of the HD Extra Pack (not part of the ol' sk00l HD Courtesy Pack I assume)? major lolz... paying good money to watch GhostBusters on TV in 2010.


----------



## sdirv (Dec 14, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> So this channel is part of the HD Extra Pack (not part of the ol' sk00l HD Courtesy Pack I assume)? major lolz... paying good money to watch GhostBusters on TV in 2010.


I think it was pointed out that with this channel added the cost per month for it in the extra pack works out to be about $.63.

Which means the cost of watching a 2 hour movie on the channel would run ya about $.00175

I guess it would add up to real money sooner or later, but?????:lol:


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

sdirv said:


> I think it was pointed out that with this channel added the cost per month for it in the extra pack works out to be about $.63.
> 
> Which means the cost of watching a 2 hour movie on the channel would run ya about $.00175
> 
> I guess it would add up to real money sooner or later, but?????:lol:


Yeah, I saw the $.63c figure . I dunno... I saw we had a Starz free preview a few weeks ago and I scanned the ENTIRE 3 day schedule and couldn't find a single thing to watch. And I like movies. A lot. I guess I just usually watch movies "right away", so by the time they get to these movie channels, they're old news.

But hey, $0.00175 to watch Ghostbusters in 2010? Kind of pricey to be honest with you! lolz. Not that Ghostbusters wasn't a good movie, but still.


----------



## JJJBBB (May 26, 2007)

i like muppets... and they take manhattan, been waiting ages to see this in HD. Break out the popcorn and tissues for sure tonight!


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> On for several hours...old news. :lol:


First time I've heard of it. 

I'll have to check it out when I get home tonight.



JeffBowser said:


> :lol: DirecTV adds new HD channel, they get *****ed at. They don't add a new HD channel, they get *****ed at :lol: Endless source of amusement for me, even better than watching TV, is watching the snits on this board.


:biggthump


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Mark Walters said:


> Great, isn't it so exciting to welcome Sony to D*!- NOT :nono2:. This month's featured movies are Dick & Ghostbusters II. Let me make some popcorn. Wow, what year are we in? It gets better, can you guess what movies premier next month? The Natural, Oliver, Multiplicity and The Muppets Take Manhattan. Ok, to be fair more old-ass lame movies premier next month along with these, but I couldn't stomach the urge to type any more of these garbage films. We already have plenty of crap channels, but D* goes, what's one more to throw at us to alleviate the upcoming rise in fees.
> 
> I know, I know, people are going to disagree and say this is like the Lord's second coming. That's because you're used to mediocre garbage and you think it's cool to add another channel to the HD number even though it's as relevant as an infomercial channel in regards to how much time you're going to spend watching it.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity what type of programing would you have prefered?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> I'm not a fan of most of the newer movies. I've never watched any of the 3D ones for example, I've never seen Avatar or had a desire to do so.


One of the best movies I've seen in years and you don't have any desire to see it? You don't know what you're missing.



> When I was younger I used to watch the old Classic silent movies with a piano accompaniment on one of the local PBS Channels, I do not remember which one of the three it was unfortunately. I used to look forward to that night for them.


I used to watch them too. And I couldn't understand why. For the most part, with few exceptions, I really thought the silent movies were terrible. 
That goes for any movie in black and white, too. Even after color movies were out, when we went to the movies and the feature was in B&W we were terribly disappointed. At that time, color movies were more expensive to make and you rarely got good B&W movies. I think.



> If I had youngsters in the house I'd be all over that Muppet movie.
> Cheers


We must live on different planets. Go see _Avatar_ and tell me you didn't like it.

Rich


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

rich584 said:


> One of the best movies I've seen in years and you don't have any desire to see it? You don't know what you're missing.


Saw 10 minutes at Best Buy.

Dont need Cameron shoving his anti-war propoganda in my face for 2.5 hours.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

So basically this is a paid version of the Sony on demand content that had been free for the past year or so (on channel 1000 that you can really only sort online, because channel 1000 is the dvr's entry point for dod)?


----------



## SPECIES11703 (Oct 10, 2004)

I didn't know it was on 25 hrs a day!



trido said:


> Sony Movie channel HD is live now on CH 563.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Movies on the channel are unedited, commercial free, and OAR.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

rich584 said:


> We must live on different planets. Go see _Avatar_ and tell me you didn't like it.
> 
> Rich


I saw it years ago under its original name...Dances with Wolves. Same story, better acting.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> I saw it years ago under its original name...Dances with Wolves. Same story, better acting.


Don't forget the animated version...Disney's Pocahontas.


----------



## ejjames (Oct 3, 2006)

Watched a movie on Sony on demand. The Comic with Dick VanDyke. Solid film. I guess TCM has aired it, but it's never been on DVD, so it was nice to see it in HD.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

FWIW, none of the movies on Sony On Demand are in SMC this month.


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

I like Sony Movie Channel. :rolling:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Don't think I'd laughed so hard during a movie in a long time, as I did when I rented The General.


The General is terrific.

Way back in 1980 (30 years ago???), I rented a projector and checked the FILM of The General out of the public library for a surprise birthday party for my best friend in college. A wonderful memory and a helluva film.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Don't forget the animated version...Disney's Pocahontas.


Haha. Thanks for the video. Very funny, yet true. While I do have Avatar on BD...it is purely for PQ and AQ purposes only. One of my main issues was Sam Worthington's horrible accent. He can't seem to decide what his nationality is from scene to scene. Here is a great read about how he makes every non-Australian character he plays...Australian. http://www.cracked.com/funny-4723-sam-worthington/


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> This thread is about the SonyHD channel. Good, bad or indifferent. It's not about being a fan of the SonyHD channel. One poster expresses their opinion, now they're not "playing nice"? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we got SonyHD. I cannot wait to check it out once I get home. In fact, I thanked DIRECTV for this channel in the anticipation thread. We should let people express their opinion even if it's not pro DIRECTV. That is what makes DBSTALK such a cool place. Peace Smiddy.
> 
> Now, to stay on topic , is SonyHD 720p or 1080i?


I can't argue with your logic, you're spot on. I suppose I needed to chill a bit. 

I still haven't checked the channel out yet.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Nick said:


> Smiddy, I respectfully disagree... should I start another thread to say that? To have a thread where everyone agrees would be painfully boring, something like
> 
> +1
> +1
> ...


I can't argue with you either. I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed or something. When I reread it it doesn't get to me like it did this morning. :nono:


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

smiddy said:


> I can't argue with your logic, you're spot on. I suppose I needed to chill a bit.
> 
> I still haven't checked the channel out yet.


It's all good. Watching SonyHD right now. Quality looks great. Peace


----------



## jurples (Jan 12, 2008)

cartrivision said:


> Movies on the channel are unedited, commercial free, and OAR.


these words are like music to my ears. if one movie a month turns up on there that i want to see, then this channel will be worth more to me than all the ones who think it's okay to broadcast their abominable hatchet jobs.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> Saw 10 minutes at Best Buy.
> 
> Dont need Cameron shoving his anti-war propoganda in my face for 2.5 hours.


Maybe you'll like the remake where they wipe out all the natives and turn the planet into a barren wasteland.:lol:


----------



## cebbigh (Feb 27, 2005)

joed32 said:


> I want a national channel TCM so I can watch all of the great OLD movies.


TCMHD would be great. Even if it meant putting it in a more expensive package. Sony was a good add but it's only there because of the way it can be packaged.


----------



## TerryB (Feb 27, 2008)

I can't find SonyHD and its channel number as a selection choice (grayed or not) to make on building my favorites list. Since I have DVR recordings set to start I couldn't do any testing or Sat. signal checking. What else would cause the channel to not exist?

Thanks,
TerryB


----------



## ke3ju (Aug 18, 2006)

Mark Walters said:


> Great, isn't it so exciting to welcome Sony to D*!- NOT :nono2:. This month's featured movies are Dick & Ghostbusters II. Let me make some popcorn. Wow, what year are we in? It gets better, can you guess what movies premier next month? The Natural, Oliver, Multiplicity and The Muppets Take Manhattan. Ok, to be fair more old-ass lame movies premier next month along with these, but I couldn't stomach the urge to type any more of these garbage films. We already have plenty of crap channels, but D* goes, what's one more to throw at us to alleviate the upcoming rise in fees.
> 
> I know, I know, people are going to disagree and say this is like the Lord's second coming. That's because you're used to mediocre garbage and you think it's cool to add another channel to the HD number even though it's as relevant as an infomercial channel in regards to how much time you're going to spend watching it.
> 
> ...


The movie channels that you have to pay for are playing the same crap, so you might as ell watch the free one if you're into it....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jurples said:


> these words are like music to my ears. if one movie a month turns up on there that i want to see, then this channel will be worth more to me than all the ones who think it's okay to broadcast their abominable hatchet jobs.


Makes you wonder how some of those movies get made, doesn't it?

Rich


----------



## Santi360HD (Oct 6, 2008)

Glad to see *any* HD additions...after the wave rollout of the summer nice to see D* still has a heartbeat here...now the complaint is it got priority to the HD pack tier, as opposed to basic..WAAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH --> could be WHOLE LOT worse I could of woken up this morning in E*'s or Cablevision's world with disputed missing channels..

I'd be willing to pay more to my already existing HD Pack fee...if it would bring me AMC/IFC/TCM/BBC-America...also does Sundance exist in HD.or fill in any other channel you want here  Also the remaining HBO/MAX and SHO/TMC ...but that'd be premium ANYWAY..Its a shame because we've already seen D*'s lackluster approach on bringing us more national HD channels...this addition is worth some kind of festivus pole...even if it be a toothpick..or a pin head 

game on


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Movies on the channel are unedited, commercial free, and OAR.


Not so sure about OAR. The Celestine Prophecy was filmed at 2.35:1 but showed up at 16x9.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Not so sure about OAR. The Celestine Prophecy was filmed at 2.35:1 but showed up at 16x9.


I noticed that as well. I am going to check out some more. We'll have to see how they handle newer Sony films if they are added to the library. Maybe it will get better or be a mixed bag of sorts.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

From the Sony Movie channel website:

"Sony Movie Channel is the first U.S. multi-platform television network from Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) created specifically for the Hollywood movie fan, offering uncut and uninterrupted theatrical releases in stunning high definition *and 3D*. Programming is selected from more than 3,500 Sony Pictures films, which collectively have received 184 Academy Awards including 12 for Best Picture."

How will this work when they show a 3D movie on the Sony channel? First I've heard of Sony showing 3D movies.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Hoosier205" said:


> I noticed that as well. I am going to check out some more. We'll have to see how they handle newer Sony films if they are added to the library. Maybe it will get better or be a mixed bag of sorts.


Ghostbusters on demand is OAR. Not on linear channel so hard to compare.


----------



## TerryB (Feb 27, 2008)

TerryB said:


> I can't find SonyHD and its channel number as a selection choice (grayed or not) to make on building my favorites list. Since I have DVR recordings set to start I couldn't do any testing or Sat. signal checking. What else would cause the channel to not exist?
> 
> Thanks,
> TerryB


Anyone able to shed some light?

Thanks,


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

The Graduate was on when i got home from work last night...
been a while since i seen it....brings back a lot of memories for me..
glad it was on


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

TerryB said:


> Anyone able to shed some light?
> 
> Thanks,


Try rebooting your receiver.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TerryB said:


> Anyone able to shed some light?
> 
> Thanks,


Have HD Extra Pack activated - check.

Update Favorites to include Channel 563 - check.

_[reboot if needed - but likely not - try without it first]_

Enjoy the new HD Channel - check.


----------



## NewForceFiveFan (Apr 23, 2010)

Not sure if I like it as much as HDNet Movies. It appears to follow a similar formula of show a couple movies and repeat then show a couple more and repeat. I do agree with other posters that out of the two-week schedule I was able to go through in the guide there was only a two or three movies I was actually interested in dvr'ing and one, The Professional, has already been airing on HDNet Movies. Not sure if it was the guide but it felt like they kept repeating the same 8 or so movies over and over for the entire week just in a different order each day.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NewForceFiveFan said:


> Not sure if I like it as much as HDNet Movies. It appears to follow a similar formula of show a couple movies and repeat then show a couple more and repeat. I do agree with other posters that out of the two-week schedule I was able to go through in the guide there was only a two or three movies I was actually interested in dvr'ing and one, The Professional, has already been airing on HDNet Movies. Not sure if it was the guide but it felt like they kept repeating the same 8 or so movies over and over for the entire week just in a different order each day.


All the Premium movie channels do that. I pay for the Premium Package, I think it costs about $114 a month. And I rarely use it. NetFlix is so much better. I think. But if I drop it, I lose all the great series on Showtime and HBO and Starz. Not that big a deal, I could catch up on NetFlix. Hmmm.

Rich


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

I contacted Sony Movie Channel about their OAR practices. I used The Graduate as an example. Here is the response I received:



> Thank you for your email.
> 
> The original aspect ratio for The Graduate of 2.35:1 was modified when the High Definition TV Master was created. For HDTV broadcast, 16x9 is the only aspect ratio that is available. Otherwise, the film is only available in the original 2.35:1 in Standard Definition.
> 
> ...


It does sound like they will make every effort to get it right and I can understand that it may not always be possible given the source. A great response though...and quick I might add.


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

> The original aspect ratio for The Graduate of 2.35:1 was modified when the High Definition TV Master was created. For HDTV broadcast, 16x9 is the only aspect ratio that is available. Otherwise, the film is only available in the original 2.35:1 in Standard Definition.


However, that's not really true, as The Graduate is out on Blu-ray in its original aspect ratio, of course.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pablo said:


> However, that's not really true, as The Graduate is out on Blu-ray in its original aspect ratio, of course.


Yes, but the master that was done for Blu-ray is different (and likely newer) than the master they have available for broadcast.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes, but the master that was done for Blu-ray is different (and likely newer) than the master they have available for broadcast.


It's also important to note that when doing a master, studios create multiple masters, including seperate masters for Blu-ray and broadcast.

For instance, the studio might create a 2.35:1 master for Blu-ray, yet create a 1.78:1 master for broadcast since the majority of channels do not use OAR.

I'm wanting to say that HDNet Movies has aired "The Graduate" before, but if it was in fact in it's OAR, it's possible that was in fact an OLDER master than the one currently airing on Sony Movie Channel.

The good news is that it appears SMC will at least TRY to give us OAR when they can.

~Alan


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm wanting to say that HDNet Movies has aired "The Graduate" before, but if it was in fact in it's OAR, it's possible that was in fact an OLDER master than the one currently airing on Sony Movie Channel.


They have aired it before and will again in November.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

rich584 said:


> One of the best movies I've seen in years and you don't have any desire to see it? You don't know what you're missing.
> 
> I used to watch them too. And I couldn't understand why. For the most part, with few exceptions, I really thought the silent movies were terrible.
> That goes for any movie in black and white, too. Even after color movies were out, when we went to the movies and the feature was in B&W we were terribly disappointed. At that time, color movies were more expensive to make and you rarely got good B&W movies. I think.
> ...


3D doesn't work for me, No BluRay player, Not interested in going to a movie theater due to noise and crowds. Coming attractions did nothing for me. More things to watch on the DVR then I have time for.

I've recently watched many B&W movies on the classic movie channels and highly enjoyed them.

Charlie Chaplin movies!

I'm watching the original 13 Ghosts in B&W where to see the ghosts in the theater you put on the special glasses.

I guess I'm strange, not having gone to the movies since the nineties. I can't stand in lines or walk far and driving bothers me too anymore. I don't really miss the Buttered Popcorn that used a flavored oil not real butter. it Used to be you could see them putting sticks of butter in the machine for buttering the popcorn. I also don't miss my feet sticking to the floor and the ()&*^ behind pushing on the back of my seat and audience members talking throughout the movie.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> 3D doesn't work for me, No BluRay player, Not interested in going to a movie theater due to noise and crowds. Coming attractions did nothing for me. More things to watch on the DVR then I have time for.
> 
> I've recently watched many B&W movies on the classic movie channels and highly enjoyed them.
> 
> ...


That's why I go to movies in the afternoon on days off. Usually alone. I sit in the best spot for both sound and vision. Also the other people in the theater are quiet because they are there specifically to enjoy the movie. A lot has changed for the better at theaters. You shouldn't be so worried about the things you can't control and just enjoy the theater experience as I am sure that the misery in your mind regarding the movie theater experience is a hundred times worse than reality. Live a little and go check out a flick!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> 3D doesn't work for me, No BluRay player, Not interested in going to a movie theater due to noise and crowds. Coming attractions did nothing for me. More things to watch on the DVR then I have time for.


I don't have 3D either. Glasses over glasses isn't pleasant.



> I've recently watched many B&W movies on the classic movie channels and highly enjoyed them.
> 
> Charlie Chaplin movies!


I never cared for Chaplin. There was a "silent" comedian, not Buster Keaton, was it Harold Lloyd? I think that was who it was. Funny. But I never enjoyed B&W shows. Used to watch Hopalong Cassidy and his peers and never got over the fact that we could see westerns in color but not in our homes.



> I guess I'm strange, not having gone to the movies since the nineties. I can't stand in lines or walk far and driving bothers me too anymore. I don't really miss the Buttered Popcorn that used a flavored oil not real butter. it Used to be you could see them putting sticks of butter in the machine for buttering the popcorn. I also don't miss my feet sticking to the floor and the ()&*^ behind pushing on the back of my seat and audience members talking throughout the movie.


I don't go to movie houses anymore either. Can't rewind the movie to find out what someone said. Can't pause it to hit the head. Hungry? Can't pause it to get food. I remember a time that my grandmother and I used to sit thru two shows just to understand the movies. She had to get up a lot. 

I do agree with you about the state of the movie houses. I've never quite understood why rugs are used in the seating areas. I'd much rather watch at home.

You really ought to watch _Avatar_. It's a beautiful movie. Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy saves the planet, etc. I've watched that kind of movie a lot over the years, but the movie itself dwarfs the script.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> That's why I go to movies in the afternoon on days off. Usually alone. I sit in the best spot for both sound and vision. Also the other people in the theater are quiet because they are there specifically to enjoy the movie. A lot has changed for the better at theaters. You shouldn't be so worried about the things you can't control and just enjoy the theater experience as I am sure that the misery in your mind regarding the movie theater experience is a hundred times worse than reality. Live a little and go check out a flick!


Crapshoot going to the movies in NYC at the moment. Bedbugs. Bedbugs that live in the movie seats and attach themselves to people and then get taken home.

Rich


----------



## steinmeg (Nov 23, 2006)

Went to channel 563 to check it out.....It stinks, the picture clarity is terrible, why the hell is it not in HD? I will not watch any channel that is not in HD......


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

steinmeg said:


> Went to channel 563 to check it out.....It stinks, the picture clarity is terrible, why the hell is it not in HD? I will not watch any channel that is not in HD......


You must be kidding....

The HD I've seen is 1080i great HD here....


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

steinmeg said:


> Went to channel 563 to check it out.....It stinks, the picture clarity is terrible, why the hell is it not in HD? I will not watch any channel that is not in HD......


Sony HD broadcasts in 1080i.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

steinmeg said:


> Went to channel 563 to check it out.....It stinks, the picture clarity is terrible, why the hell is it not in HD? I will not watch any channel that is not in HD......


The few minutes of "The Graduate" that I sampled yesterday looked awfully good to me.

I've been recording Hogan's Heroes for several months now on Universal HD in the HD Extra Pack as well as a few movies on MGMHD and a few SmithsonianHD specials. These channels are well worth the $5 per month extra fee after the first three months free.


----------



## tonymus (Dec 26, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Think that's bad, one of the best movies I've ever seen isn't even a talkie. Don't think I'd laughed so hard during a movie in a long time, as I did when I rented The General. What's sad is when someone won't watch something because it's in B&W, or saying it's a waste of a Blu-ray. An old B&W movie, properly restored etc, can look fantastic in HD. The resolution is there, even if it isn't widescreen.


I re-watched The General the other night on TCM, it is truly one of the greatest movies ever made. It's unfortunate that so many people today cannot enjoy a good silent film...


----------



## mws192 (Jun 17, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> FWIW, none of the movies on Sony On Demand are in SMC this month.


Where are you seeing Sony movies On Demand? I'm not seeing a dedicated channel in the 1000s.

Also, if you look at the schedule on their website, most of their movies that are on the linear channel should also be available on demand. 
http://www.sonymoviechannel.com/schedule


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> The good news is that it appears SMC will at least TRY to give us OAR when they can.
> ~Alan


It absolutely does not say that at all. When a film that is a certified "classic" and obviously has an HD transfer in its correct aspect ratio is not shown in that aspect ratio on the film's "parent company"'s channel, it doesn't give one hope for less well known films.

It's amazing the extent people will take obvious corporate nonsense seriously because they would rather believe a television channel has their best interests at heart than not.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

QuickDrop said:


> It absolutely does not say that at all. When a film that is a certified "classic" and obviously has an HD transfer in its correct aspect ratio is not shown in that aspect ratio on the film's "parent company"'s channel, it doesn't give one hope for less well known films.


For the record, "The Graduate" is an MGM film... so Sony isn't the "PARENT COMPANY."

Second of all, yes, there is an HD transfer out there in the correct aspect ratio... a home video HD transfer. Not having watched "The Graduate" on HDNet Movies (or any other channel), I'm not sure whether or not a broadcast master exists in the OAR, BUT if so, it's possible that the transfer shown is in fact a NEWER transfer than what is shown on the other channels.



QuickDrop said:


> It's amazing the extent people will take obvious corporate nonsense seriously because they would rather believe a television channel has their best interests at heart than not.


I don't know of a single television channel (or any other corporation out there for that matter) that has my best interests at heart. HOWEVER, their wording gives me hope that maybe Sony Movie Channel will indeed TRY to use OAR whenever possible.... not for my best interests, but rather for the sake of quality.

If you look at my wording that you quoted, you'll see that I said it APPEARS SMC will try to give us OAR when they can.

~Alan


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"mws192" said:


> Where are you seeing Sony movies On Demand? I'm not seeing a dedicated channel in the 1000s.
> 
> Also, if you look at the schedule on their website, most of their movies that are on the linear channel should also be available on demand.
> http://www.sonymoviechannel.com/schedule


The Sony on demand has been on 1000 for quite some time. Mixed in with MGM and Cinema Plus.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

The Sony titles listed on 1000 are not related to Sony Movie Channel. The just happen to be Sony titles available as VOD. When Sony Movie Channel content is available as VOD...it will have a dedicated channel...such as HDNet Movies does. The same goes for VOD movies labeled as MGM...they are not from the MGM channel in the HD Extra pack.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> For the record, "The Graduate" is an MGM film... so Sony isn't the "PARENT COMPANY."
> 
> Second of all, yes, there is an HD transfer out there in the correct aspect ratio... a home video HD transfer. Not having watched "The Graduate" on HDNet Movies (or any other channel), I'm not sure whether or not a broadcast master exists in the OAR, BUT if so, it's possible that the transfer shown is in fact a NEWER transfer than what is shown on the other channels.~Alan


From Wikipedia (not the absolute best source but the information does fit with my understanding):

"Sony Pictures Television Group: (formerly Columbia TriStar Television Group) The successor-in-interest to Columbia's television division (first Screen Gems, later Columbia Pictures Television, Coca-Cola Television, TriStar Television (A division of Columbia Pictures Television), and Columbia TriStar Television), as of 2004 the unit was producing 60 titles for various television outlets globally. Contains a library that includes more than 35,000 episodes of more than 270 television series and 22,000 game show episodes under the Columbia TriStar Television brand, and the television rights to the Embassy Pictures library (including *The Graduate* and The Lion in Winter) and also the owner of the television division "Embassy Television"--among most recent notable shows in this library are Seinfeld, King of Queens, Days of our Lives and The Young and the Restless."

Most pre-1950s MGM films are now owned by Warner Brothers. The original Parent company means little in this day and age of gobbling up product. Go to the TCM forums anytime they show something in the incorrect aspect ration, whether they own it or license it and they usually profusely apologize for the mistake and usually promise to re-air the film soon in its correct aspect ratio. It's also an insult to a channel like HDNet, who essentially licenses all their movies and do so in the correct OAR, often when the films aren't available in that way from any other source. Sony might turn into a serious movie channel who airs the breadth of their holdings correctly (His Girl Friday comes to mind) but right now they seem like middle of the afternoon programming for HBO.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I don't know of a single television channel (or any other corporation out there for that matter) that has my best interests at heart. HOWEVER, their wording gives me hope that maybe Sony Movie Channel will indeed TRY to use OAR whenever possible.... not for my best interests, but rather for the sake of quality.
> 
> If you look at my wording that you quoted, you'll see that I said it APPEARS SMC will try to give us OAR when they can.
> 
> ~Alan


I should go back and look, but I''m pretty sure the statements I made on Corporate talk were more directed to a poster following up on his "awesome" post. I combined responses because it seemed easier and did feel it touched on your posts. Despite our disagreements, I've always found what you wrote rational if overly optimistically, just as I'm sure you consider me overly pessimistic. My latest outburst notwithstanding our disagreements have tended to be civil and I hope they stay that way, give or take the momentarily strong disagreement.

It seems we essentially want the same thing from DirecTV but believe differently whether DirecTV plans to deliver it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

QuickDrop said:


> From Wikipedia (not the absolute best source but the information does fit with my understanding):
> 
> "Sony Pictures Television Group: (formerly Columbia TriStar Television Group) The successor-in-interest to Columbia's television division (first Screen Gems, later Columbia Pictures Television, Coca-Cola Television, TriStar Television (A division of Columbia Pictures Television), and Columbia TriStar Television), as of 2004 the unit was producing 60 titles for various television outlets globally. Contains a library that includes more than 35,000 episodes of more than 270 television series and 22,000 game show episodes under the Columbia TriStar Television brand, and the television rights to the Embassy Pictures library (including *The Graduate* and The Lion in Winter) and also the owner of the television division "Embassy Television"--among most recent notable shows in this library are Seinfeld, King of Queens, Days of our Lives and The Young and the Restless."
> 
> Most pre-1950s MGM films are now owned by Warner Brothers. The original Parent company means little in this day and age of gobbling up product. Go to the TCM forums anytime they show something in the incorrect aspect ration, whether they own it or license it and they usually profusely apologize for the mistake and usually promise to re-air the film soon in its correct aspect ratio. It's also an insult to a channel like HDNet, who essentially licenses all their movies and do so in the correct OAR, often when the films aren't available in that way from any other source. Sony might turn into a serious movie channel who airs the breadth of their holdings correctly (His Girl Friday comes to mind) but right now they seem like middle of the afternoon programming for HBO.


First of all, having the television rights to the Embassy Pictures library does not mean they have ANY control over the master they receive for airing. It's MGM's film.

Going into any further detail regarding MGM's history would be painful (Turner, WB, Sony, Lionsgate... AARGH!!!), but I'm more interested in how Sony behaves with THEIR library.

Also, while no one is doubting TCM or HDNet Movie's dedication to OAR, they have both aired films not in their OAR from time to time. Their belief was they'd rather show the film than to not show it at all due to their lack of having the film in the OAR.

~Alan


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> I should go back and look, but I''m pretty sure the statements I made on Corporate talk were more directed to a poster following up on his "awesome" post.


I haven't read what you posted, but did you take issue with this post of mine?



Hoosier205 said:


> I contacted Sony Movie Channel about their OAR practices. I used The Graduate as an example. Here is the response I received:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





QuickDrop said:


> It absolutely does not say that at all. When a film that is a certified "classic" and obviously has an HD transfer in its correct aspect ratio is not shown in that aspect ratio on the film's "parent company"'s channel, it doesn't give one hope for less well known films.
> 
> It's amazing the extent people will take obvious corporate nonsense seriously because they would rather believe a television channel has their best interests at heart than not.


I'm not saying they will follow through with what they say...only time will tell. I was just happy they responded to OAR inquiry I sent them. They say, "As a channel, we endeavor to show each film in its original theatrical version, whenever possible." and I for one will wait and see how they perform. I won't watch 2.35:1 film which have been cropped to 1.85:1. So, they will only get so much attention from me if they don't make an effort to provide films in wider aspect ratios...in their OAR. That's my preference. I of course don't believe they have my best interest at heart. I'd much rather they have the filmmaker's best interests at heart and give their work due respect. In the end they are a business and expect that they will do whatever is in their own best interest.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> First of all, having the television rights to the Embassy Pictures library does not mean they have ANY control over the master they receive for airing. It's MGM's film.
> 
> Going into any further detail regarding MGM's history would be painful (Turner, WB, Sony, Lionsgate... AARGH!!!), but I'm more interested in how Sony behaves with THEIR library.
> 
> ...


Sony Pictures has only existed since 1990 and then by buying Columbia Pictures. Their ownership of most films in their library is primary the result of acquisition not of clean beginning to end production control.

Again from Wiki:

Many of MGM's competitors started to make bids to purchase the studio, beginning with Time Warner. It was not unexpected that Time Warner would bid, since the largest shareholder in the company was Ted Turner. His Turner Entertainment group had risen to success in part through its ownership of the pre-May 1986 MGM library. After a short period of negotiation with MGM, Time Warner was unsuccessful. The *leading bidder proved to be Sony* Corporation of America, backed by Comcast and private equity firms Texas Pacific Group (now TPG Capital, L.P.), DLJ and Providence Equity Partners. *Sony's primary goal was to ensure Blu-ray Disc support at MGM*; cost synergies with Sony Pictures Entertainment were secondary. Time Warner made a counter-bid (which Ted Turner reportedly tried to block), but on September 13, 2004, Sony increased its bid of $11.25/share (roughly $4.7 billion) to $12/share ($5 billion), and Time Warner subsequently withdrew its bid of $11/share ($4.5 billion). *MGM and Sony agreed on a purchase price of nearly $5 billion, of which about $2 billion was to pay off MGM debt* [10] [11]. From 2005-2006, Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group has domestically distributed films by MGM and UA.

Sony Movie Channel has a choice what they air. To obviously ignore OAR on a very high profile "classic" does not give me hope for "lesser" films they air.

Also if other channels, HDNet Movies; according to argument, MGM HD, can currently air the same movies better than Sony Movie Channel, doesn't that suggest SMC HD shouldn't have leapfrogged, shortly after it's premiere, several long existing, well established channels that D* doesn't carry in HD?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

QuickDrop said:


> Sony Pictures has only existed since 1990 and then by buying Columbia Pictures. Their ownership of most films in their library is primary the result of acquisition not of clean beginning to end production control.
> 
> Again from Wiki:
> 
> ...


I'm tired, so I'm going to give up regarding MGM/Sony. I'll simply leave it with the statement that when it comes to film studios, licenses, transfers/masters, etc., it can get pretty complicated, and that my feelings regarding the matter are summed up almost PERFECTLY by Hoosier205 above (depending on the film, I might actually watch it if it isn't OAR, but depending on the movie, I might).



QuickDrop said:


> Also if other channels, HDNet Movies; according to argument, MGM HD, can currently air the same movies better than Sony Movie Channel, doesn't that suggest SMC HD shouldn't have leapfrogged, shortly after it's premiere, several long existing, well established channels that D* doesn't carry in HD?


MGM HD (and most other HD movie channel) has cropped films as well. EPIX airs films in 720p. TCM-HD (as much as I want it) airs films upconverted, even when HD BROADCAST masters exist.

Sure, Sony Movie Channel wasn't my most wanted channel, but it was among my top wanted channels, so I'm grateful for the addition. It's one of the few (the 5th) DirecTV has added this year of any interest to me...

~Alan


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> MGM HD (and most other HD movie channel) has cropped films as well. EPIX airs films in 720p. TCM-HD (as much as I want it) airs films upconverted, even when HD BROADCAST masters exist.
> ~Alan


I'm tired too. Famously, MGM HD zoomed in to 16x9 for The Red Shoes that had been transferred and shown in the OAR 1.37:1 HD transfer (A correct Blu-ray eventually became available.), so they are clearly not perfect. However, I've seen numerously examples on their channel that they show the widest wide and squarest square correctly. Based on observable evidence MGM HD gets a much a greater pass from me than email defenses from Sony Movie Channel.

None of this, of course, addresses HDNet movies, which are licensed and almost always get OAR correct.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

QuickDrop said:


> Famously, MGM HD zoomed in to 16x9 for The Red Shoes that had been transferred and shown in the OAR 1.37:1 HD transfer (A correct Blu-ray eventually became available.), so they are clearly not perfect.


Nothing to add to the rest of your post, but I just had to add that I own that Blu-ray. 

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Sure seems to be alot of energy spent by a few avoiding enjoying something new in HD.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sure seems to be alot of energy spent by a few avoiding enjoying something new in HD.


+1


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> That's why I go to movies in the afternoon on days off. Usually alone. I sit in the best spot for both sound and vision. Also the other people in the theater are quiet because they are there specifically to enjoy the movie. A lot has changed for the better at theaters. You shouldn't be so worried about the things you can't control and just enjoy the theater experience as I am sure that the misery in your mind regarding the movie theater experience is a hundred times worse than reality. Live a little and go check out a flick!


For movies that I want to see on the big screen (think lots of explosions ), but the wife doesn't care to see, I go in the afternoon, and then come back to work and stay an extra 2 hours to make up the time.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

> The original aspect ratio for The Graduate of 2.35:1 was modified when the High Definition TV Master was created. For HDTV broadcast, 16x9 is the only aspect ratio that is available. Otherwise, the film is only available in the original 2.35:1 in Standard Definition.


And that is an absolute crock of you-know-what. There are not one but 2 different HD masters available for THE GRADUATE that can be seen on Blu-Ray -- in the US in MGM's HD master (2.35) and the Studio Canal European version (2.35). Oh, and you can see the 2.35 version on HDNet Movies too.

So frankly, that's an outright lie they're giving us right there.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sure seems to be alot of energy spent by a few avoiding enjoying something new in HD.


+2


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

> First of all, having the television rights to the Embassy Pictures library does not mean they have ANY control over the master they receive for airing. It's MGM's film.


That's not exactly true. For a time Sony got control of a number of MGM movies and distributed them in HD -- if you've ever seen THE FOG, which falls under that Embassy package, it airs on TV in a gorgeous HD master, complete with the Columbia logo at the beginning and the end. On that one it's a new transfer Sony produced and it looks great. Apparently they didn't do that on THE GRADUATE.



> Second of all, yes, there is an HD transfer out there in the correct aspect ratio... a home video HD transfer. Not having watched "The Graduate" on HDNet Movies (or any other channel), I'm not sure whether or not a broadcast master exists in the OAR, BUT if so, it's possible that the transfer shown is in fact a NEWER transfer than what is shown on the other channels.


HDNet aired it in 2.35, in the exact same master that was released on Blu-Ray. It is very obviously a much newer transfer than what Sony airs on their channel. That looks like something done in the late '90s it's so blurry and lacks detail.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> And that is an absolute crock of you-know-what. There are not one but 2 different HD masters available for THE GRADUATE that can be seen on Blu-Ray -- in the US in MGM's HD master (2.35) and the Studio Canal European version (2.35). Oh, and you can see the 2.35 version on HDNet Movies too.
> 
> So frankly, that's an outright lie they're giving us right there.


...except that there are likely other masters available for various purposes and created at different times. They may be telling us lies, but we can't just assume what they may or may not have access to. If you are really curious about it, seek out a film industry insider (such as Penton at blu-ray.com). They can look into if for you and let you know what masters are available and in use by whom.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> HDNet aired it in 2.35, in *the exact same master* that was released on Blu-Ray.


...and you know this how exactly?


----------



## Button Pusher (Jan 19, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sure seems to be alot of energy spent by a few avoiding enjoying something new in HD.


+3 

Thank you DirecTv for another HD channel. Can't wait until you give me The Outdoor Channel in beautiful HD!


----------



## sdirv (Dec 14, 2008)

rich584 said:


> All the Premium movie channels do that. I pay for the Premium Package, I think it costs about $114 a month. And I rarely use it. NetFlix is so much better. I think. But if I drop it, I lose all the great series on Showtime and HBO and Starz. Not that big a deal, I could catch up on NetFlix. Hmmm.
> 
> Rich


When I first turned on the Premium Package I was watching movies constantly, now when I check the guide for what's coming up.....not so much. I keep it going for new stuff and for the original series. I use D*'s VOD probably as much as I use the premium channels.

Netflix though is another story altogether......nearly all my movie viewing now is with Netflix streaming.

I'm not going to turn off my Premier Package though, I'm retired, have too much time on my hands, and like options (since entertainment these days is "Job #1" for me.....


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

Another useless channel they want more money for. I'll pass


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

rkr0923 said:


> I'll pass


...on a package that includes 8 channels total, that you could probably get for free? Ummm...okay.


----------



## mrski57 (Dec 17, 2008)

big deal! its in hd plus. the movies stink!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

mrski57 said:


> big deal! i*ts in hd* plus. the movies stink!


You're unhappy that it is an HD channel?


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

rkr0923 said:


> Another useless channel they want more money for. I'll pass


But aren't most people getting the HD pack anyway? So it's a nice bonus to an already excellent low-cost package of HD-only channels.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Nothing to add to the rest of your post, but I just had to add that I own that Blu-ray.
> ~Alan


Well, then, you are a person with taste.

On the topic of the HD pack, it's debatable whether those channels should cost extra, but to me both HDnet and MGM HD (despite some of it problems) are pretty much must have channels if you want HD movies based on their quality/historical interest rather than the latest blockbuster.

Of course, I still want TCM in HD and FMC when it goes there.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> but to me both HDnet and MGM HD (despite some of it problems) are pretty much must have channels if you want HD movies based on their quality/historical interest rather than the latest blockbuster.


+1



QuickDrop said:


> Of course, I still want TCM in HD and FMC when it goes there.


+1


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> +
> 
> 
> QuickDrop said:
> ...


+2



Hoosier205 said:


> +
> 
> 
> QuickDrop said:
> ...


+2

~Alan


----------



## ejjames (Oct 3, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> +2
> 
> +2
> 
> ~Alan


+3
+4!
(I'm off to get my calculator!)


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

mrski57 said:


> big deal! its in hd plus. the movies stink!


And your idea of a good movie is?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I think the bottom line here is that this new HD Sony Movie Channel is welcome by some and not so to others - just like virtually any other channel.

Appreciate getting more HD...and I do plan to visit this channel from time to time. With the number of HD channels and the array of HD programming out there, not to mention the reams of stuff I schedule on DVRs these days...watching tons of HD already is common here.

More is good, options are good....its all good.


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

I've already scheduled a recording of one film I've never seen in HD: The City of Lost Children.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Just added SONYHD and HDNet and MGMHD to my lineup for the freeview.

Got Lawrence of Arabia set to record this weekend.

Also, on the 27th, I see there is a 2010 movie called Monsters. Sounds interesting.


----------



## PkDog (Jul 24, 2009)

I am glad to see another HD channel added and figured that SMC would be a new staple for my viewing pleasure -- until I realized that they do not provide closed captions.

I am not sure why CC is mandatory on SD broadcasts (within the allowed age of the program) and not for HD.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

PkDog said:


> I am glad to see another HD channel added and figured that SMC would be a new staple for my viewing pleasure -- until I realized that they do not provide closed captions.
> 
> I am not sure why CC is mandatory on SD broadcasts (within the allowed age of the program) and not for HD.


+1,000,000,000,000,000

Sorry, had to do it. Once MGM and SonyHD begins captioning their movies, I'll then get rid of Starz. HD Extra Pack is cheaper and what I already have.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I like the Sony movie channel ,decent movies,nice pq ,DD5.1 and 1080i.I already seen all the movies that i watched before but didn't bother me to see them again.


----------



## steinmeg (Nov 23, 2006)

hdtvfan0001:

You might be right that it is being broadcasting in 1080i, I am not disputing that, but:
1. Not one movie is in HD ( yes I know they are old movies)
2. HDNet Movies also shows old movies , and they are all in HD. Prime example: Towering Inferno, an old movie looked sensational in HD
Sony might be broadcasting in 1080i, but the picture quality stinks.....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

steinmeg said:


> hdtvfan0001:
> 
> You might be right that it is being broadcasting in 1080i, I am not disputing that, but:
> 1. Not one movie is in HD ( yes I know they are old movies)
> ...


Fact is many movies are shot in 35MM or other size film media (especially those from "yesteryear").

Another fact is that many of those formats are actually a higher resolution than today's HD. For that reason, they can be digitized and presented on Blu ray or broadcast in HD, and look amazing.

I've seen numerous classic movies from 30,40, and even 50 years ago...and they never looked better.

Specific to Sony Movie Channel...

I have now watched over a dozen programs, and there is little doubt that they have a mixed bag of original source content - some has been great HD presentations while the program I looked at about an hour ago looked near-SD quality...certainly not HD.

It comes down to how they want to do the digital presentations. In the case of HDNet - they seem to insist on 99% high-quality imagery, Sony Movie Channel seems to (so far) accept a mixed bag of image quality presentations.

I don't believe one could make any kind of generalized statement that its always great or always poor, without mis-stating the facts.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I Agree Wholeheartedly as those are my sentiments also!!!



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Fact is many movies are shot in 35MM or other size film media (especially those from "yesteryear").
> 
> Another fact is that many of those formats are actually a higher resolution than today's HD. For that reason, they can be digitized and presented on Blu ray or broadcast in HD, and look amazing.
> 
> ...


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

PkDog said:


> I am not sure why CC is mandatory on SD broadcasts (within the allowed age of the program) and not for HD.


Closed-captioning is normally required on HD, same as SD. However, there's an exemption for "new channels" -- they're not required to caption programming for their first four years of existence.

That said...I would strongly suggest contacting SMC and expressing your displeasure with the fact that they're not captioning their programming. (It's not like this is a channel being run by a small startup company -- Sony _definitely_ has the resources to have the programming on this channel closed-captioned.)


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Since I already subscribe to HD Extra Pack, I thought I'd take a look at the new Sony Movie Channel this morning.

I'm auditing The Fisher King right now and the video quality is *absolutely stunning*, and the DD 5.1 appears to be operating properly.

The movie looks very "Coen Brotheresque", so I'm going to record it when it comes on next week.

If this movie is typical of the offerings on this channel, I'll be very pleased with its addition.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

hasan said:


> Since I already subscribe to HD Extra Pack, I thought I'd take a look at the new Sony Movie Channel this morning.
> 
> I'm auditing Charm School (2007) right now and the video quality is *absolutely stunning*, and the DD 5.1 appears to be operating properly.
> 
> ...


Happened upon it too....looked very solid here as well.

This supports the comments I made earlier that most content in crisp and clean HD...with a few stragglers being softer or not great HD being the "exception". A very few posters seemed to make it sound like the HD on this new channel was "terrible" or "poor".


----------



## KAL (Sep 1, 2008)

Glad to see the new addition. I know some here arent all to happy about it, but at least its not another HD PPV channel. :lol:


----------



## texasmoose (May 25, 2007)

Just gutted the Graduate after a few minutes. What's funny is the film starts in OAR, then w/ flick of light switch in seen w/his dad it goes to hell. I'll wait for it on HDNET in November.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

texasmoose said:


> Just gutted the Graduate after a few minutes. What's funny is the film starts in OAR, then w/ flick of light switch in seen w/his dad it goes to hell. I'll wait for it on HDNET in November.


Yep, they do that so the opening credits don't get cropped.


----------



## ejjames (Oct 3, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yep, they do that so the opening credits don't get cropped.


That always gets my hopes up. They there's the big letdown as soon as the credits end.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Now showing "The Remains of the Day", with great cast, direction, locations, picture and sound quality.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GregLee said:


> Now showing "The Remains of the Day", with great cast, direction, locations, picture and sound quality.


Thanks...yes...that's a good flick.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> When HDNet aired it in 2.35, in the exact same master that was released on Blu-Ray.
> 
> ...and you know this how exactly?


What's your deal with the sarcasm? I know it because I'VE SEEN THEM. Is that so crazy to believe? lol. (And I actually review Blu-Rays and DVDs so I actually have some idea what I'm talking about).

It's the same master. It has the same logos at the beginning. It looks identical. It's composed exactly the same way. It doesn't look like a blurry mess like the Sony Movie Channel master that looks like it's literally from over a decade ago.

You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes or an "insider at blu-ray.com" to deduce that.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> What's your deal with the sarcasm? I know it because I'VE SEEN THEM. Is that so crazy to believe? lol. (And I actually review Blu-Rays and DVDs so I actually have some idea what I'm talking about).
> 
> It's the same master. It has the same logos at the beginning. It looks identical. It's composed exactly the same way. It doesn't look like a blurry mess like the Sony Movie Channel master that looks like it's literally from over a decade ago.
> 
> You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes or an "insider at blu-ray.com" to deduce that.


...then you're guessing. Just say that next time. You do not know that it is the same master. The logos at the beginning do not indicate that you are looking at the same master. Your visual inspection is simply not adequate either. Who do you review for?


----------



## Lethargic (Sep 5, 2006)

I looked at the channel the first day it came on but didn't check it out again until yesterday and now the channel is gone and I get the I haven't bought the channel message.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Lethargic said:


> I looked at the channel the first day it came on but didn't check it out again until yesterday and now the channel is gone and I get the I haven't bought the channel message.


Do you have the HD Extra Pack? Are the other channels around it live (Smith, UHD)? If so, sounds like you need to refresh services.


----------

