Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 May 17

= May 17 =

Trying to remember what movie this is...
Not too long ago, but long enough ago that I can't really remember it, I saw a movie that ended, I think, in some sort of metal institution, where the therapy was extreme water therapy, and it turns out the bad guy was in charge of the institution or something like that? Ring any bells? It's on the tip of my tongue but I can't remember anything else about it, some sort of action film. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy Theory? Mel Gibson's character gets tortured in a pool in a hospital.  Dismas |(talk) 04:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oscar Levant and others receive water therapy in Vincente Minnelli's The Cobweb (1955). Pepso2 (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... no.. neither of those. Hmm. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You sure it's not One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Where the chief rips a water machine of some kind out of the floor and throws it through the window to run away? Jack Nicholson had earlier used it to squirt other patients? --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All I can think of is Constantine. I doubt that is what you are thinking of however. Lanfear's Bane  |  t  11:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No.. hmm. My memory of this is so vague that I wonder if it wasn't a dream, or something half-caught on television? The movie ends with the hero (whomever that is) going to the asylum or whatever it is and confronting the doctor guy. Some sort of fight ensues. Maybe high-pressure water is used. I think someone drowns in the end. Anyway I can't recall. It's the climax of whatever it is. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In Samuel Fuller's Shock Corridor (1963), the central character begins to hallucinate a rainstorm inside the mental institution. Pepso2 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Was it anything to do with the film made about Mr. Kellog and his institution, which I've never seen? Perhaps a search for hydrotherapy might find something. 78.149.232.7 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of Timeshift channel?
What's the point of timeshift channels like the ones in the UK where they play the same programs one hour later?F (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So that people can watch or record two shows that were originally broadcast at the same time or so that people can watch a show an hour later. The same concept exists with Pay per view movie channels that start movies every 3minutes on a range of channels. Nanonic (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "record two shows that were originally broadcast at the same time" ok that made sense, I thought people in the UK don't have VCRs. :P But don't the new PVRs come with dual tuners now?F (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My two year old Panasonic PVR can play while recording, but it can't record two programmes at once. So the +1 channels are very useful! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And how many times have you been looking round the EPG and thought "Damn, I've missed the start of..."? Astronaut (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see the intended use (to record programmes missed earlier due to other programmes or forgetfulness), but not the point, myself. It seems to be a tremendous waste of money and energy for a lot of pretty poor cable/digital TV shows, what has civilisation come to?! :-) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I rather fear that the real reason is the TV company thinking "We don't have anything to put in this channel, but if we don't put something in it they'll take away our slot on the DVB multiplex". ITV's recent dismal financial results show that not nearly enough people are watching ITV1; it's pretty hard to believe that the viewership for ITV3+1 amounts to very much - but (in a future post-recession advertising market) that channel on the multiplex might be quite valuable, so they hang onto it with grim determination. 87.115.168.96 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the cost of running an additional channel if everything that is broadcast is already broadcast on a real-time channel? I doubt it is much in comparison to another channel. Clearly the 'point' is to allow people to watch something an hour later than scheduled - maybe they get home later, maybe they're watching something else. Not everybody has a VCR or a hard-drive-recorder, and not everybody 'plans' their viewing. If you switch on and realise (like I often do) that show X started at 8pm but it's not 8.45 it's really really handy to have a channel on hand that allows you to watch the show from 9pm.

I am always frustrated by why the BBC don't offer some +1 channels - I know they have iPlayer but it's not great if you don't have a decent broadband speed (like myself). ny156uk (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason why the BBC doesn't have timeshifted channels is that it broadcasts over the air. Broadcast frequencies are in relatively short supply; using frequency space for this purpose isn't worth it. If you are transmitting over sattelite or cable then you have spare channels to play with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget how useless iPlayer is for people outside the UK. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not meant for people outside the UK. Sure there are ways of fooling it into thinking you're from the UK, but it's basically a service for UK residents, which is fair enough if you ask me. --Richardrj talkemail 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In much the same way that Hulu and the many 'catch up' services US channels offer online are useless outside the US. 80.41.33.31 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)