Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

In flight movies; How censored?


Kettle

Recommended Posts

I'm about to head out of the country on United, and checked out their in flight movie list to see what I might watch.  There are some pretty good movies, but I don't know if they will be worth watching.  The biggest one in question is "Wolf of Wall Street", but "American Hustle", "The Hobbit" and some comedies like "Delivery Man" and "Anchorman 2" are available.  Does anybody know how much will be clipped from any of these?  I should be viewing on a private screen, but others will obviously be able to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about to head out of the country on United, and checked out their in flight movie list to see what I might watch. There are some pretty good movies, but I don't know if they will be worth watching. The biggest one in question is "Wolf of Wall Street", but "American Hustle", "The Hobbit" and some comedies like "Delivery Man" and "Anchorman 2" are available. Does anybody know how much will be clipped from any of these? I should be viewing on a private screen, but others will obviously be able to see.

Probably $7-$10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive flown on Delta internationally a few times and my experience was that the movies were free and they were completely uncensored.

 

On one flight I got pretty embarrassed watching Get Him to the Greek because of the little old lady sitting beside me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive flown on Delta internationally a few times and my experience was that the movies were free and they were completely uncensored.

 

On one flight I got pretty embarrassed watching Get Him to the Greek because of the little old lady sitting beside me.

 

Just think how pissed you'd be if you had to pay for that piece of crap movie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think how pissed you'd be if you had to pay for that piece of crap movie.

 

 

The flight from Atlanta to Johannesburg is 16 hours one way and 17 the other.

 

By the time you're halfway home you're gone through all of the good movies that are being offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flight from Atlanta to Johannesburg is 16 hours one way and 17 the other.

 

By the time you're halfway home you're gone through all of the good movies that are being offered.

 

Off on a tangent here, but can't you load up 3-4 movies on a tablet, notebook or laptop before your trip?

 

The only way I'd watch an in-flight movie is if the screen is in the seat back in front of me and not one of those 1980's monitors that drop from the overhead in the aisle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off on a tangent here, but can't you load up 3-4 movies on a tablet, notebook or laptop before your trip?

 

The only way I'd watch an in-flight movie is if the screen is in the seat back in front of me and not one of those 1980's monitors that drop from the overhead in the aisle.

 

 

Yeah those long haul flights are individual entertainment with seat back touch screens and a selection of 20ish free movies and a bunch of crappy TV shows.

 

Since I dont really sleep on planes I cant really carry enough movies to fill all of that time and the selection really isn't that bad.

 

Right now it includes:

Robocop

The Lego Movie

American Hustle

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Captain Phillips

Dallas Buyers Club

Her

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

Lone Survivor

The Monuments Men

 

 

http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/in-flight-services/amenities-information/entertainment/personal-audio-video/delta-on-demand.html

 

 

 

Not the best cinema in the world but that and a couple of ebooks will fill up 33 hours quite nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...