no more TV in the future? WTF?!

[Lance]

I seem to recall Star Trek expanded universe materials from the 1990s (particularly one of the comic books) theorising the use of some kind of headset, which might have been how holo-technology could be widely available to the lay person in their homes. They might not have a full holosuite, but they could have some smaller variant of the technology.

[Dal Rassak]

Maybe I should have phrased this differently. A lot of people seem to be getting the idea I'm talking of a television as an actual television.
I meant television as in programmes. I was talking about consuming a visual medium, to be able to watch something without having to take part in it.

It doesn't matter if you watch them on an actual TV or computer or whatever, the point I was making is people still watch programmes. The invention of games didn't stop people watching films. And I find characters portrayed by actual humans far more interesting and rewarding than artificial simulations. I don't see where having real actors could ever be considered "old-fashioned".

It's different ways at different times - sometimes you want to read, sometimes to listen, sometimes to watch and sometimes to take part. It's a lot more fun to have ALL those entertainment options than to limit yourself. There's a reason why books didn't get replaced or superceded by more modern technology, because they're a good thing. And so are television programmes.

Besides, call me a Luddite, or maybe you haven't got any decent radio stations, but I listen to mine for hours every day.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Pavonis wrote:

---

Have them, yes, but when was the last time you sat down just to listen to the radio? The only radios I have are for emergencies, not entertainment. Even in the car, I use my phone to play my iTunes library.

No one has sat down to listen to the radio since the 1950's. Radio is still a widespread and popular media, enjoyed by millions of people around the world. It has found a niche, just like television probably will.

[LogicDeLuxe]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

That big holosuite in TNG never made any sense, why does it need to be much bigger than a human body?

Because of multi player? If more people enter the holodeck, it then splits space so that each person has basically his own point of view of the simulation. If only one person is in there, probably only a fraction of the big space is actually used and the rest is reserved for other people to join in.

Dal Rassak wrote:

---

I don't see where having real actors could ever be considered "old-fashioned".

Neither does Star Trek. We have several episodes where stage performance is shown. TNG Frame Of Mind is a very prominent example of this.

[heavy lids]

Dal Rassak wrote:

---

Reason one: as a species we've always loved telling and being told stories. When you're taking part in one, fun as it is, you can't actually really concentrate on the story itself, you're missing out on a lot of detail because you're so taken up with your own participation.

Wait, what? So physically interacting with a story means you'll likely be concentrating less on the story? I suppose if you have severe ADD and can't stop getting distracted, then yeah that might be true.

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Television is scheduled broadcast media, sent through UHF signal, satellite or cable, subsidised by advertising or public funding. The key word is scheduled. You watch at the whim of the broadcaster, not at your convenience.

Everything else is video, whether it's your own PVR recording of a scheduled broadcast, a purchased DVD, Blu-ray, VHS, or download, or whether it's streaming on demand.

The device that you watch it on is irrelevant.

In current society, the former is diminishing in popularity while the latter is increasing.

The lines blur though, as without scheduled broadcasts, you can't have time-shifted PVR, and there will be a lot less content to download or stream. And as long as there are live events, there will always be room for scheduled broadcasts. But I contend that television as I knew it growing up, really doesn't exist anymore.

[Gaith]

Well, one obvious answer is it would be awkward to hear of movies/series, but rarely if ever see them, due to budgetary restrictions on producing new content for such incidental purposes. And if you assume that many, if not most, movies of the future are projected in holographic 3D (and that classic movies can be easily automatically retrofitted for same)... goodnight Irene.

Then you've got the utopian spirit that the Starfleeters would have evolved beyond things like TV and rap.

I agree that holosuites wouldn't kill film - who would ever want to role-play a story like Psycho, or The Social Network? I think it's fair to assume that, like bonking, film viewing remains reasonably common off-screen.

Shawnster wrote:

---

I find characters portrayed by actual humans far more interesting and rewarding than artificial simulations. I don't see where having real actors could ever be considered "old-fashioned".

Agreed, though I imagine the Stephanie Meyers of the future would have to resort to holo-actors now and then...

[TheGoodNews]

Then you've got the utopian spirit that the Starfleeters would have evolved beyond things like TV and rap.

Yes, Guy Debord's and Raoul Vaniegem's wishfulfillment. The New Babylon Project realized.

I remember a line from the TOS episode "Bread and Circuses" where a heavy mentions something to the effect that Cpt. Kirk wouldn't comprehend something as primitive as television.

[Xhiandra]

Dal Rassak wrote:

---

I can't see TV dying out even if complete immersion virtual realities as in holosuites could ever be invented.

Reason one: as a species we've always loved telling and being told stories. When you're taking part in one, fun as it is, you can't actually really concentrate on the story itself, you're missing out on a lot of detail because you're so taken up with your own participation. Holosuites are just a step up from video games. I enjoy the odd video game, but it doesn't beat losing myself in a good book or a great bit of TV.

I'm not so sure about that, honestly. When a game has a rich, involved story (MGS, Deus Ex,...), I do find myself drawn into it as much as in a good movie/series. Scratch that: not as much, more.
And I don't miss details.

Books are another matter. To be honest, if other media could reach the same standards of quality as literature has, I wouldn't read anymore.
All the other aspects people like to hail as exclusive to books over other media have absolutely no draw to me; I just read because books are generally better written than scripts.

Why is that? Maybe I'm younger than you (I'm 29) and my generation has different sensibilities from yours. In which case, a generation that grew up with holosuites (even if in their infancy; my first videogames rarely had much story at all!) could easily not see appeal in older media.

Reason two: people said nobody'd listen to radio anymore when TV was invented and we still have radios.

The radio is dying a slow death, but be assured it is dying.
Its last significant niche is in the car, and although it seems to resist the alternatives for now (CDs, MP3 players), it might not for long.

Reason three: abolishing TV would kill off two great arts in one go, the art of the cameraman - it's moving photography after all (and they still have holocams!), and that of the actor, since holo characters are simply programmed simulations. I don't like the idea of a future minus that much potential for cultural expression.

The motions of CGI characters aren't programmed, they're obtained through motion capture, it seems a stretch to assume it'd be any different for holocharacters (that'd be really tedious and hard, programming every little movement), so actors wouldn't be out of a job.

Plus after a hard day on duty, I wouldn't want to have to exert myself with a holoprogram (unless we're talking one of Quark's special recommendations maybe) - I'd just want a nice drink and be allowed to passively enjoy an entertaining programme. Like Star Trek...

Yes, this is the last vestige of TV, and I do think it'll endure quite a while: it does allow an unparalleled level of passivity.

[stj]

Television and radio are advertising media. If the unspecified Federation economic arrangements don't use money, it is unlikely that they use advertising. Previous experience with mass media sold for content rather than advertising is limited to theater, magazines and novels.

That suggests there would be far less content produced. The only regular contributions would be the equivalent of the old time magazines, like Saturday Evening Post or Charles Dickens' magazine, either featuring a miscellany of forms and content producers, or the opposite, a vehicle primarily for a popular favorite plus extras. Except even these equivalents would be less common, since there would be no advertising offsetting production costs.

Basically I suppose that in a sense all productions would be amateur productions, relying upon personal initiative and whatever personal resources are available to individuals. It is true that Voyager's Author, Author! gave the Doctor a publisher, but it is hard to see what such a person did, or why he did it. But since the episode was yet another Voyager episode criticizing studio execs, it wasn't a seriously considered SF projection, not even in Trek universe terms.

[Dix]

Well, I suppose in the ST future you can always replicate a TV set and enjoy movies or whatever. Like Tom Paris did in that episode Memorial. And didn't Archer and Trip watch some kind of sports game? Trip and others were also talking about some classic sci-fi movies that they were watching. And in ST: Generations there were journalists aboard, with helmet cameras and stuff. So, although the medium of television as we know it no longer exists in Trek's future (as Data informs us in that episode The Neutral Zone), it seems to exist in some form or another, and people do enjoy it occasionally as a form of entertainment.

[Pavonis]

Archer and Tucker weren't watching a broadcast game, they were watching a recording sent specifically for Archer. Hardly the same thing. Besides, since 99.99% of the time in Trek the characters are nowhere near Earth, they wouldn't have access to broadcast programming anyway, would they? Also, consider that the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th centuries are all very different, so it's not reasonable to assume that what exists in one would exist in all. For instance, films were still produced in the 22nd century, with awards going to the historical WWIII epics, but the only acting we saw in the 23rd and 24th were stage plays.

[DalekJim]

I perfectly understand why nobody watches TV in the Star Trek universe.


In that universe, there's no Star Trek on TV to watch . Why even bother?

[NeonMosfet]

TV is already dead. Welcome to the world of iTunes, Hulu, and the Redbox.

[The Mirrorball Man]

NeonMosfet wrote:

---

TV is already dead. Welcome to the world of iTunes, Hulu, and the Redbox.

Those are just different ways of watching TV.