no more TV in the future? WTF?!

[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.

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]

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]

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

Those are just different ways of watching TV.

 

[T'Girl]

Television and radio are advertising media. If the unspecified Federation economic arrangements don't use money, it is unlikely that they use advertising.

So the people of the Federation hear about the planet Risa solely through word of mouth? Seem unlikely, the place probably gets advertised as heavily as that Atlantis resort is today. If the future Federation has a recognizable economic system, professional entertainment would have to be financed somehow. The same for sporting activities.

In the trailers for the next Star Trek movie, didn't we see advertising on the sides of buildings?

 

[xortex]

Plus everyone seeing the same thing at the same time and day of week etc. or what have you. Something in common to talk about even though the shows are delayed for days or weeks or are old repeats. It is ritualistic and a common collective unconscience.

 

[RAMA]

Visual theater isn't likely to disappear, but TVs as we know them..yup, they'll be gone within 20 years.

RAMA

 

[plynch]

I listen to the radio all the time. I rarely play CDs, I have such a fickle ear that wants to hear new (old) things. XM jazz and vocalists are the two biggies, plus local AM station for news, affairs, and, yes, old standards. I am only 46, by the way, but pretty much the guy in the Twilight Zone ep who finds the old radio.

Oh, and TIGERS baseball! Soon.

 

[Melakon]

Advantage of TV dying out: No reruns unless you want them.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Visual theater isn't likely to disappear, but TVs as we know them..yup, they'll be gone within 20 years.
RAMA

Yes. Network television is on the way out. Ultimately "on demand" entertainment will take over. However, I disagree with your assessment it will be within two decades.

The only roadblock at this point is the infrastructure necessary to make the technology completely ubiquitous, and by that, I mean completely word wide. Otherwise there will still be some form of network television someplace.

The cost and manpower necessary to accomplish that is extreme, and will certainly take a significant amount of time. Heck, I don't even know if it can be accomplished in the industrialized countries within twenty years.

 

[Star Wolf]

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.

Under this theory the "amateur" actor, director, producer can be just as professional as the starship officer. If everybody is in effect working for nothing it means little if one betters himself working a shift in a department on the Enterprise or he betters himself producing the future equivalent of a podcast

 

[TheGoodNews]

Visual theater isn't likely to disappear, but TVs as we know them..yup, they'll be gone within 20 years.

RAMA

Oh boy, imagine the possibilities:

"The work of art of the future will be the construction of a passionate life." Raoul Vaneigem - The Revolution of Everyday Life.

"This Society eliminates geographical distance only to reap distance internally in the form of spectacular separation." Guy Debord - The Society of the Spectacle - Thesis 167.

"In New Babylon, all useful yet repetitive activity underwent automation; and technology, mobilized at the mass level, would release people from the daily drudge of necessity, guaranteeing a healthy dose of free time. There'd be big institutional transformations, too, like collective ownership of land and the means of production, together with the rationalization of the manufacturing of consumer goods, making scarcity old hat." GUY DEBORD by Andy Merrifield.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

If they turned off broadcast TV right now. I doubt I'd notice. I consume my television by means of DVD, Blu-ray, Internet catch-up services, and time shifted recordings. The only time I sit down to broadcast television at the behest of the broadcaster these days is for twenty-four hour news services, live events such as sports, or the rare watercooler talking point show. I watch at the most three hours of such a week. Right now it's one hour a week, season 2 of Dallas.

Television as I knew it when I was a kid is already dead. Last week I was on a train trip to the city, and most everyone was watching TV on their iPads.

The big rub is, there's still LPTV (Low-power television) for those wishing to have a kind of community TV not serviced by the big communication monopolies (especially since local access cable TV seems to have just died in North America). Perhaps a form of LPTV is still alive in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

As well, not everybody these days can afford to be collecting TV shows on DVD or Blu-Ray DVD and Internet catch-up services. And we're still going to need 24 hour news services (in particular ones like Russia Today and Al Jazeera English) plus local LPTV versions-if there are any-that will tell the news stories that the big conglomerate-owned news outlets can't or won't do properly.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Don't be silly, why would we watch TV when we're all busy studying science and mathematics? If we don't study science and mathematics, we can no longer write piano concertos and invent new and exciting uses for nadions!

True.

Trek had the right idea about technology changing entertainment, but I think it was based on the Trek 80's style Utopian view. It had a judgmental tone to it.

Watching TV was one of those lazy habits that ancient humans participated in.

Trek (TNG) strongly implied that people preferred putting on plays, live orchestra performances, etc. for entertainment.

It was all Shakespeare and the arts, playwrights, classical music ect, etc.

Not that it was bad, but I think they went a bit too far with it, especially on TNG.

Never saw any internet surfing, socia media, or streaming entertainment through the computer.

Interesting how in later series, they subtly brought TV back, like DS9 Quark's commercials over the public comlink, the Cardassians live streaming things, ect.

Or in Voyager, where Paris watched TV and then gets the rest of the crew to join in.

Ironically, as soon the utopianism feel wore off they went right back to things the fans could relate to.

If reading paperback books survived, why not television?