Do you think that movies/tv/etc will ever actually be replaced by simulated "experiences" you download straight into your brain, like so many sci-fi writers have suggested?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

...and would 99% of those be porn?

Or, even if technology allowed for it, would people find such entertainment too freaky?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:20 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, could the brain ever get accustomed to the idea of being inside someone else's body?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:25 (nineteen years ago)

no, yes, not likely

― Ste (Fuzzy), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

i mean i don't think they will actually replace movies/tv but if technology alowed it then i'm sure they'd be on the market in their own zone and nobody would be freaky about them. apart from my gran perhaps

― Ste (Fuzzy), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:29 (nineteen years ago)

B-b-but imagine actually being the protagonist in Mel Gibson's movies rather than looking at some dull face on the screen! Surely no one would want to see movies after that?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:31 (nineteen years ago)

By that logic people would have stopped watching films since the advent of computer games. We like some of our entertainment to be passive.

― chap who would dare to contain two ingredients. Tea and bags. (chap), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

i spose its a question of when they come out, if it was in the very near future i think movies and tv would still be more popular. But in the far future perhaps humans might be less impressed with the 2d imagery we have today. I think the two mediums you're comparing are too different for people to choose one or the other.

Sometimes I like to relax to a movie and hopefully nod off to it late at night, probably couldn't do that with a 'brainstorm' machine.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

Why would I want to be Scarlett Johanssen when I could be looking at her?

― chap who would dare to contain two ingredients. Tea and bags. (chap), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:37 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't mean that these "experiences" would be interactice, more like "live" versions of films, so even if you're inside the film you couldn't actually choose what'll happen.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

Why would I want to be Scarlett Johanssen when I could be looking at her?

So you could kiss Bill Murray?

― The Bearnaise-Stain Bears (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:40 (nineteen years ago)

Why would I want to be Scarlett Johanssen when I could be looking at her?

Couldn't you be Bill Murray instead?

Is this the same as wondering why people still read books when they could be watching films, I wonder.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Thursday, 19 October 2006 13:31 (nineteen years ago)

i'd rather watch bruce willis run across a floor full of broken glass shards than feel like i was doing it myself!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 20 October 2006 03:04 (nineteen years ago)

What if you were the one forcing him to run across the shards?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 20 October 2006 03:09 (nineteen years ago)

But then an hour later you'd experiance being thrown off a building.

― S- (sgh), Friday, 20 October 2006 03:20 (nineteen years ago)

I'd still rather be Hans Gruber than some NYC Cop.

― Andrew (enneff), Friday, 20 October 2006 03:39 (nineteen years ago)

Although think how much fun it would be to be pretty much any of the characters in Flying High.

― S- (sgh), Friday, 20 October 2006 03:49 (nineteen years ago)

sci-fi writers are such freakin' dumbasses.

― sunny successor (katharine), Friday, 20 October 2006 12:25 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.