Time Bandits. Film Four 444. 9.30. 5/5/08
' The point is Kevin, the universe is a bit of a bodge job. The Supreme Being only gave us 6 days, and so there's lots of holes. This is a map of the holes...'
The Sky At Night 666. BBC4 11.30. 5/5/08
Sir Patrick Moore to panel:
'What do you think of this 'Axis Of Evil' theory?'
What has to be said is that what Newton found worked on a planetary level didn't work on a larger scale. And so Einstein had to make the appropriate adjustments. To discover the explanation for what we could see in the wider universe. Who is to say that in another 100 years we won't have to readjust Einstein, or even accept that the universe is not perfect? That it is not consistent.
Now we find out that Og was right - more or less. That the universe is no longer universal. Science is not a pursuit of absolutes, of perfect laws. That science is a way we've evolved of keeping track of the imperfections in the laws of time and space. A map of the holes...
Or very nearly. The panel of respected cosmologists were repeating, almost word for word, Og's explanation to Kevin of the origins of the Universe, and the advantages to the average chancer of possessing a map of the holes in it. And more than that, within a few minutes of each other in the fabric of the TV continuum. What are the chances of that? At least they're better than our chances of actually meeting or contacting anyone from another galaxy, if the gathering at Patrick Moore's place were to be believed.
According to them, it's a bit of a mistake that we are here at all. And the time we've got left to even see any of the rest of the universe is so tiny, we might as well get used to the fact that we are going to just have to get along with our own species, and that no slender strangers from space are ever going to rescue us from ourselves.
And just as importantly, by depicting a universe which is far from orderly or perfect, it casts even more doubt (if any more were needed) that the universe was not designed by anyone or anything. No Supreme Being could have made such a bodge job of it.
Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts
6/22/2005
The Future Of TV Advertising in 1999
'DIGITAL TV CHOICE'
Tribune 1999
"The fastest generation of technological change since fire.” is how Alan McCulloch of Saatchi & Saatchi described the imminent explosion in digital communications. Richard Eyre’s “communicopia” of choice will be an empowering force for consumers, enabling them to create their own virtual TV channels, with all their favourite viewing stored ready for use whenever needed. With the marriage of delivery systems and content offered by internet convergence, ‘sit back’, one-way TV will end. People will watch what they want to watch.
Increasing numbers of media industry representatives are also predicting that the technology will soon be available to enable viewers to abolish advertising from personal schedules. They also predict that we will not be allowed to use it.
The feasibility of this ‘time-shifting’ technology is not seriously in question: “Within 2 - 3 years, using a ‘Q-Dot’ or similar recognition system.” says Nick Thomas of Bell Pottinger Good Relations (PR to Phillips electronics.)
“It is very likely that in 5-7 years advanced TV systems will include time-shifting systems.” says Mike Kroll, principal researcher in multi-media and networking at the BBC’s Bletchley Park-style research unit at Kingswood Warren in Surrey.
However, its implementation is in doubt. Ray Kelly, chair of the media policy group for the Institute for Practitioners in Advertising, injects the first note of caution:
"It should worry advertisers, but they’re not aware of the technology.”
After being made aware, David Sanderson, director of digital sales at Carlton Digital admitted that with enough take-up, ‘time-shifting’ or ‘AdZAp’ systems "could represent a major disaster, with a downward spiral in advertising revenues.” The industry would therefore “lobby very hard to prevent such a thing from happening.” After all, there would be “little justification for the industry to allow a technology which would put them out of business.”
Roy Addison of Pearson was another who didn’t believe it was “in the industry’s interests to alert the public to such a function.” From promises of limitless bounty to threats of product suppression in three easy accounting stages. In the name of free market ‘Individual Choice’ real choice for real individuals will be compromised. So new?
The Adam Smith Institute was also baffled.
“That’s quite a ‘Catch 22’” admitted their press office. Adding “The technology is almost killing itself.” The A.S.I. would certainly condemn any industry restrictions on ‘AdZAp’ as a restriction of choice, but still stuck to its principles that:
a) What’s good for industry is good for the people.
b) Industry must be allowed to defend its interests.
To add to this chaos, the argument is also re-emerging that commercials are a sort of public service. As well as being entertaining and pretty, they are also informational and educational. Mmm! Delicious AND Nutritious! “People like advertising” and “The public are too apathetic to bother creating their own schedules” I was repeatedly assured. See that Royle Family? That’s you that is.
Even more insulting, watching TV advertising is almost promoted as a civic duty. Because it promotes consumer spending, TV advertising plays a vital cohesive role in our society. Suppressing its dissemination therefore threatens the general good, and must be opposed. In the Middle Ages we had compulsory church attendance, now we have Pot Noodles.
Another defence is the ‘Right of commercial free speech’ recently cited by the advertising industry in its losing battle with the Swedish decision to ban advertising to kids.
So who would want to upset this delicate socio/economic balance by using an ‘AdZAp’ system? How would any manufacturer find a market for such a thing? By calling Alan McCulloch for a start. “I would certainly like one.” he whispered before urging the industry to adapt in order to survive. “TV advertising has to become more interactive. The agencies are failing to create new forms. Their heads are still stuck up their arses doing TV ads.”
In practice this includes abandoning the linear cinematic commercial for the computer game format. ‘Adgames’ could last as long as the player played, and could offer rewards in the form of bonus points or star prizes. The best ads would be the best games, and the ultimate game would be the one which replaced programming entirely. Which solves the problem of influencing children, but what of discriminating viewers such as Mr. McCulloch, who sees “the clever techniques used to influence children” at first hand and therefore appreciates the “very strong case for restricting children’s advertising.”?
And what of the Consumer Society agnostics? The ones who caused all that fuss in Seattle. How will they be prevented from getting the TV they want?
Amid the confusion two things are absolutely clear. Firstly, future TiVo systems and internet bandwidths will make independence from corporate TV scheduling achievable to those who want it. And secondly: if fire has indeed been rediscovered then we must play with it. The woolly mammoths of the media industry would rather we stayed shivering in our caves, but this is just as unlikely now as it was the first time around.
In future the media industry will have to cater for an audience which increasingly knows what it wants, and which has the technology to get it. Java based Software plug-ins such as AdZap will be available (probably free) via the internet, downloading them to your home terminal will be the work of a few minutes, and once there they will work invisibly to remove advertising, or any other definable content. And let’s face it, who would miss it? Then who would pay for it? And how would the companies which depend on it survive?
It would seem that the industry is faced with as many threats as opportunities. It will also have to deal on level terms with human emotions which until now it has merely exploited. Consumers will be aware of the power at their disposal, and very aware of when it is denied them.
In this new buyer’s market for tv, suckers will become clients, with corresponding expectations of service. The one-way, intrusive TV commercial - cheeky monkeys, supermodels, soap-opera plots and all - looks doomed in a market which doesn’t want its' films interrupted every twenty minutes by images of supermodels in flourescent underwear. The difficulty is that the evangelists of the free market, those who think the BBC is ‘pure socialism’, may find the consequences of a genuinely free market in TV too much to allow. Amid the blur of the digital revolution, some things never change. If Tony Blair wants to ‘root out reactonary elements’, he should look no further than his new friends in the media industry.
•••
Addendum. 23/10/08
'Will Ad-Skipping Kill Television?'
Tribune 1999
"The fastest generation of technological change since fire.” is how Alan McCulloch of Saatchi & Saatchi described the imminent explosion in digital communications. Richard Eyre’s “communicopia” of choice will be an empowering force for consumers, enabling them to create their own virtual TV channels, with all their favourite viewing stored ready for use whenever needed. With the marriage of delivery systems and content offered by internet convergence, ‘sit back’, one-way TV will end. People will watch what they want to watch.
Increasing numbers of media industry representatives are also predicting that the technology will soon be available to enable viewers to abolish advertising from personal schedules. They also predict that we will not be allowed to use it.
The feasibility of this ‘time-shifting’ technology is not seriously in question: “Within 2 - 3 years, using a ‘Q-Dot’ or similar recognition system.” says Nick Thomas of Bell Pottinger Good Relations (PR to Phillips electronics.)
“It is very likely that in 5-7 years advanced TV systems will include time-shifting systems.” says Mike Kroll, principal researcher in multi-media and networking at the BBC’s Bletchley Park-style research unit at Kingswood Warren in Surrey.
However, its implementation is in doubt. Ray Kelly, chair of the media policy group for the Institute for Practitioners in Advertising, injects the first note of caution:
"It should worry advertisers, but they’re not aware of the technology.”
After being made aware, David Sanderson, director of digital sales at Carlton Digital admitted that with enough take-up, ‘time-shifting’ or ‘AdZAp’ systems "could represent a major disaster, with a downward spiral in advertising revenues.” The industry would therefore “lobby very hard to prevent such a thing from happening.” After all, there would be “little justification for the industry to allow a technology which would put them out of business.”
Roy Addison of Pearson was another who didn’t believe it was “in the industry’s interests to alert the public to such a function.” From promises of limitless bounty to threats of product suppression in three easy accounting stages. In the name of free market ‘Individual Choice’ real choice for real individuals will be compromised. So new?
The Adam Smith Institute was also baffled.
“That’s quite a ‘Catch 22’” admitted their press office. Adding “The technology is almost killing itself.” The A.S.I. would certainly condemn any industry restrictions on ‘AdZAp’ as a restriction of choice, but still stuck to its principles that:
a) What’s good for industry is good for the people.
b) Industry must be allowed to defend its interests.
To add to this chaos, the argument is also re-emerging that commercials are a sort of public service. As well as being entertaining and pretty, they are also informational and educational. Mmm! Delicious AND Nutritious! “People like advertising” and “The public are too apathetic to bother creating their own schedules” I was repeatedly assured. See that Royle Family? That’s you that is.
Even more insulting, watching TV advertising is almost promoted as a civic duty. Because it promotes consumer spending, TV advertising plays a vital cohesive role in our society. Suppressing its dissemination therefore threatens the general good, and must be opposed. In the Middle Ages we had compulsory church attendance, now we have Pot Noodles.
Another defence is the ‘Right of commercial free speech’ recently cited by the advertising industry in its losing battle with the Swedish decision to ban advertising to kids.
So who would want to upset this delicate socio/economic balance by using an ‘AdZAp’ system? How would any manufacturer find a market for such a thing? By calling Alan McCulloch for a start. “I would certainly like one.” he whispered before urging the industry to adapt in order to survive. “TV advertising has to become more interactive. The agencies are failing to create new forms. Their heads are still stuck up their arses doing TV ads.”
In practice this includes abandoning the linear cinematic commercial for the computer game format. ‘Adgames’ could last as long as the player played, and could offer rewards in the form of bonus points or star prizes. The best ads would be the best games, and the ultimate game would be the one which replaced programming entirely. Which solves the problem of influencing children, but what of discriminating viewers such as Mr. McCulloch, who sees “the clever techniques used to influence children” at first hand and therefore appreciates the “very strong case for restricting children’s advertising.”?
And what of the Consumer Society agnostics? The ones who caused all that fuss in Seattle. How will they be prevented from getting the TV they want?
Amid the confusion two things are absolutely clear. Firstly, future TiVo systems and internet bandwidths will make independence from corporate TV scheduling achievable to those who want it. And secondly: if fire has indeed been rediscovered then we must play with it. The woolly mammoths of the media industry would rather we stayed shivering in our caves, but this is just as unlikely now as it was the first time around.
In future the media industry will have to cater for an audience which increasingly knows what it wants, and which has the technology to get it. Java based Software plug-ins such as AdZap will be available (probably free) via the internet, downloading them to your home terminal will be the work of a few minutes, and once there they will work invisibly to remove advertising, or any other definable content. And let’s face it, who would miss it? Then who would pay for it? And how would the companies which depend on it survive?
It would seem that the industry is faced with as many threats as opportunities. It will also have to deal on level terms with human emotions which until now it has merely exploited. Consumers will be aware of the power at their disposal, and very aware of when it is denied them.
In this new buyer’s market for tv, suckers will become clients, with corresponding expectations of service. The one-way, intrusive TV commercial - cheeky monkeys, supermodels, soap-opera plots and all - looks doomed in a market which doesn’t want its' films interrupted every twenty minutes by images of supermodels in flourescent underwear. The difficulty is that the evangelists of the free market, those who think the BBC is ‘pure socialism’, may find the consequences of a genuinely free market in TV too much to allow. Amid the blur of the digital revolution, some things never change. If Tony Blair wants to ‘root out reactonary elements’, he should look no further than his new friends in the media industry.
•••
Addendum. 23/10/08
'Will Ad-Skipping Kill Television?'
1/03/2005
Craig Cash - Gentle Genius
The last episode of Early Doors last night surely confirmed Craig Cash's powers as a comic genius. The ability to play that easily with the viewers' emotions deserves enormous respect. And another series to get the point over to the people who didn't watch Only Fools & Horses or The Fast Show until the third series. I watched it three times in a row and cried buckets each time - out of joy and terror.
Plus ensemble acting worthy of Ken Loach. Plus cinematography worthy of Coppola. These shows should be set texts in schools within five years If there's any justice.
Early Doors has more genuine acting than any of the self-important, hysterical, blood and guts 12 week dramas we get inflicted with. It exploits the soap format to perfection without ever becoming like one. The cinematography and direction throughout the two series has been superb. You have to watch it like a hawk. The layered periferal shot detail is immaculate, and always supplies a counter-point to the narrative. The touches of surrealism alongside the everlastingly mundane until the two become one.
The delicate choreography of Ken & Tania's love-life to its blazing roller coaster climax last night. The Ken&Tania row was simply brilliant. Simple dialogue and genuine pain. The integration of the score with the drama at all times, the constant snatches of juke-box favourites bubbling through or balancing a scene - Jean singing Oasis better than Oasis.
The pub serenading the young lovers.
Ken cleaning the toilet while singing 'They can't take away my digniteee'.
The Big Boys' Beano leaving in the morning light to 'The Camptown Ladies' and returning in the night to 'Sex Bomb1 Sex Bomb!' - and all in one glorious panning shot.
The honesty and relish of the writing shines through in every line.
Better in some ways than the Royle Family because of being less grotesque. This is less of a cartoon, and more of a three hour movie dealing with actual relationships in a real place. All viewed with a merciless yet loving eye.
It has a suspiciously Shakespearean ambiguity about it at every turn. In fact, is it a rip-off of a Shakepearean plot? Step-fathers and long-lost fathers, domineering older parents, villainous comic policemen, a fool, a trio of scheming women... Someone will know.
No-one is whiter than white, and the happy ending is never all wine and roses. It is not a con. The entire thing glows with class.
It's a masterpiece.
Plus ensemble acting worthy of Ken Loach. Plus cinematography worthy of Coppola. These shows should be set texts in schools within five years If there's any justice.
Early Doors has more genuine acting than any of the self-important, hysterical, blood and guts 12 week dramas we get inflicted with. It exploits the soap format to perfection without ever becoming like one. The cinematography and direction throughout the two series has been superb. You have to watch it like a hawk. The layered periferal shot detail is immaculate, and always supplies a counter-point to the narrative. The touches of surrealism alongside the everlastingly mundane until the two become one.
The delicate choreography of Ken & Tania's love-life to its blazing roller coaster climax last night. The Ken&Tania row was simply brilliant. Simple dialogue and genuine pain. The integration of the score with the drama at all times, the constant snatches of juke-box favourites bubbling through or balancing a scene - Jean singing Oasis better than Oasis.
The pub serenading the young lovers.
Ken cleaning the toilet while singing 'They can't take away my digniteee'.
The Big Boys' Beano leaving in the morning light to 'The Camptown Ladies' and returning in the night to 'Sex Bomb1 Sex Bomb!' - and all in one glorious panning shot.
The honesty and relish of the writing shines through in every line.
Better in some ways than the Royle Family because of being less grotesque. This is less of a cartoon, and more of a three hour movie dealing with actual relationships in a real place. All viewed with a merciless yet loving eye.
It has a suspiciously Shakespearean ambiguity about it at every turn. In fact, is it a rip-off of a Shakepearean plot? Step-fathers and long-lost fathers, domineering older parents, villainous comic policemen, a fool, a trio of scheming women... Someone will know.
No-one is whiter than white, and the happy ending is never all wine and roses. It is not a con. The entire thing glows with class.
It's a masterpiece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)