|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: This is NOT about intelligence posted by Victor Khomenko on July 10, 2000 at 05:48:14:
...Jim Carrie fan eh? I never would have guessed ;-) Actually, I'm not either.I dont think its fair to single out this type of entertainment and read to much into its achieving mass distribution compared to the past because thats a technology issue, not an art or societal issue. With the internet, cable, satellite communications and the myraid of other communication channels spewing information forth EVERY form of expression has increased exponentially. We've got 24/7 religous cable TV channels, Consevative (as well as liberal) talk radio hosts with national syndication, 24/7 coverage of congress on TV (2 channels), and a half doxen 24/7 domesitc and international news channels - we didnt have that in the '50s. And lots more people watch TV than go to movies. A movie in in 1950 was true mass comunication when it came to visual imagery - people didnt have TV. What portion of available viewing time and audience reach does a movie like this have in the TV era of today in comparison? I think one could argue that this is still the fringe and that the number of people it reaches in proportion to other media is no greater than it ever was...
joe
...what do they all watch on that dreaded tube?You point about the TV vs. movies is right, but the TV did not replace the bad movies with good news or art movies on the tube - far from it.
Look at the fast growth of movie channel after movie channel - they all show trash (with a possible exception of Bravo, but its presence is near zero).
I get funny feeling when I drive past the $40K homes with small dishes on top - that means the river of shit is reaching the masses with 500 channels of it to watch.
So unfortunately the same trashy movies are on every tube in every home - mine included.
...but the average American doesnt subscribe to many (if any) of those premium movie services. DSS penetration isnt that great in the bigger shceme of things. Most still soldier on with cable and maybe one or two movie channels at most due to the high monthly cost. And from what I've seen those folks with kids are more concerned about getting the Disney channel than those services anyway. I've also noticed among those folks with dishes I know, they are pretty scrupulous in controlling what their children watch on it....joe
Is there a technical (or economic) reason as to why cable is bundled? I would be much more likely to actually subscribe to cable if I could pick the channels (and only the channels) that I want to watch. That way, I wouldn't have to pay for crap like skinimax 1,2,3,etc just to be able to get one or two of the more obscure channels (like MTV-2, the MTV channel that actually shows videos).
The Cinemax Movie Channel, HBO and other "premium" (jeez, what award for a sewer pipe!) channels are not bundled into the basic service that you need to get in order to see the MTV whatever. I think you can selectively subscribe to paid channels - check your local provider. There is no technical reason why you should not be able - they can turn your access to any paid channel on and off from their office.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: