I must admit, I have thought about getting a PVR so I can time shift the programmes I really like (Air Crash Investigations and the like) from their near-midnight time slots to a more reasonable hour.
Then maybe I would not be so damn tired and be able to socialise more without falling asleep....
Sorry, Rick. I did not see Hugo, but I have seen any number of 3D movies. We go to the movies frequently. So, I'm not convinced.
In every case, I would have been just as happy to see the movie in 2D. We go to the 3D showing based purely on schedule or availability.
And in more than a few cases, the 3D effect made me queasy anyway. It has to do, I believe, with the difference between how close an object is meant to be, according to eye convergence caused by the 3D effect, and where the eyes' lenses are actually focused. I've read that this affects most those who do not wear glasses. Evidently, because when you don't wear glasses, your lenses are actually focused on the object. You still need to focus on the screen, even if the 3D effect is telling you the object is in front of your nose.
Queasiness is especially bad in movies which go for the maximum "wow" factor. In some cases, it's not a big deal.
I have to believe that the only reason vendors are adding 3D capability to TV sets is that this can be done at a low cost.
Also, I see the 3D phenomenon differently from color and HDTV. People in general wanted color, and wanted high def images, but the initial hardware was just too expensive. So of course, people held off, until prices dropped. When prices of color TVs and of HDTV reached the order of magnitude of what came before, those products became the norm. The new standard.
It's simply not the same for 3D. It's not like people are clamoring for it. Honestly, from the first articles ballyhooing 3D TV a few years ago, all I could ask myself is, "Where is this coming from?"
As to "broadcast," it's not clear to me what people mean by that anymore. No one has had to watch TV in real time, i.e. "by appointment," for just about 30 years now. Whether the technique was time shifting with VCR, then PVR, or whether streaming online, it makes no difference.
The story-telling part of TV won't die. Nor will the news and sports. But I do agree that the distribution techniques have been and will continue to change over time.
I hear ya, Rick. 3-D is here to stay as are all glitzy gadgets that have their shiny moments in their life. But after the glitz, comes the reality: who wants to wear glasses in order to enjoy themselves? And no matter what prognosticators say, auto-stereoscopic TVs are a long way off. Unless you're Sony: http://www.tgdaily.com/consumer-electronics-brief/60694-sony-introduces-glasses-free-3d-tv-at-ces (caveat: I do not own stock in Sony.)
The movie Avatar came and went a few years back, and the public has mostly forgotten it already. Not much 3D content since then has been compelling enough to make large numbers of consumers say wow, I need to go spend a bunch of money on a new TV so I can have 3D at home!
Social TV? Maybe. I don't think I want my screen cluttered with a bunch of IMs from my friends discussing the show I am trying to watch right now. Maybe we can talk about it after it's over...and we don't need the TV for that.
But the younger generation is different. I can imagine a lot of interest among teens and young adults in halfway paying attention to a TV show they are supposedly watching, while simultaneously typing/text chatting with a bunch other people, and all of that stuff cluttering up a single display. I suspect that the worse your ADD is, the more you find this idea appealing :)