Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (7522.1)
    I've just watched this two part interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Hulu, which is absolutely fabulous. What struck me, was in the second part of the interview, Hitch is asked what he thinks the future of cinema will be. He goes on to describe an audience that files into a room, and through mass hypnotization or some such method, experiences the film from the perspective of one of the lead characters - one of a handful of perspecitves through which they can live the film internally and interact with the story. He explains that the writer and director would still be neccessary to set tone and story, but that the viewing experience would be personal and involve choices.

    I was totally wowed by this, in that he's essentially describing the modern online gaming experience.

    Have you any other favorite future predictions of the past from unlikely sources?

    (i say "unlikely sources" because we could probably have a thread all it's own on PKD's predictions come true)
  2.  (7522.2)
    Hitch, of course, didn't like actors.
  3.  (7522.3)
    @ warrenellis: yes, he really has a history of saying terrible things about them. Wasn't there a famous quote about cattle? In the video I linked, Hitchcock says that Disney has the right idea, because when he doesn't like an actor, he can tear him up.

    ....Really? Nobody's got anything else?
  4.  (7522.4)
    I'm always amused by the arrogant and short-sighted predictions of the corporate culture. So keeping in line with the Hitchcock/actor theme-

    "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
    -H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2010
    Hitchcock's main concern wasn't storytelling, but creating a pure cinematic experience. The story, for him, was just a means. That's why he liked thrillers. I can see where this vision comes from...

    @Rachael: Not sure if that's what you mean, but you got me thinking of philosopher Vilém Flusser' an essay about television from the sixties. He was disappointed that television wasn't what the name seemed to promise - the continuation of tele-phone technology into the visual. He then described his vision of a visual telephone: Keep the screens, but connect them to each other instead of few broadcast stations, maybe attach typewriters to them to make communication easier - basically, what he came up with wasn't the videophone you'd expect but the internet.

    Just looked it up - the text I had in mind is from 1974, when Arpanet was already in existence, but it doesn't read like he was aware of that. Also, Arpanet was largely textual rather than audiovisual, wasn't it? So there's still six out of ten for imagination.