Print

Print


There is another viewpoint to this argument. Wine drinkers want what Tom 
has defined or simply to numb their senses. There are different kinds of 
wines. Young people may want a caffeine buzz. Different objectives.

There are plenty of young people at movie theatres, which is one reason 
I don't go there much anymore. I dislike crowds, cell phones shining in 
my eyes, and people talking or smacking on popcorn while I try to watch 
a movie that I paid too much to see in the first place. In the day of 
real film (not digital projectors) add to this list the wretched 
condition of the print after it has been run for a while. And the lousy 
sound quality of some theatres. I learned a long time ago that all the 
arguments for film being superior to TV jut don't hold up so well in the 
real world.

joe salerno

On 12/8/2010 9:18 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> It's all about convenience and ubiquity with the younger generations.
> They don't really care about media quality as much as they care about
> media quantity and accessibility at all times and in all places. It's
> like thinking about fine wine (here made akin to high-resolution media
> played back on good equipment in a comfortable but not necessarily
> convenient location) vs. Coca-Cola from a vending machine. It's are you
> thirsty or do you wish for a deeper sensation of taste and feeling? I
> think younger people don't even know the deeper experience is out there
> because they are drowning in a sea of thirst-slaking. This argument is
> made by high-end audio mags and dealers all the time. They say if you
> expose your average younger kid to better sound and video, they'll want
> it, they just didn't know it was out there. I haven't seen any
> large-number evidence of exposure translating to desire, however. The
> sea of junk-media is time-sucking and all-encompassing, so when is there
> time to enjoy "fine wine"?
>
> -- Tom Fine