Comments on: Why Not? http://www.jillgolick.com/2008/09/why-not/ Life at the intersection of television and digital Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:05:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Duana http://www.jillgolick.com/2008/09/why-not/#comment-14862 Duana Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:34:47 +0000 http://www.jillgolick.com/2008/09/why-not/#comment-14862 ME TOO! No TV on school nights! AT ALL. For years! Sometimes a little Road to Avonlea on a Sunday evening, if we were lucky. And here I thought my method of 'screw you, mom and dad' was so clever! (I did figure out that the monitor of my Commodore 64 could tune one very snowy channel - and from there, I snuck early episodes of 90210. And the addiction began) ME TOO!

No TV on school nights! AT ALL. For years! Sometimes a little Road to Avonlea on a Sunday evening, if we were lucky.

And here I thought my method of ’screw you, mom and dad’ was so clever!

(I did figure out that the monitor of my Commodore 64 could tune one very snowy channel - and from there, I snuck early episodes of 90210. And the addiction began)

]]> By: Robbo http://www.jillgolick.com/2008/09/why-not/#comment-14858 Robbo Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:43:13 +0000 http://www.jillgolick.com/2008/09/why-not/#comment-14858 Having had the antithesis of your childhood (ie. saturated with television - there was no cinema, I caught all my old films on the tube) I still find myself in agreement that TV is the medium of "our" time. Reluctantly I must point out that our time is passing - regardless of how active and innovative we remain in whatever field of endeavour - and the populace (I can no longer confidently use the word "audience") whose time "this is" are not watching, bathing in nor using the medium of television as we know it. McLuhan pointed out that previous media become the content of the new media. For us television was drama, comedy, news - an odd and commonly experienced window to the world. That window is now but one of many available to the users, citizens or populace who choose to find them. Very different. One wonders what Chayevsky or Serling would have made of this world. One wonders what we ourselves will make of it - since we are destined to witness it unfold around us. How far down that uncharted stream we are able to paddle - he said, mixing his metaphors like multi-flavoured daquaris - is entirely up to us. My heart belongs to cinema - and to TV. And they don't exist anymore - at least not in the way I lived with them. And through it all, the real drag is the absence of the "easy money" of writing for kids TV. Damn. Having had the antithesis of your childhood (ie. saturated with television - there was no cinema, I caught all my old films on the tube) I still find myself in agreement that TV is the medium of “our” time.

Reluctantly I must point out that our time is passing - regardless of how active and innovative we remain in whatever field of endeavour - and the populace (I can no longer confidently use the word “audience”) whose time “this is” are not watching, bathing in nor using the medium of television as we know it.

McLuhan pointed out that previous media become the content of the new media. For us television was drama, comedy, news - an odd and commonly experienced window to the world. That window is now but one of many available to the users, citizens or populace who choose to find them. Very different.

One wonders what Chayevsky or Serling would have made of this world. One wonders what we ourselves will make of it - since we are destined to witness it unfold around us. How far down that uncharted stream we are able to paddle - he said, mixing his metaphors like multi-flavoured daquaris - is entirely up to us.

My heart belongs to cinema - and to TV. And they don’t exist anymore - at least not in the way I lived with them.

And through it all, the real drag is the absence of the “easy money” of writing for kids TV.

Damn.

]]>