I found this be be quite creepliy cool. In an 1987 interview with sci-fi/science magazine OMNI, film critic extraordinaire Roger Ebert had THIS to say about the future of the movie-watching experience in homes and it's rather prophetic:
"We will have high-definition, wide-screen television sets and a push-button dialing system to order the movie you want at the time you want it. You’ll not go to a video store but instead order a movie on demand and then pay for it. Videocassette tapes as we know them now will be obsolete both for showing prerecorded movies and for recording movies. People will record films on 8mm and will play them back using laser-disk/CD technology."
Think back, folks. It was 1987. No one knew to string together the words "high-definition" or "On Demand." While compact discs were in their infancy, it was even quite prophetic that Ebert saw that a "disc" of some sort would eventually replace videocassetes.
OK, so 8mm didn't really go anywhere, but otherwise, the dude pretty much nailed it.
For more, click HERE.
Tweet
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
ROGER EBERT: FILM PROPHET?
3/29/2011
5 comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I always liked him and always agreed (OK, almost always) agreed with his choices in movies.
ReplyDeleteYikes. That is creepy. I wonder if there's some underlying psychological thing going on (that's a technical term: psychological thing) and people in "the industry" used those terms before the rest of us, or what. Well spotted, Anthony.
ReplyDeleteCreepy in deed. But did he forsee PVR? That's the real question.
ReplyDeleteI'd totally forgotten about laser disks (or laserdisc I guess). They were short lived, weren't they?
Ebert is a genius and superb film historian - in addition his has bravely fought cancer and is a role model on how to lead a productive positive life after debilitating set backs.. great find here Ant..
ReplyDeleteCreepy indeed, but did he really have some sort of psychic vision, or, because of his position, was he privy to these things being tested in their infancy, (or should that be "wombancy" - is so a word!)?
ReplyDeleteInteresting in any case.