After writing about User Mobility last week, it seems fitting that I write about User Immobility this week. In my last post, I made the claim that “[1] Manovich believes that there is a “virtual world” that is created when a person observes these mediums. This virtual world forms a sort of triangle, with the eye of the viewer being the top point, and the edges of the “screen” being the two base points.” It was pointed out to me that I had described User Immobility instead of User Mobility. I like to think I was just thinking ahead to this post when I wrote that. In all seriousness though, there needs to be a delicate balance between a user’s immobility and mobility when dealing with media.
One of my favorite examples of a medium that is torn between these two states of viewing are the movies we all love. I know personally that I love going to the theater to watch a film, but I know that not all films need to be seen in the theater. You don’t need to be completely immersed in say a comedy like you would a film like [2] Gravity. I have heard on multiple occasions that if I did not get the experience of watching the film in an IMAX theater I was doing a disservice to myself and the film. So I made some space in my schedule, went down to my local theater and sat in awe for the next hour and a half. I agreed completely that this was no film for me to watch on my phone on the LIRR.
So what makes the Immobile experience a greater alternative then the mobile experience when watching a theatric film like Gravity? [3] The immersion that is offered to us by the surround sound, the view encompassing screen, the extra soundproofing to keep outside noises away. These attributes are all used to keep the viewer in the virtual world. The Cinema is not the only medium that is trying to keep people glued to their seats. As an avid gamer, I am very familiar with sitting in front of a screen and playing games for hours on end when I can, and there are even reports of people dropping dead from playing for multiple days on end[4], the most extreme version of being stuck in a virtual world.
The addiction caused by gaming is extremely controversial [5], and something I personally see no different from someone who binge watches on Netflix, but this is not the correct time nor place for me to be discussing that topic. Maybe I will continue with that topic next week, and you will be able to binge read my posts.
1) Manovich, Lev. "The Screen and The User." The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT, 2000. N. pag. Print. 2) "Gravity-Awards." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/awards>. 3) "The IMAX Experience." The IMAX Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Mar. 2015. <https://www.imax.com/about/experience/>. 4) "S Korean Dies after Games Session." BBC News. BBC, 10 Aug. 2005. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4137782.stm>. 5) "Do Video Game Makers Owe It to Players to Keep Them from Getting Addicted?" Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.
One of my favorite examples of a medium that is torn between these two states of viewing are the movies we all love. I know personally that I love going to the theater to watch a film, but I know that not all films need to be seen in the theater. You don’t need to be completely immersed in say a comedy like you would a film like [2] Gravity. I have heard on multiple occasions that if I did not get the experience of watching the film in an IMAX theater I was doing a disservice to myself and the film. So I made some space in my schedule, went down to my local theater and sat in awe for the next hour and a half. I agreed completely that this was no film for me to watch on my phone on the LIRR.
So what makes the Immobile experience a greater alternative then the mobile experience when watching a theatric film like Gravity? [3] The immersion that is offered to us by the surround sound, the view encompassing screen, the extra soundproofing to keep outside noises away. These attributes are all used to keep the viewer in the virtual world. The Cinema is not the only medium that is trying to keep people glued to their seats. As an avid gamer, I am very familiar with sitting in front of a screen and playing games for hours on end when I can, and there are even reports of people dropping dead from playing for multiple days on end[4], the most extreme version of being stuck in a virtual world.
The addiction caused by gaming is extremely controversial [5], and something I personally see no different from someone who binge watches on Netflix, but this is not the correct time nor place for me to be discussing that topic. Maybe I will continue with that topic next week, and you will be able to binge read my posts.
1) Manovich, Lev. "The Screen and The User." The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT, 2000. N. pag. Print.
2) "Gravity-Awards." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/awards>.
3) "The IMAX Experience." The IMAX Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Mar. 2015. <https://www.imax.com/about/experience/>.
4) "S Korean Dies after Games Session." BBC News. BBC, 10 Aug. 2005. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4137782.stm>.
5) "Do Video Game Makers Owe It to Players to Keep Them from Getting Addicted?" Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.
--Michael