What is the difference between The Hobbit and the news? Not as much as there should be

[Dave Monroe]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:

> News reports are looking more like movies – and movies are looking
> more like news reports. How are we supposed to tell them apart?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/29/difference-hobbit-news-not-much

Our perception of eras seems chiefly dependent on the limitations of
the technology that records them. The 20s are speeded up in our heads
because the cameras were cranked by hand, creating an unnaturally
hasty frame-rate. The 40s, however, are in part characterised by the
crackly analogue sound that accompanies most war footage. The 50s are
a combination of starchy monochrome US shows and lush cinematic
Eastmancolor that stretches into the 60s: this is the era of glamour
and dreams, and a colour palette Mad Men seeks to emulate. The 70s
have a raw deal: they seem to chiefly exist in the form of grim, murky
16mm news footage of people gazing sullenly at acres of brown
wallpaper. With the sole exception of the Wombles, everyone in 70s
footage looks as if they're being held there against their will.

Then in the 80s, our memories are transferred on to video, lending
them a shiny, slightly tinny feel. The analogue video age lasts until
roughly the turn of the century, at which point everything starts
turning crisp and widescreen.

Around 2005 things start making the transition to HD – and then we get
to today, and a weird new trend is emerging....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/29/difference-hobbit-news-not-much