CNN's hologram stunt

As was asked on the Daily Show: WHY?

Even in Star Trek: Deep Space 9, this kind of silly gimmick was abandoned quickly... The "hologram communication" they used on the Defiant for a couple of episodes at some point was scrapped in favor of returning to a face on a screen.
 
Jorghnassen said:
As was asked on the Daily Show: WHY?

Even in Star Trek: Deep Space 9, this kind of silly gimmick was abandoned quickly... The "hologram communication" they used on the Defiant for a couple of episodes at some point was scrapped in favor of returning to a face on a screen.
Click to expand...

I think it does make a nicer presentation for the viewers. You remove some of the technical, artificial feel by pretending that all the people that address you are at lest together.
 
I saw some of the footage again on The Daily Show last night. The woman states something to the effect that she has 35 High-Definition cameras around her.
 
Rasmus said:
I think it does make a nicer presentation for the viewers. You remove some of the technical, artificial feel by pretending that all the people that address you are at lest together.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That stubborn technical, artificial feel can easily be remedied with a new technical, artificial gimmick. :wink:

Cheese, thy name is CNN.
 
The real question is why do we need to see the back and sides of someone being interviewed during election coverage. It would have been cheaper to put her in a swivel chair and give her a spin.
 
TheDaver said:
I don’t see what actual use this special-effects technology has in news reporting.
Click to expand...
It actually got in the way; they kept telling viewers about the technical trick and the other person not really being there, instead of talking about the news!
 
The beaming hologram thing was lame, but I thought the 3-D-ified onscreen graphics were kind of neat. I don't think they add anything over standard graphics, but as an effect they were somewhat interesting.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
It included a painful moment for geeks as Will I Am correctly compared it to the effect from Star Wars and then Anderson Cooper compared it to the transporter effect from Star Trek. The expression on Am's face clearly said "no, no, Star Wars"
Click to expand...

Anderson Cooper is now my hero. I love deliberately confusing obvious details between Star Trek and Star Wars; it nearly gives their respective fans strokes.
 
It included a painful moment for geeks as Will I Am correctly compared it to the effect from Star Wars and then Anderson Cooper compared it to the transporter effect from Star Trek. The expression on Am's face clearly said "no, no, Star Wars"
Click to expand...

I didn't see it, but if it was presented as above then weren't they both correct? The "hologram" projection was from Star Wars, the transporter effect from Star Trek.

OTOH, if he had said "Star Track"....
 
Last edited:
I thought this whole thing was stupid. Why send someone on location so we can spend a lot of money and pretend they're really here? The whole purpose of sending the person on location is to see what's happening at the location, isn't it?
 
I agree that the whole thing was both lame and distracting. But what I find really annoying is their continued insistance on calling it a hologram when it wasn't. To me that is dishonest and not something I would expect from a news organization.

Steve S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom