How about outside, in the woods, listening to birds without wondering what they are? I find that living with minimal TV works. Unfortunately it is now difficult to communicate by means other than electronic. Thus this note.
I have a very small living room and live so close to a local theater that I can decide to go to a movie when it’s predicted to start and still make it before it starts. I find the sound quality generally better at home, I saw Dune at the theater and had to wear my earplugs it was so loud! And, of course, I can pause to go to the bathroom.
My local theater is independently owned, and has a subscription service that is certainly worth it. Before they closed to remodel, I was seeing a matinee, with popcorn, a drink and an organ player before the movie(!), for $15USD, which is a steal. But I only see one movie a month, and the experience is part of the draw.
I do have one of those TVs that turns into art, which I feel is less intrusive, but my living room is only 10 feet wide, so it fits in a snug like situation.
Growing up we looked forward to going to the movies with friends. It was not just entertainment on the screen but a moment of social connection and shared experience beyond the boundaries of the home. Movie theatres today are not just competing with home theatres and big screen TV's. They are competing with a plethora of other social engagement & lifestyle activities and as such are ripe for a re-imagination. If we are talking about upfront carbon, most everyone will have a TV in their home so whether it is 40" or 70" may be a moot point, but as movie theatres wan in popularity, undoubtely fewer will be built. The real carbon load lies in how frequently consumers upgrade to the latest and greatest when that 40" from 2007 is still just fine. Replace "tv" for "smartphone", "car" etc and we land back at your core issue of sufficiency vs the quest for the next best experience.
When I designed and built our small house (originally intended as a studio) in rural North Otago NZ, I hid the TV in a cabinet behind crockery shelves and mounted it on a rise and fall mechanism with a hinged flap lid - I had intended using it to present work to clients.
That was sixteen years ago. The TV is a white Schaub Lorenz that is connected to an amp that directs sound to a subwoofer and 5 speakers discreetly mounted in bulkheads around the tiny lounge space. We’ve synced with our iPhones and computers and subscribe to several streaming services with good internet thanks to Starlink.
Although the TV is now old looking, and is only 42 inch, the whole thing still works well for us, and is consistent with the design approach throughout; keep it tight, and design the spaces for more than one use activity whenever possible.
When the Tele disappears in its hidy hole and the cabinet lid closes, views of the mountains are available from the window behind, and the afternoon sun can shine in, we can see and hear birds singing. It’s a nice place to sit and read.
We can arrange seating and use the room in ways that is not directed by where the TV is placed.
A small piece of electronic hardware solved that often irritating design challenge; Where does the TV go? For us the answer was easy; Out-of-Sight!
The running theme in the post and through the comments (even being few in number as of now) is this:
Choice.
That's what it all comes down to. I chose to rarely go to movies, mostly because I'm not a movie kind of guy. But choice allows me to go to an IMAX for a movie that I believe warrants it. Else, I watch stuff on our older 50" TV with a decent sound system for audio.
Note: The Most Esteemed Wife wants a newer AND much larger TV. I have put my foot down as the size she wants would overwhelm our living room. We'll see how long I can last under her delightful onslaught.
Other stuff I watch in my office on a really older iPad Air as I DVR other stuff (news, some talk shows, science related reality/documentaries) to watch later. That stuff really doesn't need high end video or audio.
Others in the comments say "OUTDOORS"!!!. Good - another choice.
This is what modernity does - services our needs as we wish; to use tech or nature as we individually see fit.
As an adolescent fan of science fiction back in the 1960s, I remember being struck by the several novels that postulated a world with less population, living mostly alone or in small 'family' groups in relatively isolated, self sufficient residences - linked together by holographic projectors which they used like telephones to reach out to each other, and as home theaters to watch live or recorded entertainments. I think there are some basic human needs at work which may explain the confusion you describe. I love the movie theater experience (even while appreciating the often solo matinee showings of new releases when I'm the only one who shows up for the 1130 am or even 1pm matinee screening). Some of my favorite memories about films are being with an audience as we all together respond to the movie ("Damn, the Doobie Brothers broke up!). I also like being able to sit in either of the two spaces in the house that are shared with a flat screen (neither as big as the one pictured) and choosing what I want to watch and when. I wonder how great a role in developing speech was played by the human drive to tell and share stories.
Scientists for Global Responsibility have calculated a fair carbon allowance per capita to 2030 would be about 2.5 tonnes. This includes 33sq m of internal floorspace that I think would preclude space for a cinema
We have had drop down screens and concealed projectors in the living room of our houses. We don't want to go to some special room to watch an movie and when we are done it all goes away. Tv's over fireplaces look terrible.
And the rest of the time we have the benefit of a great sound system to listen to music. Living in the country the closest cinema is $10 in fuel each way besides the tickets
How about outside, in the woods, listening to birds without wondering what they are? I find that living with minimal TV works. Unfortunately it is now difficult to communicate by means other than electronic. Thus this note.
I have a very small living room and live so close to a local theater that I can decide to go to a movie when it’s predicted to start and still make it before it starts. I find the sound quality generally better at home, I saw Dune at the theater and had to wear my earplugs it was so loud! And, of course, I can pause to go to the bathroom.
My local theater is independently owned, and has a subscription service that is certainly worth it. Before they closed to remodel, I was seeing a matinee, with popcorn, a drink and an organ player before the movie(!), for $15USD, which is a steal. But I only see one movie a month, and the experience is part of the draw.
I do have one of those TVs that turns into art, which I feel is less intrusive, but my living room is only 10 feet wide, so it fits in a snug like situation.
Growing up we looked forward to going to the movies with friends. It was not just entertainment on the screen but a moment of social connection and shared experience beyond the boundaries of the home. Movie theatres today are not just competing with home theatres and big screen TV's. They are competing with a plethora of other social engagement & lifestyle activities and as such are ripe for a re-imagination. If we are talking about upfront carbon, most everyone will have a TV in their home so whether it is 40" or 70" may be a moot point, but as movie theatres wan in popularity, undoubtely fewer will be built. The real carbon load lies in how frequently consumers upgrade to the latest and greatest when that 40" from 2007 is still just fine. Replace "tv" for "smartphone", "car" etc and we land back at your core issue of sufficiency vs the quest for the next best experience.
When I designed and built our small house (originally intended as a studio) in rural North Otago NZ, I hid the TV in a cabinet behind crockery shelves and mounted it on a rise and fall mechanism with a hinged flap lid - I had intended using it to present work to clients.
That was sixteen years ago. The TV is a white Schaub Lorenz that is connected to an amp that directs sound to a subwoofer and 5 speakers discreetly mounted in bulkheads around the tiny lounge space. We’ve synced with our iPhones and computers and subscribe to several streaming services with good internet thanks to Starlink.
Although the TV is now old looking, and is only 42 inch, the whole thing still works well for us, and is consistent with the design approach throughout; keep it tight, and design the spaces for more than one use activity whenever possible.
When the Tele disappears in its hidy hole and the cabinet lid closes, views of the mountains are available from the window behind, and the afternoon sun can shine in, we can see and hear birds singing. It’s a nice place to sit and read.
We can arrange seating and use the room in ways that is not directed by where the TV is placed.
A small piece of electronic hardware solved that often irritating design challenge; Where does the TV go? For us the answer was easy; Out-of-Sight!
The running theme in the post and through the comments (even being few in number as of now) is this:
Choice.
That's what it all comes down to. I chose to rarely go to movies, mostly because I'm not a movie kind of guy. But choice allows me to go to an IMAX for a movie that I believe warrants it. Else, I watch stuff on our older 50" TV with a decent sound system for audio.
Note: The Most Esteemed Wife wants a newer AND much larger TV. I have put my foot down as the size she wants would overwhelm our living room. We'll see how long I can last under her delightful onslaught.
Other stuff I watch in my office on a really older iPad Air as I DVR other stuff (news, some talk shows, science related reality/documentaries) to watch later. That stuff really doesn't need high end video or audio.
Others in the comments say "OUTDOORS"!!!. Good - another choice.
This is what modernity does - services our needs as we wish; to use tech or nature as we individually see fit.
Get outdoors and don't bring a Starlink Mini.
As an adolescent fan of science fiction back in the 1960s, I remember being struck by the several novels that postulated a world with less population, living mostly alone or in small 'family' groups in relatively isolated, self sufficient residences - linked together by holographic projectors which they used like telephones to reach out to each other, and as home theaters to watch live or recorded entertainments. I think there are some basic human needs at work which may explain the confusion you describe. I love the movie theater experience (even while appreciating the often solo matinee showings of new releases when I'm the only one who shows up for the 1130 am or even 1pm matinee screening). Some of my favorite memories about films are being with an audience as we all together respond to the movie ("Damn, the Doobie Brothers broke up!). I also like being able to sit in either of the two spaces in the house that are shared with a flat screen (neither as big as the one pictured) and choosing what I want to watch and when. I wonder how great a role in developing speech was played by the human drive to tell and share stories.
Scientists for Global Responsibility have calculated a fair carbon allowance per capita to 2030 would be about 2.5 tonnes. This includes 33sq m of internal floorspace that I think would preclude space for a cinema
https://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/living-targets
Daniel
That is quite the site! 2.5 tonnes was my target for my book living the 1.5 degree lifestyle. Even our small apartment is over 33 m2 per person.
We have had drop down screens and concealed projectors in the living room of our houses. We don't want to go to some special room to watch an movie and when we are done it all goes away. Tv's over fireplaces look terrible.
And the rest of the time we have the benefit of a great sound system to listen to music. Living in the country the closest cinema is $10 in fuel each way besides the tickets
Kinmount, just up the road!