www.avinteractive.com: If you want to know who to blame for what is said to be the continual misuse of the word 'hologram', look no further than the original Star Wars film.
Hardly a week goes by when there isn't a story about a pop star coming back from the dead – or at least out of early retirement – as a hologram to thrill their pining fans with a 'live' performance.
4 comments:
Okay guys. I think we are giving poor R2-D2 here a bad rap. It is not this little guy’s fault that this isn’t necessarily what “hologram” means. Also, considering that Star Wars not only takes place a long time ago but also in a galaxy far, far away, I think it’s totally within the rights and jurisdiction of the piece to have different names for things, and “hologram” sounds like something that could in fact describe this little projection. How was R2-D2 supposed to know that one day this kind of technology would be used to project Elvis years after his death (which actually feels very uncanny valley and like. pretty unfair to his memory to me but okay) and that people would be mad that this isn’t what the word “holographic” was intended to describe? I do think the etymology and different applications of words are fascinating, but let’s give R2 a break. He is under a lot of pressure.
This is such a funny premise for an article. A fictional character who debuted in a movie in 1977 is being blamed for the long-term misuse of the term ‘hologram’ almost 50 years later. If we ignore all of the minor absurdities in the sentence I just typed, I guess this article has a point? Yes, holograms are not the moving 3D projection of princess Leia that the metal bucket droid in the sci-fi movie has on a puck, they are instead non-moving 3D images. That being said, I feel like this is, to a degree, an argument in semantics. Many technical terms are co-opted by the general public to become known as things that they are not. From what I remember, a number of these new shows that use moving 3D models of performers are being advertised as holograms, so while the fictional droid from the 70s made the first error in defining the term, there is still a perpetuation of the idea of holograms being something they are not.
I never watched any of the Star Wars franchise, but I feel like there are a lot of big shows and franchises that had big mistakes in them whether in physics, camerawork, terminology, costumes, etc. Even as someone who never watched Star Wars, this definition of hologram is also one that I thought was the right one. I always just thought a simple projection into the air was a hologram, until this article, which educated me a hologram is a still 3D image that's created by laser technology. While I think that bringing back celebrities with the use of “holograms” is cool, it also seems weird, like why bring them back? It feels exploitative, and using AI and technology for the wrong things. While it does seem cool to a certain extent, I would rather just see the past photos and videos of those celebrities than to see the “fake” version of them.
If the R2-D2 definition of a hologram is wrong, then I don't think that there is a right. Our dear friend and reliable Droid from a fan favorite franchise gives the word hologram it's true meaning, whatever it was before means nothing now. A credit card security icon? really? That's just a shiny picture. A hologram is Princess Leia projected in three dimensions directly in front of us. end of story. whatever R2 is selling I'm buying, nothing else. These people need to get a grip it’s not that deep! Just let the little guy do his little guy things!! Listen to his cute little screen robot droid call!! Some random guy mentioned in the article wants them to forget about the technology entirely- but I will never forget. Whenever I ride “Rise of the Resistance” in Disney WOrld (my home,) I will be reminded of what a hologram truly means. The friends we made along the way.
Post a Comment