"Television: the revolution," ([1944])

Reading and Downloading:

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.

We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

'WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE MOVIES?" 0 JUGGLER likes to have another juggler on the same bill with him. Hollywood is inclined to be wary about television. Understandably so. To thousands whose living depends on the pic- ture industry, sight broadcasting appears to jeopardize companies which have taken years and fortunes to build. Not since Hollywood rose to power has anyone come along to challenge the statement: "Motion Pictures are your best entertainment." Now a new medium arrives which has the potential to challenge the cin- ema's exclusive sway. We can't expect the peo- ple of pictures to welcome sight-broadcasting with open arms and without reservations. The plain truth of the matter is that television is not a threat to Hollywood's status quo. Most of the worries about the menace of tele are pure eye-wash. Sight-broadcasting and movies are two entirely different media. There need be no 85