I think there were more questions back when you were a kid, uh, because of the technology apart from anything else. So, when I was playing Zaxon or Pac-Man I had to imagine a lot of things all the way to sound effects. I mean, I started playing video games literally with pong. But if I think about 2600 the Atari as the, this sort of real sort of launching point for my gaming career, um, I had to imagine better sounds effects 'cause you just had this sequence of bouncing and crashing noises on the Atari. And so, I would imagine my own sound effects. I would imagine better music. I would imagine better graphics. And I would fill in all these gaps that the game wasn't able to do. But now you get to, you know, modern day shooter and you look at something like Call of Duty or Halo and it's all there. There's no, there's no request for your imagination other than to immerse yourself in the character. Um, and I think that that's one of the, this, this sort of boundary pieces between forms of entertainment. And they're not better or worse than each other. The music is very passive. You sit there and you listen to music pretty much with one sense unless you have really good subwoofer. And, uh, I think movies are passive too and you sit there and your, more senses are required of you, more understanding I think is required of you. Memory is required in a way that isn't with music. So, it becomes more, uh, I think immersive and I think that's objectively arguable. And that doesn't mean it's better. It means it's a different experience. The video games do all of that. They have audio component and they have a visual component and a story component. But there's also this component of agency. So, you rather that having to sort of fill in gaps or, or in the case of music apply it to ConnorsDaning, it's a lot of it's there and what's required of you is skill and agency and interaction. And I think that's, that's really just the sort of layer process. And, and that way it's kind of an evolution of film, um, whether it means to be or not. But they like very different experiences. But, you know, the future is going to be about real interactivity. And, and, uh, I've learned a lot of lessons from sci-fi. I'm not going to say 20 years from now. I'm going to say 500 years from now just to play it safe. But you'll have interactive immersive experiences where, you know, the sense of touch is being actuated and, and synthesized through either a suit or some sort of environment that you're in. And you'll be able to do all the things that you can do in a game or a movie and we'll have, you know, AI's that past the touring test. You'll be able to go on a real adventure with, with Indiana Jones and you can be short, round and drive around and it will all feel completely real and it will sound real, smell real and all that stuff. And so, we keep, uh, stripping away layers of, uh, the need for imagination and that's the way the technology goes about fidelity and about, uh, getting closer to the, the real. And, uh, we, we even did that with music. You did it with vinyl to CD to, you know -- it kind of just stopped at CD, but, you know, there's, there's a lot of people using lot less, uh, audio on their, their Imax right now. But I think the future is, is really about, uh, eliminating the, the necessity for imagination and replacing it with, with fidelity. And I don't think that's a bad thing 'cause you sh-, you can still read a book and people do, you know. I think we thought that books were going to go away, uh, in our more panicky moments, but books are a perfect example of the, the absolute sort of blistering need for imagination to fill in the gaps and imagine the environments and, and feel the wind and, and all this stuff that's being described on the page. Um, so, that's not going to go away, but there will be more options and, and, uh, more experiences that completely shoo the need for any imagination and just are about experience which in some ways is kind of exciting.
