[jallmann]

> the 'immersive' media in films is the audio, not the visual components

That's a non-falsifiable opinion, really (even if it does apply to the majority of the population). I'm living proof you can enjoy movies without the audio.

It's the sum of our experience that colors our perception -- almost irrevocably in this case, since I imagine it would be difficult for the typical person to really be able to enjoy something in complete and utter silence.

[AndrewUnmuted]

> I'm living proof you can enjoy movies without the audio.

I am not looking to equate immersion with enjoyment, and by no means do I intend to disrespect the manner by which you enjoy a type of media. My apologies for coming off that way!

When I refer to 'immersive media' I am referring to the 360-degree omnidirectional dispersion pattern of sounds and our similarly omnidirectional hearing of those sounds. This is 'immersive experience' as opposed to a 2-dimensional or stereoscopic experience, which is what we get with visual media. Television/film screens fire light directly at the eyes; even in iMax situations the film is never experienced behind us. That isn't immersive, whereas say a VR headset can potentially offer this type of immersion. But since this technology is still in its infancy I think it too early to call it fully immersive like audio is.

[jallmann]

> 'immersive media' I am referring to the 360-degree omnidirectional dispersion pattern

Then that is splitting hairs over a definition of immersion, and quite unrelated to how the word was used in my original comment. Had I instead said "fully engrossed," my point would still hold, and you would not have one.

I understand you were being "super pedantic," but if you're going to do that, then you should be super precise in the pedantry, otherwise you're arguing a strawman.