Slashdot Mirror
William Gibson on Movies, Music, Media
automatic_jack writes "William Gibson gave a talk at the Directors' Guild of America's Digital Day last week. The text of it is up in his 'blog, and in it he says some intriguing things about the nature of the entertainment and media industries. There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!"
He quit blogging?
Stop with all this blog (not a word, remember, kids?) nonsense, please, before it gets out of hand. The proper word is weblog. Thank you.
There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!
:)
Don't tell me...he's really a ghost?
asshole ... i haven't seen it yet!
I don't know about you but my stone tablet version of the bible has been getting dusty now that I can read pretty much everything under the sun on the internet.
or, hell, have the computer read it to me. (and if you have a Mac, have the computer SING it to you in various melodies that's - if nothing else - creepy but hilarious at the same time)
My life in the land of the rising sun.
'blog?
Reminds me of that time I was on the 'bus, and someone called me on my 'phone.
uh...yeah. Between that, and the way that the torlls were pathetically trying to spoil people with the ending for the two weeks leading to the premiere; I figured people would have the sophistication to see it was a joke...-1, troll...guess I was wrong.
I think the item that took my interest was this. Ever get the feeling that nothing ever actually gets done in the House of Lords?
There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!
He is Tyler Durden.
(Or Keyser Soze... take your pick)
Meryl Streep in a Kung Fu pose with a dogs head.
We're all doomed.
The Matrix has you ....
seduce me into actually reading the article.
I mean, when was the last time that the man did anything that didn't suck? I mean, most people will agree that "Braveheart" and "Lethal Weapon 3" were great, but his career has taken a nose dive since then. Mr. Gibson, I don't claim to know "What A Woman Wants", but I can tell you what this man wants is more action and less chick-flick fluff.
Nice. 'Idol is on Fox right now.
The best thing about /. is readers taking a boring topic and making something out of it. Two thumbs up from this balcony.
ednesday, May 21, 2003
posted 8:52 AM
SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING, THESE DAYS
Now Billy Prion's shown up in Alberta. O well. Pass the, uh, I forget, like the red stuff? To put on this hamburner? Yummy.
UP THE LINE
A talk given at the Directors Guild of America's Digital Day, Los Angeles, May 17, 2003
The story of film begins around a fire, in darkness. Gathered around this fire are primates of a certain species, our ancestors, an animal distinguished by a peculiar ability to recognize patterns.
There is movement in the fire: embers glow and crawl on charcoal. Fire looks like nothing else. It generates light in darkness. It moves. It is alive.
The surrounding forest is dark. Is it the same forest our ancestors know by day? They can't be sure. At night it is another place, perhaps no place at all. The abode of the dead, of gods and demons and that which walks without a face. It is the self turned inside out. Without form, it is that on which our ancestors project the patterns their interestingly mutated brains generate.
This patterning-reading mutation is crucial to the survival of a species that must ceaselessly hunt, ceaselessly gather. One plant is good to eat; it grows in summer in these lowlands. But if you eat its seedpods, you sicken and die. The big, slow-moving river-animal can be surprised and killed, here in these shallows, but will escape in deeper water.
This function is already so central, in our ancestors, that they discover the outlines of the water-animal in clouds. They see the faces of wolves and of their own dead in the flames. They are already capable of symbolic thought. Spoken language is long since a fact for them but written language has not yet evolved. They scribe crisscross patterns on approximately rectangular bits of ocher, currently the world's oldest known human art.
They crouch, watching the fire, watching its constant, unpredictable movements, and someone is telling a story. In the watching of the fire and the telling of the tale lie the beginning of what we still call film.
Later, on some other night, uncounted generations up the timeline, their descendants squat deep in caves, places of eternal night -- painting. They paint by the less restless light of reeds and tallow. They paint the wolves and the water-animal, the gods and their dead. They have found ways to take control of certain aspects of the cooking-fire universe. Darkness lives here, in the caves; you needn't wait for dusk. The reeds and tallow throw a steadier light. Something is being turned inside out, here, for the first time: the pictures in the patterning brain are being projected, rendered. Our more recent ancestors will discover these stone screens, their images still expressing life and movement, and marvel at them, and not so long before the first moving images are projected.
What we call "media" were originally called "mass media". technologies allowing the replication of passive experience. As a novelist, I work in the oldest mass medium, the printed word. The book has been largely unchanged for centuries. Working in language expressed as a system of marks on a surface, I can induce extremely complex experiences, but only in an audience elaborately educated to experience this. This platform still possesses certain inherent advantages. I can, for instance, render interiority of character with an ease and specificity denied to a screenwriter. But my audience must be literate, must know what prose fiction is and understand how one accesses it. This requires a complexly cultural education, and a certain socio-economic basis. Not everyone is afforded the luxury of such an education.
But I remember being taken to my first film, either a Disney animation or a Disney nature documentary (I can't recall which I saw first) and being overwhelmed by the steep yet almost instantaneous learning curve: in that hour, I learned to watch film. Was taught, in effect, by the film itself. I was years away from being able to read my
In only a single draft, even the greatest of writers will only produce content on par with the average thinker. Mr Gibson has "pettered out" as it were as a novelist. As if to reward himself he publishes countless first drafts: unpolished ramblings not ready, nay, not WORTHY, of consumption. Most blogs, including this one are about as narcissistic as hit counters on your personal home page.
Ya zionism is definatly racist.
Doesn't matter if you agree with the content or not. The author can at lest string two words together and express his thoughts.
How unusual in this (and probably any) day and age.
I found one of his observations very interesting. The only useful function the record companies still serve is promotion. People can make studio recordings all on their own at home. However, people can not make blockbuster films at home. The cameras, the computers, the artists. Technology has not yet advanced to the point where hollywood no longer has a monopoly on movie production.
But one day, it might.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Damn, kids today can't appreciate anything. What is this world coming to? Back in my day . . . (fall asleep) . . . (wake up with a start) . . . That's what I'd do to fix 'em. That would fix 'em real good.
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
That might have made me want to go and see it. Nicole Kidman killing herself almost had me in the door.
Well, if you want to be punctilious - I believe the bible has been originally been on parchment (i.e. processed horse-skin). I don't know if people are aware of this, but paper was invented in china many centuries later (600-900CE, i forgot), and not introduced to the west until even later.
My point, however, was that books has INDEED changed (even since the press). For one it's more accessible and more convenient. That, by itself, changed books in ways that greatly altered the way information is consumed from books. For example, what's the most frequent method of getting things out of (especially on-line) reference manuals? I usually load up the PDF and search for the item I am interested in. Now, I wouldn't do this to a novel, but that's exactly the thing - books are no longer only a medium to convey a continuous string of information like news or story, and this "search" functionality greatly improved the usefulness of books that are not continuous.
Moreover, the format of books are changing. Not even going to the tell a story with nothing but pictures approach, you can view a blog as a living book that's constantly updating itself to reflect the present, and re-examine the past.
So yes, books have changed. but of course you have to look at it at a different angle - though, really i guess the problem is that definition of a "book" isn't so clear anymore.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
It's the space between...
..does not diminish the old media.
It's as if he saw MTV for the first time and claimed "people will never listen to music the same. Children born now will never be able to listen to popular music without a moving picture accompanying it. They will have to relearn how to listen to music".
New forms of media traditionally start in their infancy through a convergence of old forms of media. Many of the first motion pictures were adaptation of plays. Many of the earlier organized plays were retellings of traditional written or verbal folklore. Many of both still are. But that doesn't mean either haven't evolved into their own unique style, and the forms of media they borrowed from haven't been dramatically changed.
Film as a non interactive media is here to stay. Because the new and still developing genre of interactive media seems to be--at least at this moment--closely tied to film won't degrade the entertainment or social aspects of the cinema. And interactive media will most likely evolve into its own right.
The Internet is generally stupid
... but it needs to be said.
Slashdot needs a "-1: Pompous Arse" category.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
We really should be asking: What does CHOMSKY think about Hollywood?
Maybe it's just the beer (Maudite from Unibroue; it's good; you should try it), but I thought that was nonsense. Bear with me as I try to figure out why.
So this is a guy who writes novels where computer nerds have superhero like powers and secretly control the world while battling against various non-computer nerds who also use computers to have superhero like powers. It's a feel good romp for people who society rejects and have very little real power. Sure, the world wouldn't function without us, but the very same thing applies to garbage collectors. I think that Scott Adams is the only one who views them as superheros. Maybe Gibson likes us better because we are more modern and have more money. I don't know...
Anyway, that really sets the scene for his vision of the future. Johnny X, his young protagonist, uses his computer to manipulate his entertainment world to completely fit his own vision. Johnny is obviously very computer literate in our 21st century-modern sense. On the other hand, he is portrayed as not knowing the computer backends that do all the heavy processing on his behalf. He'd probably have his computer generate him a set of wings so he could fly through cyberspace and land in Paris and give them a real taste of freedom, except that the audience is the MPAA, not George Bush.
Apparently this random building layers of abstraction to allow Johnny X his control over his movies and kung-fu Meryl Streep with dog head action figures is just what the MPAA has to look forward to. Embrace technology and you can continue to make lots of money by becoming increasingly absurd.
Gibson claims that this is derived from the ancient past where moving light came from fire. All interpretation was, umm, verbatim interpretation. There really isn't much story in a flickering flame. Now the story is there, well maybe, but you can definitely see the picture. Interpretation is kept to a minimum. Gibson wants to relate the future to his mystical past by claiming that we will have almost infinite interpretive power in the future.
Somehow, Gibson's vision seems increasingly irrelevant. I don't want dog heads on Meryl Streep; I remember my little brothers when they were eight. They didn't want that either. My nephew won't want that; when I have children they won't either. Gibson is spinning his story line that computers turn people into bizarre all-powerful superheros. Fundamentally though, we are still people. If I want to be entertained, I want to "be entertained." I don't want to make my own entertainment. I watch a movie to relax, not to think about how I could make it better. Guess what, editors reject most scripts because they are crap that not even the author could love if they were made. Seeing just a little of the crap that is made, that's saying a lot. The average Johnny X could do no better; my assertion is that the average computer nerd kid has even less intuition about creating compelling visual art than most.
So after reading that, I wish I hadn't because it was a waste of time.
Historical facts deserve better than such casual (Westernized) references
. Korean's were printing way before Gutenberg.
"...this book was printed with metal typefaces at Heungdeoksa Temple in Cheongju, North Chungbuk province in 1377.
The patron-sponsored musician has been talked about for a while. Wonder if IBM would sponsor Korn or Avril Lavigne?
What about this though - a young movie maker talks the owner of the local cineplex into showing his latest masterpiece on one of the 38 (or 56 or 99, whatever it ends up being) screens. Agrees to split the profits 50/50. That's way more than the cineplex normally gets to keep. Turns out it's pretty good and then the cineplex in the next town over wants to show it for a while.
This is, of course, assuming that there will eventually still be a reason to go the movies. The offsetting technological innovations will be better home TV's, sound systems, and people with disposable income making themselves movie rooms. Of course, at that point you distribute over the internet. Hollywood's distribution monopoly can be broken just as easily as the RIAA's.
Since you have recieved karma for a simple cut and paste of Mr. Gibson's work I wonder if you can be sued.
Sure it's only karma not money, it's not like you can go down to Krispy Kreme's and buy a chocolate glazed and a coffee with karma, but you still profited, you recieved something for someone else's work without even giving credit to the original author! The only thing you wrote was 'In case of a sh,4sj0b' and at least to me that dosen't say 'Written by William Gibson reproduced with permission'.
>
As for Case, I'm leaning towards Billy-Bob Thornton.
I'd rather be in the hold of the Matrix than in the hold of Matrix merchandising.
That'd be totally excellent dude!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Dullest blog I've ever read (not that I read many). Or if you prefer, dullest piece of writing from an author who often used to write very good stuff.
Not that my blog would be any more interesting.
in stringing the words together in the right order if the underlying thoughts are so banal. Unless the intention is to advertise that fact.
Better to be quiet and thought a fool, than speaking and confirming it.
I think theatre going is changing and the theatres know it and are changing to accomodate. I'm certainly more inclined to wait for most movies to come out on DVD and see less at the theatre because of it. I'm sure the average (rather than avid) filmgoer is the same. On the other hand when I do go to the cinema it is usually for a special movie and I'm happy to pay twice the price for a gold class seat and buy a couple of glasses of wine while I'm at it.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
i certanly stopped buying after Idoru
Jackass
mmmmmmmmm..............warm Vaseline.........
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
As usual with Gibson, the text is full of memorable quotes.
Had nations better understood the potential of the Internet, I suspect they might well have strangled it in its cradle. Emergent technology is, by its very nature, out of control, and leads to unpredictable outcomes.
Probably correct.
He thinks that once it is technologically feasible, and by that I don't mean having some movie studio produce a movie with crazy realistic special effect, rather, I mean that the home user can pick and choose things and change elements of their media that they view/listen to/experience on the fly, that THAT will be the next evolution of our media. So again, it is not simply that we will be able to have dog-headed actors doing kungfu, but instead lets say you're watching a movie, and you wished it would play out in a different way, or you wished you could change a certain element of it, the technology would be so simple to use and so embedded in the media (read: completely digital) that you would be able to do so with a simple command. This is big, very big, but unfortunately, we are very unlikely to see its realization in our lifetime in anything other than perhaps a scene in a good sci-fi movie that demonstrates this through a mock-up.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
He talks about how, since we where sitting around the fire telling stories, we've been creating external memory that can out live one person. However he misses the fact that it goes way further back than that, all the way back to single celled organisms. In fact probably all the way to when viruses were the most inelegant life in the universe
They found a way to create a communication system and memory that could out live any one cell. They created us.
The human race didn't start this project. Its the project of life. To create a system that will support life beyond the boundaries of any one living entity. Educating itself about how to live in a hostile environment and, with any luck, slipping a little bit of enjoyment in there for itself while its at it.
Taking this to its next logical step. In the same way that we do not think of ourselves as a collection of bacteria. the "nameless, single, non-physical meta-artifact we've been constructing" will not see itself as something created by, run by and constructed for the general good of humans but as something completely else.
I feel that this is where we are really heading in the long run. Its both scary, awsome and vital to the continuation of the human race. It will change us for ever.
Don't freak out though. We'll never see it in our life time although it already exists.
Sweat dreams...
Ra-el Peters
f.That movies will last longer than music as controlled digital intelectual property doesn't ring true. If Big Bro can track (or prevent duplication) of your Terminator 6 - Attack of the President video they can control your Millie Vanilli
The nervous system he was talking about is media and patronage will be available globally by a democratic market. Top shelf musical talent will earn their big bucks in meat space by putting people in the seats.
Overall this reminds me of a review of one of his post Mona Lisa Overdrive novels: He reaches into his hat and pulls out the lining. After a good beginning he opts for a vingette from a William Gibson novel. The speech was for Hollywood, but it's missing the point to talk about media without talking about culture and biology. Sure Junior will have video games, but how many eyes will he have?
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
using moveable metal type was actually most likely invented in Korea around 1250.
Sorry if it sounds like flamebait, it isn't intended that way, but old WG just isn't that hot, IMHO...
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Look - I have a ball. Perhaps you would like to play with it?
Record companies also serve the useful purpose of getting artists together.
Yeah, there are lots of rock bands that try to break into the scene fully-formed, but where do the record companies put their muscle? Behind pop artists, and pop music almost never appears as a single band. There's a singer, or a group of singers, who almost never performs his/her/their own compositions. The band playing the music is assembled, often from a large pool of artists who do nothing but back up pop artists quasi-anonymously. The music and lyrics themselves are written by someone else who never meets the musicians, although they're usually written and/or arranged just for the performer. And then there's the engineers who run the equipment to put it all together so that the artists don't have to worry about the technical aspect.
Put them all together, wrap it up in oodles of makeup, clothes and album covers, and you have a record company. They not only provide promotion, they make it possible for singers to be singers without having to be technicians and songwriters and bandleaders at the same time. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion, of course, but it's still something that only they can do.
I think the most exciting thing, something that is just now becoming evident (at least to me), is the immediacy of history provided by permanent, perfect audio-visual record. Generations born now, will possibly not KNOW what is to NOT know exactly what the past was like. Our historical conciousness (at least mine, i'm young) only goes back a few decades at best. Our culture definately shorter than that. What happens, when every person existing is as tied in to, say, the culture of 40 years ago, as they are to "modern" culture. What happens when the past and the present become indistinguishable with regard to culture? What will life be like when it is unimaginable not to have a perfect record of the last 200 years.
I'm conflicted on whether this is a good thing or not. On the one hand people will be more familiar with history, and culture will probably be pushed a bit back into the hands of the people at large. On the other hand, the quaint notion that anybody is doing anything original will probably be eviscerated (why bother consuming "new" culture, when "old" culture is available? Why listen to a cover of a Lious Armstrong song, when you can materialize a perfect 3D hologram of Lious Armstrong and band to do it right here?).
Of course I'll be too long dead to find out.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It is interesting to me that WmG, while describing cinematic mutilations, failed to discuss the new concept of viewer's cut. Sure, we first get the producer's cut, the default. Then we cough up the dough to get the director's cut, what the movie should have been all along.
But now, with the recut of SW2, we have gotten the concept of the viewer's cut, this time by trimming Jar Jar Binks to a minimum (an improvement right there) and then overlaying his words with unintelligble sounds (better and better) and then subtitles with hints of intelligence (a stroke of genius).
Ah but wait; it was the Director's Guild. That explains it....
On a separate note, it was interesting to read Gibson referring to threads on Slashdot in his blog. Creatives have been talking to the hoi poloi for a long time, sure (e.g. J.M.S. talking to Babylon 5 fans back in the pure Usenet days), but to publicly mention the memes of this site as a subject of intellectual discussion struck me. Journalists in trade papers occasionally refer to the Linux fanatics on Slashdot, but it's not everyday I read or hear about a public figure referring to /. as an entity.
Most days it feels like we're all just voices in the wilderness out here. Feels good to know that's changing.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I really don't understand the appeal for this guy. I tried to get through Idoru and just couldn't bear it. It was just too stupid. I gave the guy a second chance and read Neuromancer. I don't understand why this guy gets so much play as an author. He sucks! His character development is so shallow that readers could care less what happens to the main characters. His painting of the apocolyptic future is always dark and predictable and over worked. It's not even believable. WTF(why) would people of the future choose to live in a broken suspension bridge? That doesn't make any sense at all. His books are riddled with shit just like this.
Some say the guy is very descriptive to the point that you can just see the apocolytic world he portrays. I think I could write a pretty good description of a bag of shit, to the point that you, as a reader, might feel that you could smell it. That wouldn't make me a good author. I love the Sci-Fi genre and it makes me crazy to see horrible authors like William Gibson get any play. He must eat too much Alberta Beef.
I'm intrigued by the various comments I've seen along these lines. The number of times I've seen posts describing this stuff (here and in other fora) would seem to indicate that this is commonly encountered behaviour in cinemas stateside.
I live in the UK and go out to the cinema fairly often (both mainstream multiplex and small arthouse places - two or three times a month maybe) and this sort of boorish behaviour just doesn't happen in London. I'm struggling to think of the last time I heard a phone go off in an auditorium for instance - if it did the owner would be embarrassed and ring off quickly rather than blithely talk through the film.
So are audiences in the US really that uncouth? If so, why?
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
And lo and behold, it's 2003, and interactive TV is still dead. The closest we have are video games, and P2P networks for "video on demand."
I see the same thing happening here. As usual, Gibson has interesting ideas about society and technology, but his economics are bunk. Where does the money come from to pay the person that does all the modelling to render The Great Escape as a Playstation 13 game? Nobody wants that.
This is the cyberpunk equivalent of the future with the airships and radiator fins on everything.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
William Gibson gave a talk at the Directors' Guild of America's Digital Day last week.
tl;dr
Stephenson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gibson.
Anyone here ever read the poem Machines of Loving Grace? I forget who wrote it - but it's basically about a time when our digital creations lives become intertwined with our own.
If you think about it - for us humans to deal with computing, we need some layers of abstraction between us and the data. As data gets denser, our tools are becoming smarter. Gibson simply looks at what this could mean for the Media stakeholders today.
We can *look* at literally thousands of medieval images, but without that deeply religious, almost shamanistic mindset all we see are ephemera: knights, swords, damsels, and so on. To extract the coded meanings and circumlocutions within the media we emply historians. Future historians will have a lot more recorded media to work with, but they won;t be out of the loop.
Da Blog
The only cock around here is the one in your ass Meehawl. Your analogies and reasoning are flawed, as are you. It is not suprising Zona sucked so hard.
[[Stop the Spam. Eat Ham]]]
Without seeing your post. He'd be a perfect Case.
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
What is this - the NAZI cretan version of E! ?
When I read Burning Chrome, I was simply amazed that Gibson managed to sqeeze that story into 23 pages. The movie sucked because Keanu can't act his way out of a paper bag, and the special effects weren't quite there. When this movie is remade (and mark my words, it will be) it is going to be amazing.
Paper also comes from papyrus:
"You are" contracts to "You're"