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!"

Comments

Oooh

[Apreche]

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.

Re:Oooh

[interstellar_donkey]

True, but even when we reach the point where anyone with a cheap camera and a computer can produce a blockbuster quality movie in their den, Hollywood will still have a monopoly on distribution. Unlike music, which is primarily a personal experience (is packaged and sold to be experienced by a single or small group of people), films are still largely a social experience. Even now where we have home theatre setups which can rival movie theatres in sound and picture quality, people flock to the theatres because of the (largely) social experience.

Imagine if Stanley Kubrick was starting out with online distribution today. He would have never yielded the kind of artistic acknowledgement he gained due to the Hollywood distribution system, because (and this is my opinion), the true genius of his work can never be appreciated on anything other then the giant screens of the theatre.

Re:Oooh

[MojoRilla]

Unlike music, which is primarily a personal experience (is packaged and sold to be experienced by a single or small group of people), films are still largely a social experience.

I hate to disagree, but there are only two reasons that film is currently a communal experience. First it is expensive to have large screens and premium sound at home. Second is that movies aren't released on DVD until many months after they are in the theaters.

Do you really think that if films came out at the same time on DVD as on the screen that many people would still go to the theater?

We are increasingly becoming a home bound society. The malls will eventually fall to internet shopping, and movie theaters will fall to home viewing.

Re:Oooh

[Guppy06]

"people flock to the theatres because of the (largely) social experience."

Because who wouldn't jump at the chance to spend $10 to walk on sticky floors and try to listen to the movie over the loud breather three seats to your right. But even that's not as bad as the dumb broad two rows back yammering away on her cell phone. Or maybe it's because of the $5.00 tubs of lard with bits of popcorn suspended in it. And let's not forget the 300# man who has to cut across you to go to the bathroom at least twice during the picture. Or the yammering fan-boy who's seen the movie a gazillion times and is telling his buddy next to him what's about to happen about five minutes before it actually happens on the screen.

Going to the movie theater is a "social experience" in the same way that stampeding buffalo running off a cliff is a "social experience." And that's only because I'm too polite to compare movie marketing hysteria with STDs...

Re:Oooh

[SLot]

Most of the people I know who regularly go to the movies treat it as a social event with their friends or families, usually deciding to go out even before picking which movie they are going to see. Another good case is the latest Matrix movie. Most of the people I know who waited in line to see it on opening were also the very same people who regularly download most of the films they watch at home. For them, the DVD and the film were released on the essentially same day but they were the ones that helped make it such a success on opening day.

Um, was that you guys talking through the whole movie and chatting on your cell phone? No? Well, those people are the reason I'd still rather see it at home. Plus the hot dogs don't cost 5 bucks, and an 8 oz.coke isn't 3 dollars. No, no, my 60" plasma screen and 8 speaker surround sound don't compare. Especially when I'm not surrounded by your mob.

The convergence in new media

[interstellar_donkey]

..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.

Re:The convergence in new media

[scatter_gather]

"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"."

Ok, how about "It's as if he saw talking films for the first time and claimed "people will never watch movies the same. Children born now will never be able to watch silent films without sound accompanying it. They will have to relearn how to watch silent films".

But you see, I agree with the sentiment. Kids these days are clueless about watching silent films. First of all, they actually have to know how to read. Second, they have the attention span of a gnat and couldn't be bothered to read that much just to see a film. Even foreign films with subtitles don't make it with most folks, and they at least still have all the neat sound effects left in. Saying "the forms of media they borrowed from haven't been dramatically changed." is saying we still put out lots of silent films - not last time I checked. I think Gibson has the essence of the situation pretty well scoped out.

Music now, movies later

[alexjohns]

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.

Re:more on books and change

[Pharmboy]

My point, however, was that books has INDEED changed (even since the press).

Thanks to Borders, you can have a cup of wannabe Starbucks while you shop. Thanks to Amazon, you don't even have to go to Borders, and can make your own coffee at home. More importantly, thanks to used book stores (including many Salvation Army's) anyone can afford them.

I wish I had a source, but in spite of the hype I have heard to the contrary, the number of books per person purchased has actually INCREASED since the popularization of the Internet. No matter how digital we get, its hard to beat real paper in your hands.