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!"

30 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
  2. At the end by nother_nix_hacker · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!

    Don't tell me...he's really a ghost? :)

    1. Re:At the end by KoolDude · · Score: 3, Funny


      >There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!

      Don't tell me...he's really a ghost? :)


      No. He is a program from the machine world.

      --
      getSexySig(); /* returns sexy signature */
  3. I don't know... by lingqi · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...The book has been largely unchanged for centuries...

    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.

    1. Re:I don't know... by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thats funny since the Bible was never enscribed in stone, at least typically (i.e. it was never the standard form of enscription). Neither was the Torah/Old Testament. Both were originally scribed on fabrics/papers.

      Since you mention centuries, you obviously missed Gibson's reference to the fact that "books" have only existed as they do today since the Printing Press was invented by Guttenberg. This of course occured in 1436. Prior to that, books were hand-duplicated by religious scribes, and so their content was almost entirely unrelated to modern books due to their intense cost and limited audience. The post-moving-type book is dramatically different: the ability of the hoi-paloi to both read and write but also to own their own copies of text meant massive changes in content and style.

      THAT, is the "centuries" Gibson is talking about.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    2. Re:I don't know... by jmv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This of course occured in 1436. Prior to that, books were hand-duplicated by religious scribes...

      Actually, there's also a revolution that happened in the late 20th century. While the printing press allowed to make copies at a very low cost, the cost of publishing a work was still high. These days, anyone can get a work printed as a book at a relatively low cost. This also explains that increase in the amounted of crap that gets printed each year.

  4. 'blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    'blog?

    Reminds me of that time I was on the 'bus, and someone called me on my 'phone.

  5. Surprise by GreggyBUIUC · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!

    He is Tyler Durden.

    (Or Keyser Soze... take your pick)

  6. To sum up this article: by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Meryl Streep in a Kung Fu pose with a dogs head.
    We're all doomed.

  7. That's it Slashdot, by Col.+Panic · · Score: 5, Funny

    seduce me into actually reading the article.

  8. I don't get all the Gibson worship around here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:I don't get all the Gibson worship around here by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Things have never been the same since he was hacked in 1995 by Johnny Lee Murphy, Angelina Jolie and Matthew Lillard.

  9. Blogs by bih · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Blogs by MadElf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ironically, he basically acknowledges this ("when the wings wobble"), and also gives a nod to the difficult situation of someone who actually does have something to write about - Salam Pax. Even with my blog intake almost solely drip-fed and moderated by such group entities as slash, kuro and so forth, such things as content (on even close to the level of gripping), ideas (at least worthy of retransmission) and writing ability do tend to stand out. I don't wonder at what the majority is like...

      In his own blog, Salam Pax refers to a section of postwar Baghdad looking Gibsonesque. Gibson refers to Salam, almost wistful about what the order of magnitude differences in doses of harsh reality in their lives does to the vitality of their content.

      So, in our age of trailer-park-quality public confession, Gibson looks pretty good; I can see how it would seem almost like artistic duty to put one's diary on public display in such a dearth of ideas, content and skill.

      Maybe he's honing himself by repeated discipline - what's better training for a writer than writing? Or perhaps it's simply an attempt at reducing work , or increasing output, by reusing necessary material in promotion (he'd have to write the speeches and likely keep a diary, at least in note form, anyway. We demand extras from our DVDs, why not our writers?).

      Anyway, the entry lower down about a deleted Dolph Lundgren scene from Jonny Mnemonic is so worth it.

      --
      Wyrd, dude.
  10. Re:It's weblog by dukerobillard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hang on: "blog" isn't a word, but "weblog" is?

  11. Oooh by Apreche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Oooh by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Oooh by MojoRilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Oooh by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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...

    4. Re:Oooh by SLot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  12. more on books and change by lingqi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:more on books and change by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      You mean vellum, not parchment. Even then it's only partly true. The first copies of the New Testament, for example (certainly the oldest fragments that we have), were probably written on papyrus, which while not paper as we know it today, is close enough.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:more on books and change by EverDense · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe the bible has been originally been on parchment (i.e. processed horse-skin).

      Even back then the Christians were beating a dead horse.

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    3. Re:more on books and change by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  13. The convergence in new media by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..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
    1. Re:The convergence in new media by scatter_gather · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

  14. I'm going to disqualify myself from moderating ... by jabber01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... 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

  15. Music now, movies later by alexjohns · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:my take on it by Mooncaller · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'll pass on the beer. I've had enough already for one lifetime.

    It is appearent that you did not get the gist of what Mr. Gibson was saying. People have an inborn drive to create. They have a capacity to project their imaginations and to interpret the creations of others. These characteristics can be traced back through the earliest artifact made by man. But more importantly, man can abstract reality through sybolism.A study of "cave painting" shows the skill and creative nature of some of our most distant ancestory. Some of this art actualy needs to be interpreted as if its a movie. What apears to be several individuals, in some cases is realy the same individual at different points in time, a moving picture. Now we have tools that can enable us to express ourselves unimaginable to our ancestors. Mankind will always find ways to use the cutting edge tech for self expresion. Our childrens childrens childrens will be doing things that today are just fantasy. And guess what, it will still be in the quest for self expresion

    Not to insult your family or anything, but you guys seem to be completely lacking in imagination. The 10 year old that I babysit, was into putting jackel heads on his drawings ( influence of the mummy movies). He creates his own Pokemon and DBZ characters. Some can be rather bizzare. If your children do display some imagination, are you going to punish them? BTW, I've been doing anthropmorphic art since I was a kid. I have started retraining to become an animator. This is truley a great time to be alive. I am able to express myself in ways that I could only dream about as a kid. And I did dream. Only hope the MPAA and that other mafia controled organization don't totaly screw us over.

  17. Memorable quotes by Bish.dk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.