Ridley Scott Loves Hugh Howey's Wool

One reel at a time? by gmhowell · 2012-05-13 19:55 · Score: 3, Funny

Will I be able to watch and pay for the movie one reel at a time, or will traditional models of viewing/payment be used?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:One reel at a time? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 20:57 · Score: 0

Will I be able to watch and pay for the movie one reel at a time
You will be allowed to watch one frame at a time, foc
Re:One reel at a time? by ourweddinggown.com · 2012-05-14 18:49 · Score: 1

welcome to our site http://www.ourweddinggown.com
Re:One reel at a time? by ourweddinggown.com · 2012-05-14 18:55 · Score: 1

you can find everthing about the Wedding Dress in our web

Not to start a flame war... by srussia · 2012-05-13 20:06 · Score: 0

But I hope Tony gets to direct it instead of Ridley.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:Not to start a flame war... by Richard_at_work · 2012-05-13 20:17 · Score: 2

Why? Alien was good, Prometheus is excellent (I've seen a preview screening) - why do you not want Scott?
Re:Not to start a flame war... by gmhowell · 2012-05-13 20:38 · Score: 2

Maybe he's a big Top Gun fan?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Not to start a flame war... by arth1 · 2012-05-13 22:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Alien was good, Prometheus is excellent (I've seen a preview screening) - why do you not want Scott?
Because a good director does not necessarily a good movie make.
Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut
George Lucas: Phantom Menace
Steven Spielberg: 1941
Ridley Scott: G.I. Jane
As for Prometheus being excellent, forgive me for not taking your word for it.
Personally, I find 3D effects designed to wow the audience by attacking the fourth wall to be tacky and tasteless to the point of ruining a movie even if watched in 2D. Until the directors and movie studios can forget the wow factor, it's just going to make movies worse. And unless the preview footage is all wrong, fourth wall effects is exactly what they've done with the Alien prequel.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 23:40 · Score: 0

Man, that is so horribly contrived and painful to watch. It's exactly like all his movies.
Why the hell do people like his movies? They are filled with nothing but this same kind of pretentious, pointless, endless drivel that is supposed to be dialogue.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 00:23 · Score: 0

Alien was good, Prometheus is excellent (I've seen a preview screening) - why do you not want Scott?
Because a good director does not necessarily a good movie make.
Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut
George Lucas: Phantom Menace
Steven Spielberg: 1941
Ridley Scott: G.I. Jane
As for Prometheus being excellent, forgive me for not taking your word for it.
Personally, I find 3D effects designed to wow the audience by attacking the fourth wall to be tacky and tasteless to the point of ruining a movie even if watched in 2D. Until the directors and movie studios can forget the wow factor, it's just going to make movies worse. And unless the preview footage is all wrong, fourth wall effects is exactly what they've done with the Alien prequel.
> Because a good director does not necessarily a good movie make.
> Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut
Like many Kubrick movies, it improves with age. I still don't like the ending, the long discussion at the pool table is not a cinematic ending (I wonder if he had lived longer, would he have reshot that scene?), but even so in general there is much to admire in my opinion.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by s0litaire · 2012-05-14 00:36 · Score: 1

Maybe but Tony's "Hovis" ad was better :P
*Runs* & *ducks* from resulting flames...

--
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Re:Not to start a flame war... by PopeRatzo · 2012-05-14 00:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut
Eyes Wide Shut is brilliant.
I'm trying to think of movies since then that's had the kind of intellectual heft and technical brilliance of Eyes Wide Shut and there really isn't much.
The other movies you mention blow of course, but the worst movie Stanley Kubrick every made is better than the best movie of any of the other directors.
Some things are a matter of opinion. The greatness of every moment that Stanley Kubrick brought to the screen is not one of them. If there's a Stanley Kubrick film that you did not like, it can only be because you have not yet attained the requisite level of intellectual and spiritual insight.
OK, I think that about covers it.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by arth1 · 2012-05-14 01:12 · Score: 3, Informative

If there's a Stanley Kubrick film that you did not like, it can only be because you have not yet attained the requisite level of intellectual and spiritual insight.
I freely admit that I don't have the requisite level of intellectual and spiritual insight required to erase the image of Nicole Kidman urinating and wiping.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by crazyjj · 2012-05-14 01:15 · Score: 1

I hope Tony gets to direct it instead of Ridley
I would prefer neither. They're both WAY past their primes. With a few rare exceptions, most directors get about 10 years of their best work. After that, it's mediocrity. I would much prefer a newer director still doing his best work.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Not to start a flame war... by PopeRatzo · 2012-05-14 01:18 · Score: 4, Funny

I freely admit that I don't have the requisite level of intellectual and spiritual insight required to erase the image of Nicole Kidman urinating and wiping.
Why would you want to erase it?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by srussia · 2012-05-14 05:10 · Score: 1

I would prefer neither. They're both WAY past their primes. With a few rare exceptions, most directors get about 10 years of their best work. After that, it's mediocrity. I would much prefer a newer director still doing his best work.
On second thought, you're absolutely right.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Re:Not to start a flame war... by netskink · 2012-05-14 06:14 · Score: 0

I guess you have not been married or lived with a woman long enough to understand it. I'm guessing this scene was to show how at ease they were with each other after so many years. My ex wife was like that. My current gf no. I thought it was a great movie btw. I saw it before I was divorced and after. Afterwards, I felt the movie hit home much more.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by Pope · 2012-05-14 08:27 · Score: 1

I smell a sequel to "Total Recall" coming on. Hopefully they'll get Verhoeven for it.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by gmhowell · 2012-05-14 10:03 · Score: 2

Didn't know Iceman was gay? Sorry dude.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Not to start a flame war... by gmhowell · 2012-05-14 10:11 · Score: 2

Lucas was a good director? THX-1138 was probably a fluke, American Graffiti is arguably the result of brilliant editing, and Star Wars the result of limited resources forcing ingenuity.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Not to start a flame war... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 11:00 · Score: 0

I've never seen Top Gun, or keep detailed notes on which actor and film characters are gay. Sorry dude.
But I'm talking about that gay faggot in the video clip going on and on about it.
Re:Not to start a flame war... by PopeRatzo · 2012-05-14 15:08 · Score: 0

I guess you have not been married or lived with a woman long enough to understand it. I'm guessing this scene was to show how at ease they were with each other after so many years. My ex wife was like that. My current gf no. I thought it was a great movie btw. I saw it before I was divorced and after. Afterwards, I felt the movie hit home much more
And when you're married long enough, as I am, another threshold is reached, where those few moments of solitude on the dumper becomes sacred and inviolable. "No, you cannot come in and put on your makeup. No, I will not hand you your toothbrush. You will wait until I am done with this New Yorker article and/or Sudoku puzzle."
Fortunately, that threshold coincided with our ability to afford a house with multiple bathrooms. The one in the basement (which I put in without the proper building permits, by the way) is my private domain, with a bose wave and a little rolling desk for things like tablet computers and the racing form. Sometimes I bring my ukulele in there with me because the acoustics are so good.
Oh, and there is more in the subtext of Eyes Wide Shut than in the entire running time of Inception or whatever passes for "deep" movies in 2012. There are PhD dissertations about Eyes Wide Shut that are more interesting than the top 10 movies of 2011.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

First announced on Kindleboards by Sasayaki · 2012-05-13 20:46 · Score: 5, Informative

OP here. Although the scoop goes to Deadline, Hugh himself made the formal announcement on the Kindleboards (in this thread http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,113999.0.html ). Note that Hugh is a really awesome guy and was taking the time to respond to each and every comment, but the forums have a "no bumping" rule which meant he's now only posting occasionally to avoid keeping the thread at the top of the Writer's Cafe section which it's dominated since the announcement.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8

Re:First announced on Kindleboards by outsider007 · 2012-05-13 21:10 · Score: 0

I like how you think it's necessary to inform us who Ridley Scott is - 'Know your audience'

--
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 21:42 · Score: 0, Funny

Douchebag comment of the day.
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 22:35 · Score: 1

Douchebag reply of the week
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-13 23:28 · Score: 1

Douchebag AC of the moment.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 00:22 · Score: 0

"it's clear the self-publishing revolution is here to stay.""
No, it's not "clear". Please stop editorializing.
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by bughunter · 2012-05-14 01:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, at least this thread has gotten rid of that "not so fresh feeling."

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by SlippyToad · 2012-05-14 03:14 · Score: 1

No, it's not "clear". Please stop editorializing.
LOL. What purpose do you think a USER-DRIVEN site like Slashdot serves, if not to editorialize current events?

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by StikyPad · 2012-05-14 04:14 · Score: 2

I'm about 3/4ths through the Omnibus Edition right now, and while it's not bad, it hasn't been particularly gripping IMO. It could just be the monotony of the environment of, or maybe, finally, just the hint of character development now, but I've found most of it rather plodding. And without giving any spoilers, I was sorely disappointed by the first plot line, and then the second, which made it hard to get emotionally invested in any of the subsequent ones. It looks a bit more promising at this point, and I've read this much so I'll finish, but my expectations are tempered, to say the least.
While his writing style is more spartan, I enjoyed Jeff Carlson's Plague Year a bit more as an indie post-apocalyptic thriller. I think some of it could be expectations, however. I approached Wool expecting the second coming of Christ given what I'd heard, while I was expecting Plague Year to be a rehash of Michael Chrichton's Prey.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:First announced on Kindleboards by sh00z · 2012-05-15 02:29 · Score: 1

Ditto. Bought it primarily to show support to indie author, and out of curiosity about 700 positive Amazon reviews calling it new and refreshing. apparently, Amazon.com customers don't read Philip K. Dick. So far, all I see is a modernized retread of ground from Dick's "The Defenders" (which he even re-tread himself in a novel, The Penultimate Truth).

Who did editing and printing? by Sigg3.net · 2012-05-13 20:56 · Score: 1

As an writer interested in Self-publishing, who did he use for design/ print?

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research

Re:Who did editing and printing? by mwvdlee · 2012-05-13 21:24 · Score: 1

As an writer interested in Self-publishing, who did he use for design/ print?
PDF? I guess that makes the "who" Adobe.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 22:18 · Score: 3, Funny

"As AN writer"...
Don't give up the day job.
Re:Who did editing and printing? by gl4ss · 2012-05-13 22:25 · Score: 1

most published scifi books have really, really bad design. check the first edition covers of neuromancer for example.. wool's covers seem pretty basic cgi too. point being it doesn't really matter that much when the actual piece is text.
if interested in actual printing, there's many on-demand printing choices.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 22:45 · Score: 0

"As AN writer"...
Don't give up the day job.
While that is a good advice for any writer (at least until you are absolutely sure you can live from your writing, and possibly even afterwards), a simple error doesn't tell you anything about it. He might more carefully proofread work he plans to publish that comments to Slashdot. He probably will also give it to others to proofread (note that with conventional publishing, exactly that happens automatically; we don't know how many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors J. K. Rowling's initial manuscript contained). I don't think he will ask someone else "could you please have a look on the Slashdot comment I've just written before I submit it?" but he hopefully will ask someone about his literary work before self-publishing.
Re:Who did editing and printing? by arth1 · 2012-05-13 23:01 · Score: 2

most published scifi books have really, really bad design. check the first edition covers of neuromancer for example.. wool's covers seem pretty basic cgi too. point being it doesn't really matter that much when the actual piece is text.
Except when the cover acts as a spoiler, which unfortunately sometimes happens, especially for re-issues where the author presumably has no input on the cover design.
Or when it disagrees with the book and is based on only a hastily glance at a single scene, with the glaring mistakes becoming obvious when you read the whole thing. Like getting the gender, race or age of a character wrong. You maintain misconceptions for parts of the book because of the cover artist.
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-13 23:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, and the publisher of "War and Peace" was a pine forest.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-13 23:38 · Score: 1

Except they actually published their post. A good writer would proofread their own single sentence before publishing it. Especially where we're talking about self-publishing, where an editor or proofreader are optional, they'd better get their act together before putting it on the road.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Who did editing and printing? by azalin · 2012-05-13 23:45 · Score: 4, Funny

So that's what happened in Tunguska
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-14 00:00 · Score: 4, Funny

"Explosive bestseller" or "bombed at the editorial offices"?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 00:42 · Score: 0

I don't know who handled the matters for Hugh Howey, but if you're looking for a copy editor, you could do a lot worse than Grammar Chick. (I'm not going to post her URL, because I don't want it to get slash dotted.) Even the most prominent authors benefit from (and use) copy editors--and their work suffers when the job's not done. Can't help you with formatting for print.
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Mike+Mentalist · 2012-05-14 00:54 · Score: 1

Except they actually published their post. A good writer would proofread their own single sentence before publishing it.

Arbitrary definitions of 'good' ftw.

--
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
Re:Who did editing and printing? by BluBrick · 2012-05-14 01:40 · Score: 2

I think you're being overly generous. Anyone can make a simple error, but it takes a special kind of person to screw up in such spectacular fashion as in that post. This writer wrote but fourteen words, and in so doing, made one blindingly obvious grammatical error (the aforementioned "an writer"), one capitalisation error (self-publishing is NOT a proper noun), one style error (one may place a space on both sides or on neither side of the "/"), and one logical construction error (the statement and question were linked by punctuation, but bore no contextual relationship to each other).

Protip: when claiming - in writing - to be a writer, it's usually a good idea to proofread one's own work prior to publication.

Disclaimer: Sigg3.net may not be a native speaker of English. If that be the case, it's not such a spectacular screw up, as I am quite certain that his command of English is far better than my command of his native language.

--
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Re:Who did editing and printing? by V+for+Vendetta · 2012-05-14 02:34 · Score: 2

Except that he's not a native English speaker (nor am I), as you could have easily find out yourself by clicking on that nifty "Homepage" button. Which begs the question "Is your Norwegian as good as his English?"
Re:Who did editing and printing? by actiondan · 2012-05-14 03:02 · Score: 2

My favourite cover artist misconception is in Josh Kirby's original cover for Terry Pratchetts The Colour of Magic. The initial description of the Discworld's first tourist, Twoflower, mentions four eyes (meaning he wears glasses) but Kirby took the description literally and depicted him with four actual eyes.
I believe the extra eyes remained for the cover of The Light Fantastic, so clearly the author wasn't too upset about the inaccuracy (Kirby's covers were never all that true to the book descriptions in any case...)
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 03:14 · Score: 0

That explains their authors' meteoric rise.
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Kyont · 2012-05-14 04:17 · Score: 1

Even before that, he was a steroidal writer.

--
You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Boronx · 2012-05-14 04:21 · Score: 1

And yet the author left me wanting more. These are all things that can be learned ... and you're helping!

--
Play Command HQ online
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-14 11:43 · Score: 1

No, a legitimately tautological definition of "good" FTW.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Ira+Sponsible · 2012-05-14 13:21 · Score: 1

As a writer who is doing self-publishing, my answer is to do it myself. I have significant experience with both editing and design, so I felt completely comfortable doing the work myself. If you don't think you're up to the task, you can always pay someone else. I've published through lulu.com and createspace.com, and both offer editing and design services. It's not cheap, but not terribly expensive either, and if you're not confident in editing your own work or coming up with your own design, it can definitely be worth it. I've seen plenty of self-published books where the author clearly should have taken advantage of these services.
On a quick look at Hugh Howey's cover design, I can't tell whether it's professional work or he did it himself, and the preview amazon provides does not include any copyright notice or artwork credit indicating it's his own work or someone else's. I don't like the cover design, and from the snips I read, I don't care for the writing style. It just doesn't grab me. YMMV.
I did two different covers for my book, one for the ebook, and one for the printed book, due to odd licensing issues I won't describe here. I personally prefer the second design (print version) to the first (ebook). Interestingly, cover preference on my book seems to be split on gender lines. Women generally prefer the unicorn leaping through a portal version, while men prefer the staring eyeball version. See for yourself here: ebook (first design) and paperback (second design)

--
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
Re:Who did editing and printing? by Sigg3.net · 2012-05-16 08:42 · Score: 1

Come on, guys! I was sitting on the loo typing on my Google Nexus S. Cut me some slack!
Don't know about you, but I miss my old Nokia N95.. I could type correct and nicely formatted English in a coma.. which about sums up my authorship too thus far..

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research

Re:Work! by outsider007 · 2012-05-13 21:05 · Score: 1

Maybe consider upgrading your browser from Lynx 1.0

--
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won

Re:Work! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 21:21 · Score: 0

Wait! What?! Is Lynx 1.0 out?

I'm still using Lynx 0.9, you insensitive clod.

Excellent Choice by ShooterNeo · 2012-05-13 21:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Wool IS an excellent story. It should be thought of as a series of books : honestly, the first 5 wool books would fit into one movie. (normally it's the other way around)

Re:Excellent Choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 00:57 · Score: 0

Yes totally agree. This is one of the best Sci Fi books I have ever read but must be read as a whole for the full experience. Get the Wool Omnibus instead of the single stories( at $5.99 you can't beat it). ....and Hugh Howey just released a prequel last month!
Re:Excellent Choice by lessgravity · 2012-05-14 01:05 · Score: 1

This is one of the best Sci Fi books I have read. Get the whole series not the single stories in the WOOL OMNIBUS I'm looking forward to reading the new prequel
Re:Excellent Choice by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-05-14 11:50 · Score: 1

This is one of the best Sci Fi books I have read. Get the whole series not the single stories in the WOOL OMNIBUS I'm looking forward to reading the new prequel
Wikipedia lists the series as "ongoing". Is the story arc in the omnibus finished? It seems interesting, and the price ($9.19 for me) is nice, but I'd rather hold out for the conclusion of any cliffhangers before even starting to read. Furthermore, where does Wool 6 - First shift fit in? :)
The fact that a director deemed it ready for a movie adaptation seems to imply that it's concluded, but I'd rather hear the opinion of someone with first-hand experience.

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
Re:Excellent Choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 12:04 · Score: 0

The story's finished in the omnibus. The author leaves a note at the end saying he's interested in following up with some related stories, but the omnibus set is definitely a complete story arc, and easily worth the money. Looks like First Shift is a prequel.
Re:Excellent Choice by ShooterNeo · 2012-05-15 00:49 · Score: 1

The story was NOT finished, and does end on a cliffhanger. Don't listen to the AC.

It's okay guys by atari2600a · 2012-05-13 21:41 · Score: 1

They won't be millionaires Paramount said so.

Ridley Scott author by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 21:56 · Score: 0

Ridley Scott super author =:) thank you ridley

Disappointed by RS by GrahamCox · 2012-05-13 22:14 · Score: 1

They're showing the "Prophets of Science Fiction" series here in Oz at the moment, which has some appearances by Ridley Scott and is under his name. I was disappointed to realise that, at least in this showing, he didn't come across as especially insightful, intellectual or even particularly smart. Perhaps he was having an off day when they filmed it, or perhaps he's just good at film directing and not philosophy. Maybe we expect too much of people when they get a name for something in one field.

Re:Disappointed by RS by crazyjj · 2012-05-14 01:22 · Score: 2

Keep in mind that you're looking at an interview with a 70-something Ridley Scott, who's very different from the young man who directed Alien and Blade Runner.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Yeah, but... by clickety6 · 2012-05-13 22:28 · Score: 1

...Ridley Scott also loved Thomas Harris' "Hannibal" .

--
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------

Re:Work! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 22:50 · Score: 0

What's that Lynx you are speaking about? You mean, you do not telnet into Slashdot and send HTTP commands by hand?

Silos?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 23:12 · Score: 1

"Wool is about a dystopian future where the last inhabitants on earth band together in safe bunkers called silos."

Vaults. THEY'RE CALLED VAULTS!

Self Published Movies by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-13 23:26 · Score: 1

What would be a real change would be if a self-published movie of a book hit gained a top 10 audience one week, or overall for a year. Internet publishing to TV should run circles around traditional movie distribution the way small presses are starting to do so around traditional books. The way websites have killed magazines and newspapers for years. Then if we can get self-published TV to dominate that industry we might have a chance at the free press that's necessary to a free society.

The power of the press belongs to those who own (or rather control) the presses.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Self Published Movies by V+for+Vendetta · 2012-05-14 02:46 · Score: 2

What would be a real change would be if a self-published movie of a book hit gained a top 10 audience one week [...]

Not exactly self-published, but the partially crowd-funded movie Iron Sky made it into Germany's top 10 (position 9 actually) on its starting week (German page).
Re:Self Published Movies by gmhowell · 2012-05-14 10:23 · Score: 1

And I'll be sure to pilot my flying car to the theatre to see one of these movies.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Self Published Movies by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-14 11:41 · Score: 1

What's a theatre? Why would you fly a car to your home theater, just to see a movie you got over the Net? Are you old?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Self Published Movies by gmhowell · 2012-05-14 17:35 · Score: 1

What's a theatre? Why would you fly a car to your home theater, just to see a movie you got over the Net? Are you old?
My house doesn't have a 50+ ft. screen, thousands of watts of power behind the sound system, 3D, etc, etc, etc.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Self Published Movies by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-14 23:16 · Score: 1

My house doesn't have a wooden stage and a cast of actors and their supporting crew and lighting equipment.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Self Published Movies by gmhowell · 2012-05-15 11:14 · Score: 1

And? Probably best not to try to watch a play there. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch it in the appropriate venue.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Self Published Movies by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-15 15:01 · Score: 1

That's why I don't watch theatrical movie projections in my home theater. But that doesn't stop me from watching movies on my TV that are published over the Internet. Because that's the appropriate venue for them. Even though it's not a theater.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Self Published Movies by gmhowell · 2012-05-15 15:28 · Score: 1

Ok, fair enough. Now, to preface the remainder of my comment, I have not read Wool. I have no idea if it is appropriate to the big screen or the small screen. I interpreted your top level post as being an endorsement of self (or small group) produced movies as being a replacement for studio produced big screen films. In a closer re-reading, it looks like you advocate (anticipate?) the replacement of short features, episodic TV, and made for TV movies by those made via small groups rather than larger media conglomerates. I can certainly see a place for them, and adaptations of written fiction may be ideal for this. Rather than filmmaker Z paying author X a ton of money (as in the traditional model), we could see Z paying X a much smaller amount (or none) but including X as an active participant in the adaptation. This participation happens in theory in Hollywood today, but the reality is usually "hey author, STFU and go away".
Just thinking aloud.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Self Published Movies by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-15 23:41 · Score: 1

I advocate replacing, or at least strongly augmenting, the traditional model of studios publishing movies with one where independent producers publish them (or rather distribute them, as it's known in movies). Increased independent production too, the equivalent to the manufacturing of books that's part of self-publishing books. While self-published books like 50 Shades of Grey use the same retail venues, chain bookstores, that big publishers use, movie theaters are not as accessible to self-published movies, since theaters are more closely locked to big distributors. But since TVs are increasingly networked, home distribution is a more natural channel than theatrical distribution. The model isn't exactly the same for movies as for books. But TV is also a more popular venue than theaters for movies, especially through Netflix, Amazon and increasingly Youtube. So while Wool at Barnes & Noble is more achievable than My HD Epic at Cineplex Odeon, hit movies that are "straight to video" seems to be achievable by self-publishers.
Independent home video isn't quite as grand a vision as independent cinema. But neither are movies quite as grand a vision as a play performed 5 times a day, 7 days a week, in a theater. The format scaled down to suit the distribution and performance constraints. And after a while it became the norm. Self-published movies don't have to be shown in theaters to be either successful or the standard.
Soon enough outlets like Amazon and Netflix will figure out how to promote movies first shown in Youtube or on another webpage, and movie theaters will have to show some to keep their audiences. As theaters get networked for distribution and digital projectors take over everywhere, the theatrical platform will be ready for self-published features to be easily shown there, and they will be. Then you can take your flying car there to see them. But it might seem just as exotic as going to a theater to see drama performed by live actors.

--
--
make install -not war

Hollywood sci-fi by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 23:36 · Score: 0

sucks monkey balls as of late

Re:Hollywood sci-fi by Grayhand · 2012-05-14 01:50 · Score: 2

sucks monkey balls as of late
I believe that was the title of a proposed sequel to Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.
Re:Hollywood sci-fi by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 02:58 · Score: 0

Eh, when has it ever not sucked monkey balls, as a general rule? Sure, there've been exceptions, but there's exceptions "of late", too. Moon wasn't great, but it didn't suck balls (though I guess that was British), neither did District 9.

Boring by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 00:16 · Score: 1

could not finish. I read Sci Fi by the bucketload. Did not like this series. no interest. I must be the only one.

me too by packrat2 · 2012-05-14 00:44 · Score: 1

http://www.amazon.com/Teddy-Hunter-The-Underground-ebook/dp/B007YM2K5K /ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1336998483&sr=1-2

teddy Hunter: the underground; 99 cent kindle in lending library (the above link)

runaway teddy-bear robots get hunted down and returned to families.

HA! mine went out a couple weeks ago. not much traffic on it yet

I think there's a rough, last chapter here in my journal.

--
packrat ; writer-informer. http://packrat.comicgenesis.com http://www.youtube.com/area163 https://www.smashwords.com/

DRM free version available? by Simulant · 2012-05-14 02:21 · Score: 1

Looks like only Amazon is selling the ebook.

Re:DRM free version available? by futuresheep · 2012-05-14 02:58 · Score: 1

Here's the real version: http://www.amazon.com/Wool-Omnibus-Edition-Hugh-Howey/dp/1469984202/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337007438&sr=1-1

Of course by gelfling · 2012-05-14 02:42 · Score: 2

They don't have to pay as much for it. Then they ship it to some schlock screenwriter who changes it 99%. Anyway everything is comic book heroes, 3D and chick movies.

He tried by sirwired · 2012-05-14 03:24 · Score: 2

He tried selling the book elsewhere, but due to Amazon only offering certain marketing supports to Amazon-exclusives ("lending", "free Prime Days", etc.) he had to go back to Amazon-exclusive after his sales dropped like a rock.

Re:He tried by bcrowell · 2012-05-14 03:41 · Score: 1

He tried selling the book elsewhere, but due to Amazon only offering certain marketing supports to Amazon-exclusives ("lending", "free Prime Days", etc.) he had to go back to Amazon-exclusive after his sales dropped like a rock.
Bummer. I was ready to give him some money based on positive reviews and reading the first page. But I refuse to buy DRM'd books. Oh, well.
We really seem to be stumbling aimlessly toward a terrifying variation on Fahrenheit 451, where all books are sold by a single vendor or a small cartel, and anytime the cartel feels like it, they can erase your books. No more lending books to friends. No more buying or selling used books. No more notion of owning a permanent collection of books -- buying a book is like buying a movie on DVD, where the assumption is that in five years the format will be obsolete and you'll throw it in the trash.

--
Find free books.
Re:He tried by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-14 04:26 · Score: 1

I too refuse to pay for a DRMed product. Why not download a "free" DRM-free version then and if you like it just buy a paper copy. Then you will be rewarding the author for a good story as well as casting your vote against DRMed ebooks. It is nice to see that at least the ebook is less than half the cost of the paperback edition and quite reasonable at $5.99. If only all ebook versions were sold that way I might start actually buying some. Paying the same price for the ebook and the paper copy is not something I will do either.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:He tried by Boronx · 2012-05-14 04:27 · Score: 1

No kidding. There should be no monopoly on distributing published works. Any other book seller should be able to sell wool at whatever royalty rate Amazon is paying.

--
Play Command HQ online
Re:He tried by chispito · 2012-05-14 05:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Bummer. I was ready to give him some money based on positive reviews and reading the first page. But I refuse to buy DRM'd books. Oh, well.
His book has no DRM. Amazon leaves it up to the publisher to decide on DRM. Look under the "Product Details" where you'll find
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
http://www.amazon.com/Wool-Omnibus-Edition-ebook/dp/B0071XO8RA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337017156&sr=8-1

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:He tried by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 05:48 · Score: 1

It's not Amazon-exclusive. iBooks and B&N Nook also have it available.
Re:He tried by bcrowell · 2012-05-14 08:51 · Score: 2

Interesting post, thanks. I don't want to be needlessly argumentative, but it's not really clear from the Amazon page whether or not it has DRM. It has a list of things you're allowed to do (lend, use on unlimited simultaneous devices, text-to-speech). but this doesn't tell me stuff like: (1) does the file nevertheless have a DRM layer, which I could only circumvent by breaking US law?; (2) can I sell my copy to someone else when I'm done reading it or if I don't like it?; (3) can I give my copy away to someone else?; (4) can I print it out?; (5) can I convert it to a format that isn't just supported on amazon's devices, and if so, can I do this using tools such as calibre that are written so as not to be usable for DRM circumvention?

--
Find free books.
Re:He tried by jheath314 · 2012-05-14 12:24 · Score: 2

One of my favorite authors uses a very clever form of the "try-before-you-buy" approach to drive interest and sales: he puts the audio versions of his books out on the internet for free, and then sells the hardcover and ebook versions to make money. It got him on to the New York TImes bestsellers list, and I myself bought quite a few books after getting hooked.

--
Procrastination Man strikes again!

meh by Mike+Van+Pelt · 2012-05-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Looking at the reviews to get an idea of what it's about.... The impression I get from even the five-star reviews is of a story about a relentlessly grim-dark dystopian horror, life sucks, then you die in horrible agony, and things only get worse for the survivors. Sounds like it's very well written, but not something I'm interested in reading. Or watching.

(Cue absolutely predictable and completely off-base "You're a moron who only wants Disney endings" diatribes, to which I say "PHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTTTT!!!!")

Slashdot Mirror

Ridley Scott Loves Hugh Howey's Wool

98 comments