Simple: reading a book, playing a game, and watching a movie are three very different activities requiring different measures of involvement, commitment, and effort.
Reading a book takes significant mental effort and requires an unspecified amount of time commitment. Video games doubly so, for they require skill and adaptive training to master and complete. Both of them are also rather active endeavors, in which the subject requires at least some active participation in order to remain engaged within the context.
Watching a movie, in contrast, is a passive activity. It requires little effort and virtually no participation, other than the occasional push to connect plot lines and character motivations--which does not occur on every movie. It also requires a finite time engagement, which is known in advance. This means that, as opposed to playing a video game or reading a book, when planning to watch a movie you know exactly how long it will take for you to get the ultimate pay-off and fulfillment. This allows for a more casual participation: You buy a ticket (or put in a DVD), and you're done and wrapped up in about two hours, ready for something else.
Being a less complex activity, and requiring much less effort and engagement, the fulfillment and enjoyment provided by a movie may not be as rich as with books or other media; but it is nonetheless a very enjoyable experience.
So, why are movies being made of video games or books? Because people want to watch them; it's that simple. Because some people, at least some of the time, want to experience the enjoyment and thrill provided by the latter more complex activities without the mental effort or open-ended commitment required by them. This may be out of laziness, inexperience, or any sort of reason; but the fact is that they are willing to pay the price of admission for this experience, and they are willing to accept the compromises inherent in the transfer to a different medium.
Now, the question you really meant to ask is why does a game or book require a crap movie adaptation? The answer is, it does not. However, it is cheaper that way, and most people won't know nor care about the difference: The fans will generally pay to watch it, and the non-fans will generally pay to find out what all the hoopla is about. Most of the time, this formula works for Hollywood. It provides maximum profits at minimum cost.
It wasn't really unnecessary. In the context of the original work, the Scouring of the Shire represents the violability of the entire world. It meant that the evil that passed through the Third Age of Middle Earth affected it in such powerful ways, that it touched everything and everyone, including the sheltered and good-natured Hobbits. Thus, nothing hence would ever be the same.
This is a very fundamental lesson to be learned about the world: the most innocent and pure are just as vulnerable to the whims of fate as the rest; and that that innocence may be the necessary price to pay to overcome strife or worse evils, and by it achieve the greater good.
I don't think computers and devices come with any little computer people any more. I think they were all replaced with mice sometime back in the early 90s.
Sure, for the namby pamby "programmers" who use IDEs with auto-complete. What about those who either do not use auto-complete features, or use editors that do not have them?
Two things: First, the fact that Apple is refusing to share my information, and has had a pattern of this behaviour since before it had the influence it wields today, I am inclined to trust them. I also notice that when I purchase something from Apple, I do not get spam nor junk mail from direct marketers and other third-parties immediately following the purchase, as happens with some online stores.
I'm not talking about obscure, fly-by-night, mom-and-pop shops; I'm talking about Amazon.com, Harry & Davis, Hallmark.com, Hickory Farms, etc.
Second, your comment regarding publishing houses is not entirely correct. The little box typically says, "If you do not tick the box, you're information will not be shared unless as specified in our Privacy Policy." Then, when you read the privacy policy, it explains how it uses the information collected from you for "improving their services," and shares it with partners and affiliates as "allowed by law." Usually what the box means is "we will not spam you directly," not "we will not use your information in any way."
I understand that this is not the case with every publisher, but it is common enough. At least this is my experience. The point is that there are very few organizations willing to treat their customers as their customers, not publicly traded commodities; and to make money from selling them products or services, as opposed to depending on the exploitation of their personal information as part of their business model.
By refusing to share information, which is not a profit-oriented decision, Apple appears to be of the former kind.
I know, and I choose not to do business with such institutions. However, the difference here is that some of these institutions collect and share their information without my knowledge or consent. When their intentions are public, as when published in a "Privacy Policy" (which I read), I make a decision at that point. More often than not, I decline to use their services.
Notice that I am not arguing against publishers, they can do whatever they want. I argue that they have no claim to my data when I do not directly transact with their business.
So... what's the harm? If Apple is "trying to create a gateway where they control those subscriptions and take a bunch of money off the top," and publishers have the choice of not taking them up on it; I say, big deal.
I think in practice, it is a bit more nuanced than this. First off all, Apple wouldn't be "taking money off the top" as a thug demands protection money. That is their share that pays for the distribution and automatic billing infrastructures, just as a mall charges rent for store-space, or a realtor charges commission for listing and selling real estate. That is the cost of doing business.
Moreover, publishers are not doing so good erecting their own "paywalls", and so far they seem unable or unwilling to implement their own electronic distribution channel, complete with international cross-currency billing support. They could even pool together and create their own system to compete; nobody is stopping them.
Is it Apple's business to save them from their (possibly) broken business models, if they fail to do so? The iTunes Store and In-App subscriptions or purchases are actually a big attraction to the publishers, but that is Apple's turf, and if they want to play there, they have to pay for the service and follow the rules. It is just business.
I think your last scenario is flawed. It would be more accurate to say that you would have a subscription with the Apple Subscription Service, which offers Wired magazine. The Wired publisher is free to not use the Apple Subscription Service and create their own online billing and distribution system. This is how the Marvel Comics app, among others, works: you get the app from Apple, and you purchase the content separately and directly through Marvel, bypassing the iTunes App Store and the iOS in-app purchasing system.
This scenario is similar to a newsstand offering, say, a "magazine of the week" service whereas clients pay them a monthly fee for the privilege of picking up one magazine off the rack each week. The service in this case is offered by the newsstand, at their expense, and not by the individual publishers. If the publishers want in on the deal so that both they and the newsstand may benefit from the service, then they need to negotiate with the latter, not make any claims as to the transaction. Ultimately, such a service is between the newsstand and the customer. The customer is also free to purchase the subscription from the publisher directly, if he so wishes.
That may be what Apple is offering, we don't know. However, the publishers do not seem keen on this idea; they want specific customer information for direct marketing, and apparently they are as unyielding with this request as Apple is with their refusal.
I agree with your correspondent, so let me make a few remarks. I will respond directly to selected paragraphs from your comment in order to keep their point within context.
You implied that they don't need that information, but it seems that it is ok for you that Apple already has it. Otherwise you should have said something about it as well. And in Apple's case, it's becoming pretty serious since today and in the near future you will do almost everything with an AppleID.
You don't seem to get it: If I pay Apple for a service or a product, I understand that I need to give them my credit card and other personal information. This is a transaction for which I have full control. If I don't want to purchase from Apple, I do not give them my credit card nor any other information. So, once I pay Apple for that service or product, I expect them to not share that information with anybody else. Whoever supplied the product to Apple, nor any other third-party, has absolutely no claim to that information.
Now, why do I feel it's OK for Apple to have this information and not others? Well, in case the previous paragraph did not make it clear, let me be explicit: Because they treat me like their customer, are happy to profit from my money, and refuse--like this example that we are discussing right now--to share my personal information with unwarranted third-parties. That builds trust, which is why in the future, when faced with the choice of giving my credit card information to The Random Publishing & Advertising Whore Company or giving it to Apple for the same transaction, I will gladly call on Apple.
Competition is good. When one party has already won spectacularly you don't have any more serious competition. When I say the music industry bowed I mean that we won't be seeing an alternative (and perhaps better) model of buying songs anytime soon.
While I agree that competition is good--very good--I would extend that to say, competition from sustainable and customer-friendly business models is good. I am not about to welcome and support a business model or corporation of which I do not approve for the mere sake of giving Apple some competition, any competition. If other businesses do not have a sustainable business model, or decide that being sneaky and promiscuous with my personal information (I'm looking straight at you, online advertisers!), then I say they deserve what they get. And if Apple resists this model, then I wish it continued success.
That said, business is not necessarily a zero-sum game; these markets are huge and can stand diverse competitors and models. As others have mentioned before, the music industry failed to capitalize on digital media on time and with a successful business model, and now they may have lost control. As has also been said, they should have been the ones that brought the iTunes Music Store to the market. But no, Apple did, and here we are.
It would be unfortunate if Apple were the only player in its market, not because they are Apple, but because it is unfortunate that a good, sustainable, and customer-centric business model was not available to challenge them. However, if this were to happen, the one thing I would not lament is the loss of organizations that play fast and loose with customer information and disregard their privacy.
Some of us are not opposed to advertising in principle. What I'm opposed--and very strongly--is to the blatant and wholesale sharing of my personal information for profit, without my consent and without any respect to my privacy.
And the person who replied to you suggested Apple was in the right. I'm also suggesting that Apple is a good company. If they have leverage to protect my personal information, then I say they better use it.
Actually, in the original Pac-Man, the ghosts did not follow a "predetermined path," but actually made decisions based on some very simple logic. This was done dynamically throughout game-play. These rules, although very simple, fall still under "artificial intelligence,' since they form the basis of decision making, and thus affected the behaviour of each ghost.
The reason that memorizing patterns helped beat the game was because, based on the same conditions, the ghosts will make the same decisions every time. The speeds and timers changed throughout the levels, but were picked from tables in ROM, guaranteeing the same values on the same level for every quarter. Even the pseudo-random number generator used to pick directions during "Frightened" mode was reset with the same seed on every level and on every life lost. This meant that the behaviour was perfectly predictable. However, you had to maintain the conditions exact, which was hard; missing a corner, or turning on a junction even one pixel too late would throw off the pattern.
Ms. Pac-Man, on the other hand, did not add much more to the game than randomness. The simple behavioural rules for the ghosts were updated, but remained simple. However, a random factor was added to almost every decision, and the pseudo-random generator was re-seeded with different values at various times. The other major addition was changing maze layouts as the game progressed.
The source code for both has been widely disassembled and studied, and the differences well documented.
So, if you consider Pac-Man as being stupid and predictable, then Ms. Pac-Man is just slightly less stupid and much less predictable. Ms. Pac-Man was an incremental update to Pac-Man; more like "Pac-Man v1.5".
Well, if you're counting, then there's also "Caged" mode and "Cage Exiting" mode, and there's also "Invisible" (AKA "Just Been Eaten By Pac-Man") mode.
Presumably the "three modes" mentioned by the article refer to those that affect the state of game-play.
I think his explanation of the the targeting decision of Inky was more accessible than Jamey Pittman's. I love The Pac-Man Dossier, and it has proven indispensable in writing my own Pac-Man port for the Intellivision (my current project). However there are some parts, like the doubling of Inky's target direction-vector based on Blinky's position, that were either under-defined, or not very clearly explained.
I've re-read that section of the Dossier multiple times to make sure I understood it completely, but reading the explanation of the same from this new article made the algorithm more clear.
But I concede your point, other than that specific point, everything else seemed like a watered down version of The Pac-Man Dossier without the depth.
>> We don't use path-finding algorithms to move around objects. We use spatial memory and common sense, two things game AI lacks.
Are you aware that modern games attempt to mimic precisely this? The behavioural systems are much more complex than they were back in the early days of Pac-Man--not necessarily because the programmers didn't know how to do it, but because the systems did not offer enough computational resources to accomplish it.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: reading a book, playing a game, and watching a movie are three very different activities requiring different measures of involvement, commitment, and effort.
Reading a book takes significant mental effort and requires an unspecified amount of time commitment. Video games doubly so, for they require skill and adaptive training to master and complete. Both of them are also rather active endeavors, in which the subject requires at least some active participation in order to remain engaged within the context.
Watching a movie, in contrast, is a passive activity. It requires little effort and virtually no participation, other than the occasional push to connect plot lines and character motivations--which does not occur on every movie. It also requires a finite time engagement, which is known in advance. This means that, as opposed to playing a video game or reading a book, when planning to watch a movie you know exactly how long it will take for you to get the ultimate pay-off and fulfillment. This allows for a more casual participation: You buy a ticket (or put in a DVD), and you're done and wrapped up in about two hours, ready for something else.
Being a less complex activity, and requiring much less effort and engagement, the fulfillment and enjoyment provided by a movie may not be as rich as with books or other media; but it is nonetheless a very enjoyable experience.
So, why are movies being made of video games or books? Because people want to watch them; it's that simple. Because some people, at least some of the time, want to experience the enjoyment and thrill provided by the latter more complex activities without the mental effort or open-ended commitment required by them. This may be out of laziness, inexperience, or any sort of reason; but the fact is that they are willing to pay the price of admission for this experience, and they are willing to accept the compromises inherent in the transfer to a different medium.
Now, the question you really meant to ask is why does a game or book require a crap movie adaptation? The answer is, it does not. However, it is cheaper that way, and most people won't know nor care about the difference: The fans will generally pay to watch it, and the non-fans will generally pay to find out what all the hoopla is about. Most of the time, this formula works for Hollywood. It provides maximum profits at minimum cost.
-dZ.
And for that, I'll always have a certain amount of respect for her.
Didn't she read the script?
-dZ.
That wasn't Tic-Tac-Toe, that was Global Thermonuclear War: The Movie.
-dZ.
It wasn't really unnecessary. In the context of the original work, the Scouring of the Shire represents the violability of the entire world. It meant that the evil that passed through the Third Age of Middle Earth affected it in such powerful ways, that it touched everything and everyone, including the sheltered and good-natured Hobbits. Thus, nothing hence would ever be the same.
This is a very fundamental lesson to be learned about the world: the most innocent and pure are just as vulnerable to the whims of fate as the rest; and that that innocence may be the necessary price to pay to overcome strife or worse evils, and by it achieve the greater good.
-dZ.
I don't think computers and devices come with any little computer people any more. I think they were all replaced with mice sometime back in the early 90s.
-dZ.
and the have an unnusual amount of typpos and their full of grammer erros.
-dZ.
Or you are George Lucas.
-dZ.
Sure, for the namby pamby "programmers" who use IDEs with auto-complete. What about those who either do not use auto-complete features, or use editors that do not have them?
-dZ.
Two things: First, the fact that Apple is refusing to share my information, and has had a pattern of this behaviour since before it had the influence it wields today, I am inclined to trust them. I also notice that when I purchase something from Apple, I do not get spam nor junk mail from direct marketers and other third-parties immediately following the purchase, as happens with some online stores.
I'm not talking about obscure, fly-by-night, mom-and-pop shops; I'm talking about Amazon.com, Harry & Davis, Hallmark.com, Hickory Farms, etc.
Second, your comment regarding publishing houses is not entirely correct. The little box typically says, "If you do not tick the box, you're information will not be shared unless as specified in our Privacy Policy." Then, when you read the privacy policy, it explains how it uses the information collected from you for "improving their services," and shares it with partners and affiliates as "allowed by law." Usually what the box means is "we will not spam you directly," not "we will not use your information in any way."
I understand that this is not the case with every publisher, but it is common enough. At least this is my experience. The point is that there are very few organizations willing to treat their customers as their customers, not publicly traded commodities; and to make money from selling them products or services, as opposed to depending on the exploitation of their personal information as part of their business model.
By refusing to share information, which is not a profit-oriented decision, Apple appears to be of the former kind.
-dZ.
Which rogue satellite?
-dZ.
Let the record show that yours is the ninth in a series of comments entirely devoted to pointing out a common typo in the headline.
This one makes it ten.
-dZ.
I know, and I choose not to do business with such institutions. However, the difference here is that some of these institutions collect and share their information without my knowledge or consent. When their intentions are public, as when published in a "Privacy Policy" (which I read), I make a decision at that point. More often than not, I decline to use their services.
Notice that I am not arguing against publishers, they can do whatever they want. I argue that they have no claim to my data when I do not directly transact with their business.
-dZ.
So... what's the harm? If Apple is "trying to create a gateway where they control those subscriptions and take a bunch of money off the top," and publishers have the choice of not taking them up on it; I say, big deal.
I think in practice, it is a bit more nuanced than this. First off all, Apple wouldn't be "taking money off the top" as a thug demands protection money. That is their share that pays for the distribution and automatic billing infrastructures, just as a mall charges rent for store-space, or a realtor charges commission for listing and selling real estate. That is the cost of doing business.
Moreover, publishers are not doing so good erecting their own "paywalls", and so far they seem unable or unwilling to implement their own electronic distribution channel, complete with international cross-currency billing support. They could even pool together and create their own system to compete; nobody is stopping them.
Is it Apple's business to save them from their (possibly) broken business models, if they fail to do so? The iTunes Store and In-App subscriptions or purchases are actually a big attraction to the publishers, but that is Apple's turf, and if they want to play there, they have to pay for the service and follow the rules. It is just business.
-dZ.
I think your last scenario is flawed. It would be more accurate to say that you would have a subscription with the Apple Subscription Service, which offers Wired magazine. The Wired publisher is free to not use the Apple Subscription Service and create their own online billing and distribution system. This is how the Marvel Comics app, among others, works: you get the app from Apple, and you purchase the content separately and directly through Marvel, bypassing the iTunes App Store and the iOS in-app purchasing system.
This scenario is similar to a newsstand offering, say, a "magazine of the week" service whereas clients pay them a monthly fee for the privilege of picking up one magazine off the rack each week. The service in this case is offered by the newsstand, at their expense, and not by the individual publishers. If the publishers want in on the deal so that both they and the newsstand may benefit from the service, then they need to negotiate with the latter, not make any claims as to the transaction. Ultimately, such a service is between the newsstand and the customer. The customer is also free to purchase the subscription from the publisher directly, if he so wishes.
-dZ.
Wrong. The publisher has the right to publish themselves and not use the iTunes Store.
You have serious alternatives: you can just not use Apple products. Or is it somehow some right or necessity to own and use an iPhone?
-dZ.
A direct link to the actual Dossier page can be found here here.
-dZ.
That may be what Apple is offering, we don't know. However, the publishers do not seem keen on this idea; they want specific customer information for direct marketing, and apparently they are as unyielding with this request as Apple is with their refusal.
-dZ.
An already available and tested electronic, international, multi-currency payment system, seeded with an established customer base.
-dZ.
I agree with your correspondent, so let me make a few remarks. I will respond directly to selected paragraphs from your comment in order to keep their point within context.
You don't seem to get it: If I pay Apple for a service or a product, I understand that I need to give them my credit card and other personal information. This is a transaction for which I have full control. If I don't want to purchase from Apple, I do not give them my credit card nor any other information. So, once I pay Apple for that service or product, I expect them to not share that information with anybody else. Whoever supplied the product to Apple, nor any other third-party, has absolutely no claim to that information.
Now, why do I feel it's OK for Apple to have this information and not others? Well, in case the previous paragraph did not make it clear, let me be explicit: Because they treat me like their customer, are happy to profit from my money, and refuse--like this example that we are discussing right now--to share my personal information with unwarranted third-parties. That builds trust, which is why in the future, when faced with the choice of giving my credit card information to The Random Publishing & Advertising Whore Company or giving it to Apple for the same transaction, I will gladly call on Apple.
While I agree that competition is good--very good--I would extend that to say, competition from sustainable and customer-friendly business models is good. I am not about to welcome and support a business model or corporation of which I do not approve for the mere sake of giving Apple some competition, any competition. If other businesses do not have a sustainable business model, or decide that being sneaky and promiscuous with my personal information (I'm looking straight at you, online advertisers!), then I say they deserve what they get. And if Apple resists this model, then I wish it continued success.
That said, business is not necessarily a zero-sum game; these markets are huge and can stand diverse competitors and models. As others have mentioned before, the music industry failed to capitalize on digital media on time and with a successful business model, and now they may have lost control. As has also been said, they should have been the ones that brought the iTunes Music Store to the market. But no, Apple did, and here we are.
It would be unfortunate if Apple were the only player in its market, not because they are Apple, but because it is unfortunate that a good, sustainable, and customer-centric business model was not available to challenge them. However, if this were to happen, the one thing I would not lament is the loss of organizations that play fast and loose with customer information and disregard their privacy.
Some of us are not opposed to advertising in principle. What I'm opposed--and very strongly--is to the blatant and wholesale sharing of my personal information for profit, without my consent and without any respect to my privacy.
-dZ.
And the person who replied to you suggested Apple was in the right. I'm also suggesting that Apple is a good company. If they have leverage to protect my personal information, then I say they better use it.
-dZ.
+11 Funny!
Actually, in the original Pac-Man, the ghosts did not follow a "predetermined path," but actually made decisions based on some very simple logic. This was done dynamically throughout game-play. These rules, although very simple, fall still under "artificial intelligence,' since they form the basis of decision making, and thus affected the behaviour of each ghost.
The reason that memorizing patterns helped beat the game was because, based on the same conditions, the ghosts will make the same decisions every time. The speeds and timers changed throughout the levels, but were picked from tables in ROM, guaranteeing the same values on the same level for every quarter. Even the pseudo-random number generator used to pick directions during "Frightened" mode was reset with the same seed on every level and on every life lost. This meant that the behaviour was perfectly predictable. However, you had to maintain the conditions exact, which was hard; missing a corner, or turning on a junction even one pixel too late would throw off the pattern.
Ms. Pac-Man, on the other hand, did not add much more to the game than randomness. The simple behavioural rules for the ghosts were updated, but remained simple. However, a random factor was added to almost every decision, and the pseudo-random generator was re-seeded with different values at various times. The other major addition was changing maze layouts as the game progressed.
The source code for both has been widely disassembled and studied, and the differences well documented.
So, if you consider Pac-Man as being stupid and predictable, then Ms. Pac-Man is just slightly less stupid and much less predictable. Ms. Pac-Man was an incremental update to Pac-Man; more like "Pac-Man v1.5".
-dZ.
Well, if you're counting, then there's also "Caged" mode and "Cage Exiting" mode, and there's also "Invisible" (AKA "Just Been Eaten By Pac-Man") mode.
Presumably the "three modes" mentioned by the article refer to those that affect the state of game-play.
-dZ.
I think his explanation of the the targeting decision of Inky was more accessible than Jamey Pittman's. I love The Pac-Man Dossier, and it has proven indispensable in writing my own Pac-Man port for the Intellivision (my current project). However there are some parts, like the doubling of Inky's target direction-vector based on Blinky's position, that were either under-defined, or not very clearly explained.
I've re-read that section of the Dossier multiple times to make sure I understood it completely, but reading the explanation of the same from this new article made the algorithm more clear.
But I concede your point, other than that specific point, everything else seemed like a watered down version of The Pac-Man Dossier without the depth.
-dZ.
>> We don't use path-finding algorithms to move around objects. We use spatial memory and common sense, two things game AI lacks.
Are you aware that modern games attempt to mimic precisely this? The behavioural systems are much more complex than they were back in the early days of Pac-Man--not necessarily because the programmers didn't know how to do it, but because the systems did not offer enough computational resources to accomplish it.
-dZ.