Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media

William Gibson on Movies, Music, Media 196

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

William Gibson on Movies, Music, Media More

William Gibson on Movies, Music, Media

Comments Filter:

  • I thought (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:03PM (#6012401)
    He quit blogging [slashdot.org]?

  • At the end (Score:5, Funny)

    by nother_nix_hacker ( 596961 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:08PM (#6012431)
    There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!

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

  • I don't know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:11PM (#6012445) Journal
    ...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)

    • Re:I don't know... (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:19PM (#6012485)
      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.

      • more on books and change (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:44PM (#6012585) Journal
        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.

        • Re:more on books and change (Score:5, Informative)

          by Pseudonym ( 62607 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @09:34PM (#6012775)
          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.

          • "Bible" comes from Byblos [yahooligans.com]:

            Byblos.

            Ancient city, E Mediterranean coast. Located north of modern Beirut, it was occupied at least by the Neolithic period; extensive settlement developed during the 4th millennium BC. As the chief harbor for the export of cedar to Egypt, it was a great trading center. Papyrus received its early Greek name, byblos, from its export to the Aegean through Byblos; Bible means essentially "the (papyrus) book." Byblos has yielded almost all the known early Phoenician inscriptions, m

        • Re:more on books and change (Score:4, Funny)

          by EverDense ( 575518 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @09:58PM (#6012870) Homepage
          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.

        • Re:more on books and change (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Thursday May 22, 2003 @08:51AM (#6014686) Journal
          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.
          • No matter how digital we get, its hard to beat real paper in your hands.

            Bull. The main reason people don't read on computers is that paper isn't backlit, and doesn't make your eyes fell like they are being cooked from the inside out.

            If the screen on my passively-lit handheld was about double it's current size, I would be using it for most of my reading.
            • The main reason people don't read on computers is that paper isn't backlit, and doesn't make your eyes fell like they are being cooked from the inside out.

              Time for a new monitor, bub.

              If the screen on my passively-lit handheld was about double it's current size, I would be using it for most of my reading.

              I can see a handheld being nice for some things, but when I am reading for pleasure (physics for dummies, that kinda stuff) I like the ease of turning back a few pages, quickly. I also enjoy the ritua

              • Time for a new monitor, bub.

                Nobody makes monitors that are anything but actively backlit... When that changes, I'll be happy to get a new one.

                Of course, it doesn't help matters that nearly every content designer on the planet are such morons that they use white backgrounds on everything.

                I also enjoy the ritual of reading. The leather chair. The feel of the book in your hands. The smell of the book.

                Just as some people enjoy other rituals, but only because they are familiar with them. It's more nostal

      • I'm going to disqualify myself from moderating ... (Score:5, Funny)

        by jabber01 ( 225154 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:59PM (#6012633)
        ... but it needs to be said.

        Slashdot needs a "-1: Pompous Arse" category.
      • ...the ability of the hoi-paloi to...

        I try not to comment on grammar, but the proper term, from Greek, is hoi polloi [reference.com].

      • Re:I don't know... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jmv ( 93421 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @10:27PM (#6012976) Homepage
        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.

  • 'blog (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:14PM (#6012459)
    'blog?

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

  • My Lords (Score:1, Redundant)

    by frankthechicken ( 607647 )
    I think the item that took my interest was this [the-statio...fice.co.uk]. Ever get the feeling that nothing ever actually gets done in the House of Lords?

  • Surprise (Score:3, Funny)

    by GreggyBUIUC ( 262370 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:19PM (#6012486)
    There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end!

    He is Tyler Durden.

    (Or Keyser Soze... take your pick)

  • To sum up this article: (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:20PM (#6012488)
    Meryl Streep in a Kung Fu pose with a dogs head.
    We're all doomed.

  • There's a bit of a surprise conclusion at the end (Score:3, Funny)

    by vivek7006 ( 585218 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:21PM (#6012492) Homepage
    The Matrix has you ....

  • That's it Slashdot, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Col. Panic ( 90528 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:25PM (#6012513) Homepage Journal
    seduce me into actually reading the article.

  • I don't get all the Gibson worship around here (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:27PM (#6012516)
    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.

  • Blogs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bih ( 674728 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:36PM (#6012553)
    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.

    • Re:Blogs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MadElf ( 19926 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @09:33PM (#6012773)
      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.

  • Well written (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Doesn't matter if you agree with the content or not. The author can at lest string two words together and express his thoughts.

    How unusual in this (and probably any) day and age.

  • Oooh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:39PM (#6012565) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <<pathighgate> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @09:02PM (#6012644) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • I go to the theatre because I can see some movies earlier than at home. For the rest I prefer watching them at home, which is even more more of a social experience, as people don't bitch and complain if there any talking.

      • Re:Oooh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MojoRilla ( 591502 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @09:25PM (#6012742)
        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 (Score:2, Informative)

          by WEFUNK ( 471506 )
          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?

          Yes. You'd certainly lose some and it would also depend on the type of movie, but many people would continue to go to the theatre. You'd probably even add others who have seen it on the small screen and now want to experience the big show. The net might be lower, but many people would still go.

          Most of the people I know who regularly go to the movies treat it as a social ev

          • Re:Oooh (Score:5, Insightful)

            by SLot ( 82781 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @11:19PM (#6013161) Homepage Journal
            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.
            • Now be fair. It's not an 8 oz. drink for $3, it's 44+ oz. Way too much for a normal human to drink in one sitting, especially without going to relieve some pressure.

              Everything else is pretty much right on, except most people don't have a 60" plasma screen...

        • Re:Oooh (Score:3, Interesting)

          by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 )
          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?

          I know I would. I also know that people will still go to the theatre for films released a long time ago. If the local indie theatre is showing a rerelease of a classic I happen to like, I'll be there cash in hand, despite owning the work on DVD.

          I wasn't particularly interested in seeing the second Matrix movie, but I went because a large group of my friends went. The soci
          • I think theatre going is changing and the theatres know it and are changing to accomodate. I'm certainly more inclined to wait for most movies to come out on DVD and see less at the theatre because of it. I'm sure the average (rather than avid) filmgoer is the same. On the other hand when I do go to the cinema it is usually for a special movie and I'm happy to pay twice the price for a gold class seat and buy a couple of glasses of wine while I'm at it.
            • When I can smoke a cigarette and drink a beer in a theater, I'll go to the movies alot more often. If I'm not mistaken, it used to be legal to do so in Germany.

              Face it, the theaters in the US are great technologically, but suck ass when it comes to price gouging and accomodations. Most of the newer megaplexes here in Dallas don't even have reclining seats.

      • Re:Oooh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @11:17PM (#6013155)
        "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 (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Obiwan Kenobi ( 32807 ) *
          I'm not flaming here, but I'm generally curious.

          I've read comments like these a thousand times. Over and over. and I'm tired of it.

          Dude, if somebody is on a cell phone, ask them to get off it. If someone is yammering, ask them to shut up. You'd be suprised at the amount of support you get when you get the gumption to just tell people to act their age (and respect those around them).

          As for the 300# guy, that's something that comes along with it. I can deal with that, and sticky floors, if I get to see The

      • Re:Oooh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bigdavex ( 155746 )


        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.

        Err, concerts? Clubs? Bars? Parties?

        I don't see this at all.


        Even now where we have home theatre setups which can rival movie theatres in sound and picture quality . . .
        . . . true genius of his work can never be appreciated on anything other then the giant screens of the theatre.

        Maybe it's just too late, but isn't this

      • OTOH, as the quality of home entertainment systems increase, you will be able to dustribute to the user directly.

        if the distance from the screen is to the same proporation at home and at the cinema, it won't matter.
        Id nothing else, once somene creates there own 'buzz' the movie company will approach them.
        So it will, at the very least, away to get your work infromt of some studio eyes.

      • Re:Oooh (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mac Degger ( 576336 )
        Which isn't neccesarily true: iirc, 2001 was a bust at the box office. Only years later was it recognised as a real masterpiece.

        • Re:Oooh (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Afrosheen ( 42464 )
          Star Wars spoiled everyone. After that, every 'wow, outer space stuff' movie was compared to it in the public's opinion. No noise in space? Star Wars had explosions, laser sounds, you name it! What a ripoff, the public said.

          Hell, I remember seeing it when I was a kid, thinking what a piece of boring crap this is. Something about it continued to intrigue me, however, and I sat through it again a few years ago. Brilliant film, and it made me a big fan of Kubrick's work (with the exception of that half-fini

          • Re:Oooh (Score:2)

            by Ripp ( 17047 )
            Um, 2001:ASO was what, '69? Unless you know something about time-travel the rest of us don't then... do the math.

      • Re:Oooh (Score:2)

        by armb ( 5151 )
        > 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.

        People still go to live concerts and live theatre, in part because of the social experience. But a lot more people listen to music and watch TV dramas in their own homes.

        Even people without big widescreen TVs and surround systems will watch DVDs and videos more often than they go out to watch a film.
        And "straight to video" rel
    • The only useful function the record companies still serve is promotion.

      Yes, and if you follow that logic further, they are doomed. The barrier to entry to being an author is very low. Technology is doing the same thing for the music industry. When music required fancy studios and megabucks of investment in equipment, it stayed in control of the studios. Now digital technology can greatly reduce the investment required to record and the Internet has broken the distribution hammerlock that the record com

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • And it just so happens that they make some of the most popular and sought-after movies in the world.

        Don't downplay the importance of Hollywood, they've yet to be outdone yet on a large scale. There are some interesting indy films from overseas that come out from time to time (Devil's Backbone is great, go find it on Netflix) but for the most part, Hollywood makes the hits. When you have a gigantic filming and marketing budget, you can generate buzz and establish hits before they're even released. Watch a

        • Re:Oooh (Score:2, Informative)

          by cens0r ( 655208 )
          I would care to wager that the amount of good movies made outside hollywood is probably about equivalent to the movies made in hollywood. Especially if you discount the foreign movies (the ring, 7 samuri, etc) that hollywood just remakes.

          Just off the top of my head I'm going list movies that have come out in the last 5 years from overseas that I think were equal to or better than anything in hollywood: Run Lola Run, The Princess and the Warrior, Amelie, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Y tu mamá tamb
    • I think that day will come sooner than you think. There's a lot a person can do today with, say, a Canon XL1, a good lighting kit and sound kit, and some software like Premiere. Sure, the final product probably won't have any special effects, but that just means that it'll have to have a good story and plot to carry the movie through. Which is something I think many movies these days could use.

      I'd also recommend reading Rebel Without a Crew [amazon.com].

    • Record companies also serve the useful purpose of getting artists together.

      Yeah, there are lots of rock bands that try to break into the scene fully-formed, but where do the record companies put their muscle? Behind pop artists, and pop music almost never appears as a single band. There's a singer, or a group of singers, who almost never performs his/her/their own compositions. The band playing the music is assembled, often from a large pool of artists who do nothing but back up pop artists quasi-anonymous

    • 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.

      Strange that you should say that... What movie studio made the Blair Witch? I just can't recall it.

      People have the ability to make movies at home. If you write a very good script, you certainly could make it by yourself, and a few thousand dollars of investment. Of course, this script can't require hug

  • Damn, kids today can't appreciate anything. What is this world coming to? Back in my day . . . (fall asleep) . . . (wake up with a start) . . . That's what I'd do to fix 'em. That would fix 'em real good.

  • I saw the Hours (Score:3, Funny)

    by cyril3 ( 522783 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:42PM (#6012579)
    well the trailer anyway and I think they would have showed Meryl Streep with the head of a chichuahua so yeah I'm surprised.

    That might have made me want to go and see it. Nicole Kidman killing herself almost had me in the door.

  • ..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.
    • "It's as if he saw MTV for the first time and claimed "people will never listen to music the same."

      Huh? What does MTV have to do with music?

    • Re:The convergence in new media (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scatter_gather ( 649698 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @11:31PM (#6013200)
      "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.
    • Film as a non interactive media is here to stay.

      And interactive media will most likely evolve into its own right.

      That's what I was thinking. He wasn't describing the evolution of Film - more like the evolution of video games. I can't imagine people going to the cinema (or gathered round a future TV like device) to watch an 8 year fuck with the 'movie'.
    • I would agree with you where it not for something I read a while back...it was about media convergence, and the fact that it had already happened. Case in point was this kid who was listening to the music cd from Lilo and Stich. Kid cries "I wanna play the game!".

      Now that shows a change in the kid's perception of media. It's listening to the music from the film...and expects, no, doesn't even really consider, the fact that there /wouldn't/ be a video game.

  • my take on it (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe it's just the beer (Maudite from Unibroue; it's good; you should try it), but I thought that was nonsense. Bear with me as I try to figure out why.

    So this is a guy who writes novels where computer nerds have superhero like powers and secretly control the world while battling against various non-computer nerds who also use computers to have superhero like powers. It's a feel good romp for people who society rejects and have very little real power. Sure, the world wouldn't function without us, but the

    • Re:my take on it (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mooncaller ( 669824 ) on Thursday May 22, 2003 @01:23AM (#6013461)
      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.

      • I modded you up, but I don't think the point is as black and white as you make it. As an artist, don't I have some rights to preserve the integrity of my works? Say that you write a really good book. You probably don't want someone going in and changing parts, turning it into crap, and then releasing it to others. Word may get out that your book is crap, because people confuse the derivative work with the original.

        Now it's an entirely different thing if you modify someone else's work for your own perso
      • Plagiarism per say is not against the law, but copyright law does grant authors specific derivative rights that overlap. Next to the DMCA (and mandated DRM), I've come to feel the worst part of current copyright law is the over expansion of these derivative rights.

        To take the parent post's example of a 10 year old creating their own Pokemon characters, technically that is illegal. It is also the way people learn and is very natural to society.

        I saw a recent op-ed by Richard Posner, a 7th Court of Appeal

  • Music now, movies later (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alexjohns ( 53323 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .cirumla.> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @09:23PM (#6012735) Journal
    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.
    • Wonder if IBM would sponsor Korn or Avril Lavigne?

      Maybe not IBM, but that sure sounds like something Apple would do. Would fit in with their new music venture, too.

    • Musicians are already patron-sponsored, the patrons being the record companies. Corporations, not the President, are the new aristochracy, the new high priests, and uniquely they pay artists to produce new work. Like popes and monarchs, these American patrons force certain types of work from the artists they employ, and they do it not for the glory of God, but for the glory of another religion - capitalism.
    • hmmm... I disagree. I feel very strongly that with the increasingly rapid flow of information, it is unlikely that there will be any "convincing;" movie houses will know which movies to show and which not (note that I'm saying this will be determined bottom-up rather than top-down like it is now).

      Also, where's the competitive advantage generated by this supposed independant movie house? They may never all be in chains, but it'll be pretty close. If it's profitable, that is. If not, it may be independant an
    • No matter how high quality my home theatre system gets, no matter how crystal clear the picture and sound there is one thing it can never match about the theatre.
      My screen will never be 20 feet tall.

      >:)

      Kintanon
    • Actually, my local cinema does something similar. It's not exactly a "plex", but it has either 4 or 6 screens. They usually have a couple of independent films, and often show local films. The local/independent films are always more crowded than the "blockbuster"s. Granted, this is the "cool" part of town to live, so that affects the types of people who go there.

      Oh, and the theater is a part of a moderately large chain. I know they have a virtual monopoly in the city and surrounding areas, and I'm pret

  • Memorable quotes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bish.dk ( 547663 ) <haas&itu,dk> on Thursday May 22, 2003 @03:08AM (#6013723) Homepage
    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.
  • This whole article wasn't just about some kid wanting to watch dog-headed actors doing kungfu, it was about the idea that in the future, when the technology is no where nearly as limiting to the end-users creativity, we will be able to have a whole new level of control of our end media. What he is proposing is that in terms of evolution, things are always added, like color to B&W, and the myriad of options we can now select while watching a DVD.

    He thinks that once it is technologically feasible, and

  • Speaking as a person who owns several thousand sci-fi novels and has read thousands more, I've never understood the fascination with Gibson. He's a mediocre writer at best, and the stuff geeks should be most interested in from his novels are generally the least well thought-out parts of his stories.

    Sorry if it sounds like flamebait, it isn't intended that way, but old WG just isn't that hot, IMHO...

  • I think the most exciting thing, something that is just now becoming evident (at least to me), is the immediacy of history provided by permanent, perfect audio-visual record. Generations born now, will possibly not KNOW what is to NOT know exactly what the past was like. Our historical conciousness (at least mine, i'm young) only goes back a few decades at best. Our culture definately shorter than that. What happens, when every person existing is as tied in to, say, the culture of 40 years ago, as they

    • permanent, perfect audio-visual record. Generations born now, will possibly not KNOW what is to NOT know exactly what the past was like

      Don't get too cocky. Looking at pictures of the past does not let you experience the past as it was lived and felt. It's the different between perception and experiential reality. Remember all our visual media are a socio-cultural construct and embedded within them is a whole set of assumptions and forced compromises and accommodations that make perfect sense to *us* but w

  • On a separate note, it was interesting to read Gibson referring to threads on Slashdot in his blog. Creatives have been talking to the hoi poloi for a long time, sure (e.g. J.M.S. talking to Babylon 5 fans back in the pure Usenet days), but to publicly mention the memes of this site as a subject of intellectual discussion struck me. Journalists in trade papers occasionally refer to the Linux fanatics on Slashdot, but it's not everyday I read or hear about a public figure referring to /. as an entity.

    Most

  • Is this William Gibson now, or WIRED in 1995? (Score:3)

    by Thag ( 8436 ) on Thursday May 22, 2003 @11:33AM (#6015916) Homepage
    I remember WIRED's interview with George Lucas in the early days of work on Episode 1, and they ran some of the same ideas past him.
    "Hey George, is all TV going to be interactive?"

    "No."
    "What do you mean, 'No?'"
    "I mean no. People don't want interactive TV."
    "But, but, but..."


    And lo and behold, it's 2003, and interactive TV is still dead. The closest we have are video games, and P2P networks for "video on demand."

    I see the same thing happening here. As usual, Gibson has interesting ideas about society and technology, but his economics are bunk. Where does the money come from to pay the person that does all the modelling to render The Great Escape as a Playstation 13 game? Nobody wants that.

    This is the cyberpunk equivalent of the future with the airships and radiator fins on everything.

    Jon Acheson

Slashdot Top Deals

You can be replaced by this computer.

Close