The consolidation into vertical silos needs reversing, as was done last century with telecommunications and, I believe, when the major movie studios were forced to give up ownership of movie theaters.
The creators or wholesalers of the "products" should not be allowed to own and control the distributors or retailers of same (nor vica vers…
The consolidation into vertical silos needs reversing, as was done last century with telecommunications and, I believe, when the major movie studios were forced to give up ownership of movie theaters.
The creators or wholesalers of the "products" should not be allowed to own and control the distributors or retailers of same (nor vica versa). Streaming services shouldn't own studios/production companies. Amazon, Apple, Disney, etc. should be creating series and movies OR streaming them, not both. This world needs more diverse artistic creativity, not this greater homogenization that we have been served for the last decade, of cartoons and comic book stories.
There are so many wonderful books written by authors in my lifetime that I wish I could have seen transposed onto a screen. Neil Asher, Iain M Banks, Steven Erikson David Gemmell, Peter F Hamilton, Anne McCaffrey, Richard Morgan, Alistair Reynolds, Martha Wells. They are on the bookshelf to my left, many many more in my kindle library.
The point I'm trying to make is that there's an enormous ever-expanding supply of exellent material created by brilliant authors out here, there are also gifted script writers, directors, actors, and associated crews who live to turn words into images and sound and bring the ideas to life for us to experience. BUT, as always, it's the throwbacks with cro-magnon genes and seven-figure salaries at the top of the pyramids who inevitably screw everything up for everyone. Small minds can't see beyond feathering their own nests and covering their own pampered arses.
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but I tend to think that the adaptation of novels is not the most productive way to find material. if you think about novel adaptations, the BEST ones tend to be based on fairly second-rate sources. there are some big exceptions ("The Last Picture Show" springs to mind, and it's a case in which the movie is actually BETTER), but I'm sticking with it. actually, the series is probably a better way to adapt novels. and I'm not especially pleased with most of the more recent novels I've started to read. the prose tends to be too simple and very much like most other prose.
I DO remember thirty or forty years ago, when movies started to get prohibitively expensive to make, my friends in the business were blaming it on outrageous star salaries. but that was before these insane CEO contracts. I THINK.
but screenwriters have always been considered pretty dispensable, at least in terms of the studios honoring their creative input. I just read a pretty good book on the making of "Chinatown." great movie, but NOT what Robert Towne originally wrote. at least he got screenplay credit.
Try the Billy Boyle WW2 mysteries by James Benn. On #7 (of 18 as next month and he's working on #19 for next year) and all good - and each different in the manner of story layout. The history is solid and the mysteries are excellent; I haven't been able to foretell any twists so far, am surprised by each, followed immediately by "of course!" because it was so well set up. The only current novel series I recommend without hesitation (Thank you Judith!).
I can't disagree with you either David. There are exceptions such as "Blade Runner" which didn't stay completely true to Philip K Dick's novel, but also others like "2001: A Space Odyssey" spawned from a short story that then created a movie and a novel. But they were done, and those were absolute masterpieces, that made me think and caused me to go back to movie theaters and pay to watch them again, several times.
Some author's visions and the worlds they create are so grand that a single story requires three three-hour movies to tell the tale (Lord of The Rings). Also yes, a sequence of books such as George R R Martin's (which I enjoyed more than the "Game of Thrones" series due to missing character content) has to be made into a series, as would some of the works by authors I named earlier, each book a season (or two).
The consolidation into vertical silos needs reversing, as was done last century with telecommunications and, I believe, when the major movie studios were forced to give up ownership of movie theaters.
The creators or wholesalers of the "products" should not be allowed to own and control the distributors or retailers of same (nor vica versa). Streaming services shouldn't own studios/production companies. Amazon, Apple, Disney, etc. should be creating series and movies OR streaming them, not both. This world needs more diverse artistic creativity, not this greater homogenization that we have been served for the last decade, of cartoons and comic book stories.
There are so many wonderful books written by authors in my lifetime that I wish I could have seen transposed onto a screen. Neil Asher, Iain M Banks, Steven Erikson David Gemmell, Peter F Hamilton, Anne McCaffrey, Richard Morgan, Alistair Reynolds, Martha Wells. They are on the bookshelf to my left, many many more in my kindle library.
The point I'm trying to make is that there's an enormous ever-expanding supply of exellent material created by brilliant authors out here, there are also gifted script writers, directors, actors, and associated crews who live to turn words into images and sound and bring the ideas to life for us to experience. BUT, as always, it's the throwbacks with cro-magnon genes and seven-figure salaries at the top of the pyramids who inevitably screw everything up for everyone. Small minds can't see beyond feathering their own nests and covering their own pampered arses.
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but I tend to think that the adaptation of novels is not the most productive way to find material. if you think about novel adaptations, the BEST ones tend to be based on fairly second-rate sources. there are some big exceptions ("The Last Picture Show" springs to mind, and it's a case in which the movie is actually BETTER), but I'm sticking with it. actually, the series is probably a better way to adapt novels. and I'm not especially pleased with most of the more recent novels I've started to read. the prose tends to be too simple and very much like most other prose.
I DO remember thirty or forty years ago, when movies started to get prohibitively expensive to make, my friends in the business were blaming it on outrageous star salaries. but that was before these insane CEO contracts. I THINK.
but screenwriters have always been considered pretty dispensable, at least in terms of the studios honoring their creative input. I just read a pretty good book on the making of "Chinatown." great movie, but NOT what Robert Towne originally wrote. at least he got screenplay credit.
Try the Billy Boyle WW2 mysteries by James Benn. On #7 (of 18 as next month and he's working on #19 for next year) and all good - and each different in the manner of story layout. The history is solid and the mysteries are excellent; I haven't been able to foretell any twists so far, am surprised by each, followed immediately by "of course!" because it was so well set up. The only current novel series I recommend without hesitation (Thank you Judith!).
I can't disagree with you either David. There are exceptions such as "Blade Runner" which didn't stay completely true to Philip K Dick's novel, but also others like "2001: A Space Odyssey" spawned from a short story that then created a movie and a novel. But they were done, and those were absolute masterpieces, that made me think and caused me to go back to movie theaters and pay to watch them again, several times.
Some author's visions and the worlds they create are so grand that a single story requires three three-hour movies to tell the tale (Lord of The Rings). Also yes, a sequence of books such as George R R Martin's (which I enjoyed more than the "Game of Thrones" series due to missing character content) has to be made into a series, as would some of the works by authors I named earlier, each book a season (or two).
Matt Stoller covered this (industry consolidation and the Writers Guild of America strike) in hi "Big" substack last week. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/make-hollywood-great-again?r=8u0q8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thanks. That's really excellent. I forgot it was Trump who got rid of the Paramount Decrees. Of course that fucking moron would do that.