Be fair, Gray Lensman. I'm sure a blocker could win the Heisman. For instance, if he used telepathy to render the entire opposing team unconscious, he'd at least be nominated. ;)
rotfl
Terribly laid out, but, like most Pauline Kael essays, fun read. Good critics should drop about a half dozen things you disagree with per article.
Hmmm. Argo, The Artist, The King's Speech, The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Crash, The Return of the King, Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty.
I haven't seen all of them, but I get a one and a zero.
So... a long thread about books to visual media... and episodes that don't resolve... and I'm the first one to mention Game of Thrones?
I kid because I love, but really GRRM, you leave me kicking the back of your seat going, "are we there yet? are we there yet?"
Probably most, but not all, would agree that Book 1 was astounding. But Book 5? All this wandering around, are we getting anywhere near a point?
And the television interpretation is magnificent. Just resolve a plotline already. Without one of my favorite characters dying. Please?
Oh. Star Wars great. Joss Whedon great. Don't like everything Whedon does. Wish Lucas had stopped at RotJ.
I donna know gang, what do you think, Summer Glau and a guy like me?
The relevant part begins at minute 3.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
So... a long thread about books to visual media... and episodes that don't resolve... and I'm the first one to mention Game of Thrones?
I kid because I love, but really GRRM, you leave me kicking the back of your seat going, "are we there yet? are we there yet?"
Probably most, but not all, would agree that Book 1 was astounding. But Book 5? All this wandering around, are we getting anywhere near a point?
Book 5 is the book that made me say "I think I'll wait for the paperback next time. Or maybe get it at the library."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awards are given to the best of the movies everyone has heard of, i.e. Those with a big enough ad campaign behind them.How would someone give an award to a movie they've never heard of or seen, exactly?"Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Awards are usually given by film academies, critics' associations, etc., etc. It's their job to know films that the rest of us have never heard of.Irontruth wrote:
And how are they supposed to hear about them?"(Emphasis added to Madame Sissyl's post)
Answer: If critics--by doing their jobs and going to every movie that plays in their city. If film academies--I have no idea; I've never been a member. Probably wait for a memo from Marty.
People are too quick to scoff at the very concept of marketing and raising awareness for a product. I've known plenty of people who have done interesting work, be it writing books, music, games, making a product of some sort... and they put zero effort into promoting their thing, then they wonder why no one paid any attention to their thing.
It'd be neat if hard work would just get recognized automatically, but when you want wider appreciation of something, like a major award, there's a whole second set of hard work - bringing attention to the project itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... a long thread about books to visual media... and episodes that don't resolve... and I'm the first one to mention Game of Thrones?
I kid because I love, but really GRRM, you leave me kicking the back of your seat going, "are we there yet? are we there yet?"
Probably most, but not all, would agree that Book 1 was astounding. But Book 5? All this wandering around, are we getting anywhere near a point?
And the television interpretation is magnificent. Just resolve a plotline already. Without one of my favorite characters dying. Please?
Oh. Star Wars great. Joss Whedon great. Don't like everything Whedon does. Wish Lucas had stopped at RotJ.
Good comparison...
I know some people who LOVE the Game of thrones books. They got me hooked on them and I loved them too... but honestly?? I'm bored now. Too long between them, too many characters, and frankly when the last one came out, I really don't remember enough of the floating threads anymore to care...
And while the thought crossed my mind, I have no interest at all in rereading 4 books, just so I can enjoy book 5 and then do it all again in 3-6 years...
Not gonna happen.
The wait killed any fire I had for the series.
That's kind of how I see 'cliffhangers' and trilogies. Honestly I think they're overrated. The idea that EVERY franchise HAS to have a 'magic number 3' of movies then get rebooted makes me roll my eyes. Do I like Empire strikes back? Heck yes! Was it a downer of an ending... Oh yeah... I saw them on vhs when I was a kid... but I couldn't have imagined waiting three years for Return of the Jedi.
I prefer my serials a bit more Harry potter or to fit the time period, Indiana Jones. Each one is a an awesome adventure... and if you don't like one part? You never need to watch it again. But it doesn't hurt the viewing of the rest.
Indiana jones... Superman... the Batman movies of the '89+
They can more or less be watched in any order you want to and each movie rises and falls on its own merits.
Although, I'd say criticizing Lord of the Rings is a bit touchy... what with the publisher choosing to break it into three parts and not the writers... That was 'one' complete tale with a beginning middle and end...
I just know I've seen a few shows lately that had some potential.... were obviously designed and shot as 'part 1' but frankly we'll never see part 2. So the movie feels like too much set up and not enough payoff.
I know some people who LOVE the Game of thrones books. They got me hooked on them and I loved them too... but honestly?? I'm bored now. Too long between them, too many characters, and frankly when the last one came out, I really don't remember enough of the floating threads anymore to care...
And while the thought crossed my mind, I have no interest at all in rereading 4 books, just so I can enjoy book 5 and then do it all again in 3-6 years...
Not gonna happen.
The wait killed any fire I had for the series.
That's kind of how I see 'cliffhangers' and trilogies. Honestly I think they're overrated. The idea that EVERY franchise HAS to have a 'magic number 3' of movies then get rebooted makes me roll my eyes. Do I like Empire strikes back? Heck yes! Was it a downer of an ending... Oh yeah... I saw them on vhs when I was a kid... but I couldn't have imagined waiting three years for Return of the Jedi.
In fairness, you could have waited until the complete series was done and then not had to wait years for the next installment. You ended up choosing to pick up the series-reader's burden which risks getting into the story and then having to stop and wait for the story to continue.
The wait may be frustrating, particularly when you're enjoying the ongoing story, but I can't really begrudge it. Novels take time to write (and movies take time to write and film).
there seems to be some peculiar notion floating around the critic community that comedies can't be high-quality either. "If it's funny, it's not art" or something.
Yes, nothing funny is good. Take that, Shakespeare!
(Right up until this year, when Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing is awarded a bunch of little statues.)
there seems to be some peculiar notion floating around the critic community that comedies can't be high-quality either. "If it's funny, it's not art" or something.Yes, nothing funny is good. Take that, Shakespeare!
(Right up until this year, when Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing is awarded a bunch of little statues.)
In fairness, you could have waited until the complete series was done and then not had to wait years for the next installment. You ended up choosing to pick up the series-reader's burden which risks getting into the story and then having to stop and wait for the story to continue.The wait may be frustrating, particularly when you're enjoying the ongoing story, but I can't really begrudge it. Novels take time to write (and movies take time to write and film).
If I had known his reputation, I probably would have. I think the third one was coming out when I started his first...
But, while novels DO take time... 17 years for 6 books is beyond excessive...
I started reading the Drizzt books around 'spine of the world' and had to catch up on 11 books before I joined the wait with the rest of the readers... But then it was rarely more then a year for the next installment.
Seriously... Salvatore releases a new book (or more then one) every year... Robert Jordan was going on 1-2 years between... While being sick. Stephen King blows THAT out of the water with some of his best stories being the 2nd or 3rd released in single year!
So yeah... there is a legitimate amount of time for good books to be written... but 6 years? That's too much for my ADHD brain to keep these plot threads straight.
Also, something that always makes me laugh :)
And Book 5 of GoT doesn't have me on the edge of my seat, eagerly waiting for the next book. It had all the thrill and excitement for me of wondering where that hamster on the wheel is going to end up next.
I'm skipping book 6 altogether and then waiting for book 7, then reading the last 100 pages. Hopefully I'll still remember a couple of characters 14 years from now.
Seriously... Salvatore releases a new book (or more then one) every year... Robert Jordan was going on 1-2 years between... While being sick. Stephen King blows THAT out of the water with some of his best stories being the 2nd or 3rd released in single year!So yeah... there is a legitimate amount of time for good books to be written... but 6 years? That's too much for my ADHD brain to keep these plot threads straight.
You know, if I had the inclination, I could produce a crappy fantasy novel every year, too. Your examples are really bad.
Also, King uses ghostwriters.
You know, if I had the inclination, I could produce a crappy fantasy novel every year, too. Your examples are really bad.
Really bruh?
Perhaps Salvatore writes "crappy novels" (which I disagree with, but I wouldn't exactly call them "great works" either), but Robert Jordan wrote crappy fantasy novels?
Get out.
Wheel of Time is/was AT LEAST as good as ASoIaF is, and kept a much better schedule of release WHILE THE AUTHOR WAS DYING and after he died.
Seriously... Salvatore releases a new book (or more then one) every year... Robert Jordan was going on 1-2 years between... While being sick. Stephen King blows THAT out of the water with some of his best stories being the 2nd or 3rd released in single year!So yeah... there is a legitimate amount of time for good books to be written... but 6 years? That's too much for my ADHD brain to keep these plot threads straight.
You know, if I had the inclination, I could produce a crappy fantasy novel every year, too. Your examples are really bad.
Also, King uses ghostwriters.
But could you produce a crappy best-selling fantasy novel every year?
Edit: Or even a crappy published (self or vanity published doesn't count) fantasy novel every year?
No. I'd have to be incredibly lucky, as all published authors were. But we all know that quality is a secondary issue when it comes to getting a cultural product of any kind published or broadcasted. Marketability comes first.
And yes, I think the Wheel of Time, at least the reading half of the first book, is crap. I stopped because I was bored out of my mind. I didn't want to read about yet another farm boy who is the focus of a prophecy to become The Hero. (Who also got The Sword, apparently, which is a so-called sa'angreal. How very subtle.) That already was old before Lucas twisted it.
Perhaps Salvatore writes "crappy novels" (which I disagree with, but I wouldn't exactly call them "great works" either),...
I haven't read any Salvatore in years. The Drow series entered what I considered to be a terrible and repetitive rut after the 2nd trilogy. So I don't necessarily put that series, at that point, very high on the quality scale.
... but Robert Jordan wrote crappy fantasy novels?Wheel of Time is/was AT LEAST as good as ASoIaF is, and kept a much better schedule of release WHILE THE AUTHOR WAS DYING and after he died.
I'm sure having his wife as his editor probably sped things up quite a bit for most of his career.
And yes, I think the Wheel of Time, at least the reading half of the first book, is crap. I stopped because I was bored out of my mind. I didn't want to read about yet another farm boy who is the focus of a prophecy to become The Hero. (Who also got The Sword, apparently, which is a so-called sa'angreal. How very subtle.) That already was old before Lucas twisted it.
Because A Song of Ice and Fire is so new and fresh in its core ideas. :rolleyes:
There are no new ideas under the sun.
But you can still spin it differently.
Both Wheel of Time and A Song of Ice and Fire did so. But Wheel of Time did it more promptly (though it meandered a bit in the middle).
I'm sure having his wife as his editor probably sped things up quite a bit for most of his career.
Possibly, but it's not like he's in the minority of writers here.
Most of them can keep a steady schedule and produce a good book every year or two.
Not 6 years for a book that was mostly just filler.
Oh, we're talking books now?
.
Most of them can keep a steady schedule and produce a good book every year or two.
Not 6 years for a book that was mostly just filler.
Most of them really can't. And I don't like filler either, which is one reason I read Song of Ice and Fire rather than Wheel of Time.
And I don't like filler either, which is one reason I read Song of Ice and Fire rather than Wheel of Time.
???
I look at GRRM like a chef at a upscale resturant. Somedays he comes in, somedays he doesn't, but the restaurant can't fire him because the only reason people eat there is because of him. And why, because he does deliver exceptional prose. Some may argue books 4 and 5 meander and are travelogues..which they kinda do..but that hasn't stopped me reading each of them 3-4 times.
Lets take someone like David Eddings, who rather cynically says, I am under contract to deliver 20 books. I know, I write this Mary Sue male protagonist and instead of a trilogy I'll drag it out for 5 books.
Then, I'll do it all over again and just change some names..
so my Whopper becaomes a Royale with Cheese..
So I give Martin a lot of leeway, I know he is not letting his editors led him into producing mind slush..on the other hand, I sometimes wish they would exercise more control..no George you can't go to Ottumwa Iowa to go to the convention where only 20 people will be, you promised us 3 new chapters by next week.
You know, if I had the inclination, I could produce a crappy fantasy novel every year, too. Your examples are really bad.Really bruh?
Perhaps Salvatore writes "crappy novels" (which I disagree with, but I wouldn't exactly call them "great works" either), but Robert Jordan wrote crappy fantasy novels?
Get out.
Wheel of Time is/was AT LEAST as good as ASoIaF is, and kept a much better schedule of release WHILE THE AUTHOR WAS DYING and after he died.
Honestly every has their own opinions, but I rank Salvatore over Martin. The books are more exciting, the writing really draws me in and I feel like I'm in the fight scenes. Some may have different tastes... but I usually rank authors on how much hard it is to put their books down... and the Drizzt books I usually finish somewhere in 1-3 days because I just can't put down. Martin?? usually a week... week and a half. usually because we've moved on to 'main character' number 14 and I don't find HIS particual story engaging.
Wheel of time? I have to agree that those were not well written books. I read the first 11-12 of them back to back because we started a WoT RPG and I wanted to know the world I was playing in. A couple friends are big fans so I went with it...
My general review of the series... It was a GREAT story told by an 'OK' writer. Too many tangents, too many side quests. WAY too many books REALLY felt like Filler. I haven't read any of the SoIaF books that felt like Filler... but Wheel of time had a whole book in the 8-10 range that covered like a 2 days of 'world time'... it was ridiculous...
I enjoyed the story... and still want to hear how it ends... but the road getting there was ROUGH...
I'll admit, a couple of books were meandery in the extreme and little was (directly) accomplished (though a lot was set up for all the dominos to fall).
The last few are better paced, through a combination of Jordan's detailed notes being taken and turned into an actual novel by a more modern and fluid writer (Brandon Sanderson).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of them really can't..
Most of them can keep a steady schedule and produce a good book every year or two.
Not 6 years for a book that was mostly just filler.
Bull.
J K Rowling wrote seven books in ten years. One book a year except for a three year hiatus.Brandon Sanderson did his initial Mistborn trilogy in three years.
Jim Butcher, one of my favorite authors, writes at least one book a year for Dresden Files and had enough time to write the Codex Alera, also with one book a year, That is two books a year for six years and he aims to do it again when he starts his steampunk series.
Robert A Heinlein, one of the grandfathers of science fiction, wpublished, according to Wikipedia, 20 novels between 1947 and 1973. 20 novels in 26 years. And 5 more between 1980 and 1987.
Terry Pratchet, since he started Discworld in 1983, has written 40 Discworld books, two trilogies, 4 stand alone novels and more background material for Discworld than I care to count. He was diagnozed with Alzheimers in 2007 and he still publishes more material every year than GRRM bothers to write.
I could bring in more examples if you want.
Most of the great writers nowadays that don't launch a book every other year are the ones that are also writing for movies, comics, TV and or radio, like Neil Gaiman.
The point is that taking more than two or three years between books in a series is NOT the norm. The only ones I can think that do that and havent faded into obscurity are GRRM and Patrick Rothfuss.
*Good stuff*
See, that's how you make your point.
@phantom1592: No offense, but I think your standards are screwed up.
|
...and while the thought crossed my mind, I have no interest at all in rereading 4 books, just so I can enjoy book 5 and then do it all again in 3-6 years...
In fairness, you could have waited until the complete series was done and then not had to wait years for the next installment...
I think it was summer 1998 when I found the first book on the staff recommended rack at Waldenbooks, and I'm trying to imagine thinking at the time about holding off until the series was published (and in 1998, was it even going to be more than a couple novels?), and I think I may have actually held on to the novel for a year or so before actually reading it. Now that there's this absolutely awesome TV series, and everyone you bump into has at least heard of it, I suppose I'd remember to start reading the books. But 15 years ago? Seeing Book one and deciding to hold off until the 'trilogy' is finished... Martin's series isn't a WOTC-scheduled FR trilogy that I know I can do that with--it's not exactly like he's planning to be finished in the next 18-24 months.
...Also, King uses ghostwriters.No, he doesn't.
that's the rumor, though. I'd be surprised but not saddened if it was true.
King is a beast and really good at what he does (pumping out words).
There's a story that at a book signing Stephen King was signing books for so long his publicist had to get him an ice pack for his shoulder, and he kept signing books.
Then his finger rubbed raw and started to bleed and he accidentally got some on a fan's book. He asked for a bandage, but then the next guy in line said "They got blood on their book, I want blood on mine as well." Stephen King proceeded to sign books, including a blood smear in them.
Chuck Palahniuk likes to tell this story when giving talks.
|
King is a beast and really good at what he does (pumping out words).
There's a story that at a book signing Stephen King was signing books for so long his publicist had to get him an ice pack for his shoulder, and he kept signing books.
Then his finger rubbed raw and started to bleed and he accidentally got some on a fan's book. He asked for a bandage, but then the next guy in line said "They got blood on their book, I want blood on mine as well." Stephen King proceeded to sign books, including a blood smear in them.
Chuck Palahniuk likes to tell this story when giving talks.
There's a MASSIVE difference between the mechanical writing of your name thousands of times in a session, and spitting out novels at the speed that King (supposedly) does.
I'd be amazingly surprised if King didn't at least use a ghostwriter for a while after his accident.
Asimov, anyone? More than 400 works... He easily blows almost any other writer clear out of the water...
King is a beast and really good at what he does (pumping out words).
There's a story that at a book signing Stephen King was signing books for so long his publicist had to get him an ice pack for his shoulder, and he kept signing books.
Then his finger rubbed raw and started to bleed and he accidentally got some on a fan's book. He asked for a bandage, but then the next guy in line said "They got blood on their book, I want blood on mine as well." Stephen King proceeded to sign books, including a blood smear in them.
Chuck Palahniuk likes to tell this story when giving talks.
There's a MASSIVE difference between the mechanical writing of your name thousands of times in a session, and spitting out novels at the speed that King (supposedly) does.
I'd be amazingly surprised if King didn't at least use a ghostwriter for a while after his accident.
I'm sorry, I wasn't intending to imply what you think I implied. I should have put something in the first break to show they weren't that directly connected. Rather the story is just something I thought was kind of a neat little story.
King says his work load is around 2,000 words per day, which is not an outrageous claim. On a double spaced manuscript, that's about 250-300 per page and is less than 10 pages.
R.F. Delderfield often wrote 33 pages a day. Supposedly he had set hours of writing and kept going until 4 o'clock every day. If he finished a novel at 3 o'clock, he put a new piece of paper in and started his next novel immediately.
Charles Hamilton wrote 25 pages a day.
King writes for a living. I don't find his pace surprising and I haven't heard anything specific that indicates his work ethic is lacking. He's done it all his life and people tend to get good at things they do their whole life. Not a critique of his writing itself, but rather just that the man can definitely pump out words.
So I guess the story is somewhat related. He has discipline and self-control. He's dedicated to giving the fans what they want.
Yar. And TBH 2k words a day is small potatoes for anyone who's gone to college and taken any sort of Lit class or something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does this have to do with Joss, Star Wars, or trilogies?
He knows he is making one right now.
It wasn't an interesting subject anyway. Joss Whedon has an opinion, poor troll tries to start a flamewar by badmouthing Whedon, people generally agree that while Star Wars V is a good movie, Whedon is kind of right, it's not a full movie and it lacks an ending. Topic done, the thread moves on.
I rather liked the discussions on 'trilogies and the function of middle movies' and 'waiting times between installments, how much is too much'. These random tangents can be much more interesting.
Edit: Can we now make this thread about threads going into tangents and evolving? Seems like it could be an interesting conversation...
|
Well, The Lord of the Rings was written as six books originally, so there's that (and a director should match the film to the source material, anyway).
But I too was unhappy at the time with the way SW ep V ended. Not that I needed a 'feel good' ending, but it felt like half a film to me.
Lord of the Rings was written as a single novel and intended to be read as such. It is not a trilogy, or a hexology, and originally was published in a single volume. However, it only really took off big time commercially when the decision was taken by the publishers to split it into three more managable-sized volumes - a decision Tolkien himself wasn't originally happy with.
Lord of the Rings was written as a single novel and intended to be read as such. It is not a trilogy, or a hexology, and originally was published in a single volume. However, it only really took off big time commercially when the decision was taken by the publishers to split it into three more managable-sized volumes - a decision Tolkien himself wasn't originally happy with.
Tolkien may not have been happy with the decision, but I don't believe it was initially published as a single unit.