Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ridley Scott Loves Hugh Howey's Wool

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the too-bad-she-won't-last dept.

Books 98

Sasayaki writes "Hugh Howey's Wool, the self-published sci-fi story that's made him the best selling Indie sci-fi author of 2012 and currently the best selling sci-fi author on Amazon.com, has found its way into the hands of Ridley Scott (director of Alien, Prometheus and others)... who loved it. Rumor is the Hollywood movie will be coming to cinemas in 2013 or 2014. With Fifty Shades of Grey and now Wool getting the attention of Hollywood, it's clear the self-publishing revolution is here to stay."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One reel at a time? (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992453)

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

Re:One reel at a time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992659)

Will I be able to watch and pay for the movie one reel at a time

You will be allowed to watch one frame at a time, foc

Re:One reel at a time? (1)

ourweddinggown.com (2639425) | more than 2 years ago | (#40002707)

welcome to our site http://www.ourweddinggown.com [ourweddinggown.com]

Re:One reel at a time? (1)

ourweddinggown.com (2639425) | more than 2 years ago | (#40002735)

you can find everthing about the Wedding Dress in our web

Not to start a flame war... (0)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992487)

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

Re:Not to start a flame war... (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992539)

Why? Alien was good, Prometheus is excellent (I've seen a preview screening) - why do you not want Scott?

Re:Not to start a flame war... (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992611)

Maybe he's a big Top Gun [youtube.com] fan?

Re:Not to start a flame war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993229)

Man, that is so horribly contrived and painful to watch. It's exactly like all his movies.

Why the hell do people like his movies? They are filled with nothing but this same kind of pretentious, pointless, endless drivel that is supposed to be dialogue.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999931)

Didn't know Iceman was gay? Sorry dude.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40000545)

I've never seen Top Gun, or keep detailed notes on which actor and film characters are gay. Sorry dude.

But I'm talking about that gay faggot in the video clip going on and on about it.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992897)

Alien was good, Prometheus is excellent (I've seen a preview screening) - why do you not want Scott?

Because a good director does not necessarily a good movie make.

Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut
George Lucas: Phantom Menace
Steven Spielberg: 1941
Ridley Scott: G.I. Jane

As for Prometheus being excellent, forgive me for not taking your word for it.
Personally, I find 3D effects designed to wow the audience by attacking the fourth wall to be tacky and tasteless to the point of ruining a movie even if watched in 2D. Until the directors and movie studios can forget the wow factor, it's just going to make movies worse. And unless the preview footage is all wrong, fourth wall effects is exactly what they've done with the Alien prequel.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993401)

Alien was good, Prometheus is excellent (I've seen a preview screening) - why do you not want Scott?

Because a good director does not necessarily a good movie make.

Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut
George Lucas: Phantom Menace
Steven Spielberg: 1941
Ridley Scott: G.I. Jane

As for Prometheus being excellent, forgive me for not taking your word for it.
Personally, I find 3D effects designed to wow the audience by attacking the fourth wall to be tacky and tasteless to the point of ruining a movie even if watched in 2D. Until the directors and movie studios can forget the wow factor, it's just going to make movies worse. And unless the preview footage is all wrong, fourth wall effects is exactly what they've done with the Alien prequel.

> Because a good director does not necessarily a good movie make.
> Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut

Like many Kubrick movies, it improves with age. I still don't like the ending, the long discussion at the pool table is not a cinematic ending (I wonder if he had lived longer, would he have reshot that scene?), but even so in general there is much to admire in my opinion.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993501)

Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut

Eyes Wide Shut is brilliant.

I'm trying to think of movies since then that's had the kind of intellectual heft and technical brilliance of Eyes Wide Shut and there really isn't much.

The other movies you mention blow of course, but the worst movie Stanley Kubrick every made is better than the best movie of any of the other directors.

Some things are a matter of opinion. The greatness of every moment that Stanley Kubrick brought to the screen is not one of them. If there's a Stanley Kubrick film that you did not like, it can only be because you have not yet attained the requisite level of intellectual and spiritual insight.

OK, I think that about covers it.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (3, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993767)

If there's a Stanley Kubrick film that you did not like, it can only be because you have not yet attained the requisite level of intellectual and spiritual insight.

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

Re:Not to start a flame war... (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993813)

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

Why would you want to erase it?

Re:Not to start a flame war... (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998823)

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

Re:Not to start a flame war... (1)

netskink (1169915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997341)

I guess you have not been married or lived with a woman long enough to understand it. I'm guessing this scene was to show how at ease they were with each other after so many years. My ex wife was like that. My current gf no. I thought it was a great movie btw. I saw it before I was divorced and after. Afterwards, I felt the movie hit home much more.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40002055)

I guess you have not been married or lived with a woman long enough to understand it. I'm guessing this scene was to show how at ease they were with each other after so many years. My ex wife was like that. My current gf no. I thought it was a great movie btw. I saw it before I was divorced and after. Afterwards, I felt the movie hit home much more

And when you're married long enough, as I am, another threshold is reached, where those few moments of solitude on the dumper becomes sacred and inviolable. "No, you cannot come in and put on your makeup. No, I will not hand you your toothbrush. You will wait until I am done with this New Yorker article and/or Sudoku puzzle."

Fortunately, that threshold coincided with our ability to afford a house with multiple bathrooms. The one in the basement (which I put in without the proper building permits, by the way) is my private domain, with a bose wave and a little rolling desk for things like tablet computers and the racing form. Sometimes I bring my ukulele in there with me because the acoustics are so good.

Oh, and there is more in the subtext of Eyes Wide Shut than in the entire running time of Inception or whatever passes for "deep" movies in 2012. There are PhD dissertations about Eyes Wide Shut that are more interesting than the top 10 movies of 2011.

Re:Not to start a flame war... (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000009)

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

Re:Not to start a flame war... (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993493)

Maybe but Tony's "Hovis" ad was better :P

*Runs* & *ducks* from resulting flames...

Re:Not to start a flame war... (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993795)

I hope Tony gets to direct it instead of Ridley

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

Re:Not to start a flame war... (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996523)

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

On second thought, you're absolutely right.

First announced on Kindleboards (5, Informative)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992629)

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

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (0)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992701)

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

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992811)

Douchebag comment of the day.

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992985)

Douchebag reply of the week

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993181)

Douchebag AC of the moment.

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (4, Funny)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993933)

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

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993397)

"it's clear the self-publishing revolution is here to stay.""

No, it's not "clear". Please stop editorializing.

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995029)

No, it's not "clear". Please stop editorializing.

LOL. What purpose do you think a USER-DRIVEN site like Slashdot serves, if not to editorialize current events?

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (2)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995887)

I'm about 3/4ths through the Omnibus Edition right now, and while it's not bad, it hasn't been particularly gripping IMO. It could just be the monotony of the environment of, or maybe, finally, just the hint of character development now, but I've found most of it rather plodding. And without giving any spoilers, I was sorely disappointed by the first plot line, and then the second, which made it hard to get emotionally invested in any of the subsequent ones. It looks a bit more promising at this point, and I've read this much so I'll finish, but my expectations are tempered, to say the least.

While his writing style is more spartan, I enjoyed Jeff Carlson's Plague Year [amazon.com] a bit more as an indie post-apocalyptic thriller. I think some of it could be expectations, however. I approached Wool expecting the second coming of Christ given what I'd heard, while I was expecting Plague Year to be a rehash of Michael Chrichton's Prey.

Re:First announced on Kindleboards (1)

sh00z (206503) | more than 2 years ago | (#40005129)

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

What a title line! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992655)

I'm glad that I read the first sentence of the article. I thought this was another story about Obama coming out of the closet after a cocaine high.

Who did editing and printing? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992657)

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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992735)

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

PDF? I guess that makes the "who" Adobe.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993217)

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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (4, Funny)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993245)

So that's what happened in Tunguska

Re:Who did editing and printing? (4, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993311)

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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021471)

Come on, guys! I was sitting on the loo typing on my Google Nexus S. Cut me some slack!

Don't know about you, but I miss my old Nokia N95.. I could type correct and nicely formatted English in a coma.. which about sums up my authorship too thus far..

Re:Who did editing and printing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39995031)

That explains their authors' meteoric rise.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

Kyont (145761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995907)

Even before that, he was a steroidal writer.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992931)

"As AN writer"...

Don't give up the day job.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993005)

"As AN writer"...

Don't give up the day job.

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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993223)

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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993615)

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



Arbitrary definitions of 'good' ftw.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000839)

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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (2)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993969)

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

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


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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995971)

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

Re:Who did editing and printing? (2)

V for Vendetta (1204898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994507)

Except that he's not a native English speaker (nor am I), as you could have easily find out yourself by clicking on that nifty "Homepage" button. Which begs the question "Is your Norwegian as good as his English?"

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992953)

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

if interested in actual printing, there's many on-demand printing choices.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993063)

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

Except when the cover acts as a spoiler, which unfortunately sometimes happens, especially for re-issues where the author presumably has no input on the cover design.

Or when it disagrees with the book and is based on only a hastily glance at a single scene, with the glaring mistakes becoming obvious when you read the whole thing. Like getting the gender, race or age of a character wrong. You maintain misconceptions for parts of the book because of the cover artist.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (2)

actiondan (445169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994843)

My favourite cover artist misconception is in Josh Kirby's original cover for Terry Pratchetts The Colour of Magic. The initial description of the Discworld's first tourist, Twoflower, mentions four eyes (meaning he wears glasses) but Kirby took the description literally and depicted him with four actual eyes.

I believe the extra eyes remained for the cover of The Light Fantastic, so clearly the author wasn't too upset about the inaccuracy (Kirby's covers were never all that true to the book descriptions in any case...)

Re:Who did editing and printing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993533)

I don't know who handled the matters for Hugh Howey, but if you're looking for a copy editor, you could do a lot worse than Grammar Chick. (I'm not going to post her URL, because I don't want it to get slash dotted.) Even the most prominent authors benefit from (and use) copy editors--and their work suffers when the job's not done. Can't help you with formatting for print.

Re:Who did editing and printing? (1)

Ira Sponsible (713467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001483)

As a writer who is doing self-publishing, my answer is to do it myself. I have significant experience with both editing and design, so I felt completely comfortable doing the work myself. If you don't think you're up to the task, you can always pay someone else. I've published through lulu.com and createspace.com, and both offer editing and design services. It's not cheap, but not terribly expensive either, and if you're not confident in editing your own work or coming up with your own design, it can definitely be worth it. I've seen plenty of self-published books where the author clearly should have taken advantage of these services.

On a quick look at Hugh Howey's cover design, I can't tell whether it's professional work or he did it himself, and the preview amazon provides does not include any copyright notice or artwork credit indicating it's his own work or someone else's. I don't like the cover design, and from the snips I read, I don't care for the writing style. It just doesn't grab me. YMMV.

I did two different covers for my book, one for the ebook, and one for the printed book, due to odd licensing issues I won't describe here. I personally prefer the second design (print version) to the first (ebook). Interestingly, cover preference on my book seems to be split on gender lines. Women generally prefer the unicorn leaping through a portal version, while men prefer the staring eyeball version. See for yourself here: ebook (first design) [amazon.com] and paperback (second design) [amazon.com]

Work! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992671)

Why can't Slashdot just fucking work? Too much JavaScript cuntbaggery going on. Bring back Malda and make him bring back the old working version of Slashdot. Dumbleydore dies.

Re:Work! (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992687)

Maybe consider upgrading your browser from Lynx 1.0

Re:Work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992727)

Wait! What?! Is Lynx 1.0 out?

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

Re:Work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993025)

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

Excellent Choice (4, Informative)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992797)

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

Re:Excellent Choice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993055)

http://www.weddingdresseshop.net cheap designer wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net wedding gowns dresses for sale
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net discount wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/aline-wedding-dresses-c-154.html cheap designer wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/aline-wedding-dresses-c-154.html aline wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/beach-wedding-dresses-c-149.html wedding gowns dresses for sale
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/beach-wedding-dresses-c-149.html beach wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/cheapinexpensive-wedding-dresses-c-147.html discount wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/cheapinexpensive-wedding-dresses-c-147.html inexpensive wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/column-wedding-dresses-c-153.html cheap designer wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/column-wedding-dresses-c-153.html column wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/full-skirt-wedding-dresses-c-156.html wedding gowns dresses for sale
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/full-skirt-wedding-dresses-c-156.html full skirt wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/informal-wedding-dresses-c-150.html informal wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/informal-wedding-dresses-c-150.html discount wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/maternity-wedding-dresses-c-151.html maternity wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/maternity-wedding-dresses-c-151.html cheap designer wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/mermaid-wedding-dresses-c-155.html mermaid wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/mermaid-wedding-dresses-c-155.html wedding gowns dresses for sale
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/muslim-wedding-dresses-c-161.html muslim wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/muslim-wedding-dresses-c-161.html discount wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/plus-size-wedding-dresses-c-148.html plus size wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/plus-size-wedding-dresses-c-148.html cheap designer wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/simple-wedding-dresses-c-146.html wedding gowns dresses for sale
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/simple-wedding-dresses-c-146.html simple wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/strapless-wedding-dresses-c-158.html strapless wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/strapless-wedding-dresses-c-158.html discount wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/tea-length-wedding-dresses-c-159.html tea length wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/tea-length-wedding-dresses-c-159.html cheap designer wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/wedding-dresses-2010-c-144.html wedding dresses 2010
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/wedding-dresses-2010-c-144.html wedding gowns dresses for sale
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/wedding-dresses-2011-c-145.html wedding dresses 2011
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/wedding-dresses-2011-c-145.html discount wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/wedding-dresses-2012-c-152.html wedding dresses 2012
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/wedding-dresses-2012-c-152.html cheap designer wedding dresses
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/cocktail-dress-c-162.html cocktail dress
http://www.weddingdresseshop.net/cocktail-dress-c-162.html wedding gowns dresses for sale

Re:Excellent Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993631)

Yes totally agree. This is one of the best Sci Fi books I have ever read but must be read as a whole for the full experience. Get the Wool Omnibus instead of the single stories( at $5.99 you can't beat it). ....and Hugh Howey just released a prequel last month!

Re:Excellent Choice (1)

lessgravity (314124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993705)

This is one of the best Sci Fi books I have read. Get the whole series not the single stories in the WOOL OMNIBUS [amazon.com] I'm looking forward to reading the new prequel [amazon.com]

Re:Excellent Choice (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000899)

This is one of the best Sci Fi books I have read. Get the whole series not the single stories in the WOOL OMNIBUS [amazon.com] I'm looking forward to reading the new prequel [amazon.com]

Wikipedia lists the series [wikipedia.org] as "ongoing". Is the story arc in the omnibus finished? It seems interesting, and the price ($9.19 for me) is nice, but I'd rather hold out for the conclusion of any cliffhangers before even starting to read. Furthermore, where does Wool 6 - First shift fit in? :)

The fact that a director deemed it ready for a movie adaptation seems to imply that it's concluded, but I'd rather hear the opinion of someone with first-hand experience.

Re:Excellent Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40001017)

The story's finished in the omnibus. The author leaves a note at the end saying he's interested in following up with some related stories, but the omnibus set is definitely a complete story arc, and easily worth the money. Looks like First Shift is a prequel.

Re:Excellent Choice (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004113)

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

It's okay guys (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992803)

They won't be millionaires Paramount said so.

Ridley Scott author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39992857)

Ridley Scott super author =:) thank you ridley

Disappointed by RS (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992919)

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

Re:Disappointed by RS (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993831)

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

Yeah, but... (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992957)

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

Silos?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993103)

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

Vaults. THEY'RE CALLED VAULTS!

Self Published Movies (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993173)

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

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

Re:Self Published Movies (2)

V for Vendetta (1204898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994663)

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

Not exactly self-published, but the partially crowd-funded movie Iron Sky made it into Germany's top 10 (position 9 actually) on its starting week [klatsch-tratsch.de] (German page).

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000167)

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

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000823)

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

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40002521)

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

My house doesn't have a 50+ ft. screen, thousands of watts of power behind the sound system, 3D, etc, etc, etc.

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40003611)

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

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011403)

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

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012843)

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

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012979)

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

Just thinking aloud.

Re:Self Published Movies (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40015009)

I advocate replacing, or at least strongly augmenting, the traditional model of studios publishing movies with one where independent producers publish them (or rather distribute them, as it's known in movies). Increased independent production too, the equivalent to the manufacturing of books that's part of self-publishing books. While self-published books like 50 Shades of Grey use the same retail venues, chain bookstores, that big publishers use, movie theaters are not as accessible to self-published movies, since theaters are more closely locked to big distributors. But since TVs are increasingly networked, home distribution is a more natural channel than theatrical distribution. The model isn't exactly the same for movies as for books. But TV is also a more popular venue than theaters for movies, especially through Netflix, Amazon and increasingly Youtube. So while Wool at Barnes & Noble is more achievable than My HD Epic at Cineplex Odeon, hit movies that are "straight to video" seems to be achievable by self-publishers.

Independent home video isn't quite as grand a vision as independent cinema. But neither are movies quite as grand a vision as a play performed 5 times a day, 7 days a week, in a theater. The format scaled down to suit the distribution and performance constraints. And after a while it became the norm. Self-published movies don't have to be shown in theaters to be either successful or the standard.

Soon enough outlets like Amazon and Netflix will figure out how to promote movies first shown in Youtube or on another webpage, and movie theaters will have to show some to keep their audiences. As theaters get networked for distribution and digital projectors take over everywhere, the theatrical platform will be ready for self-published features to be easily shown there, and they will be. Then you can take your flying car there to see them. But it might seem just as exotic as going to a theater to see drama performed by live actors.

Hollywood sci-fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993215)

sucks monkey balls as of late

Re:Hollywood sci-fi (2)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994057)

sucks monkey balls as of late

I believe that was the title of a proposed sequel to Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.

Re:Hollywood sci-fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994781)

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

Boring (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993361)

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

me too (1)

packrat2 (686953) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993557)

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

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

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

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

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

DRM free version available? (1)

Simulant (528590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994353)

Looks like only Amazon is selling the ebook.

He tried (2)

sirwired (27582) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995185)

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

Re:He tried (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995427)

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

Bummer. I was ready to give him some money based on positive reviews and reading the first page. But I refuse to buy DRM'd books. Oh, well.

We really seem to be stumbling aimlessly toward a terrifying variation on Fahrenheit 451, where all books are sold by a single vendor or a small cartel, and anytime the cartel feels like it, they can erase your books. No more lending books to friends. No more buying or selling used books. No more notion of owning a permanent collection of books -- buying a book is like buying a movie on DVD, where the assumption is that in five years the format will be obsolete and you'll throw it in the trash.

Re:He tried (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996015)

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

Re:He tried (2)

jheath314 (916607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001135)

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

Re:He tried (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996029)

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

Re:He tried (3, Informative)

chispito (1870390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996973)

Bummer. I was ready to give him some money based on positive reviews and reading the first page. But I refuse to buy DRM'd books. Oh, well.

His book has no DRM. Amazon leaves it up to the publisher to decide on DRM. Look under the "Product Details" where you'll find

Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited

http://www.amazon.com/Wool-Omnibus-Edition-ebook/dp/B0071XO8RA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337017156&sr=8-1

Re:He tried (2)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999097)

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

Re:He tried (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997039)

It's not Amazon-exclusive. iBooks and B&N Nook also have it available.

Of course (2)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994617)

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

meh (1)

Mike Van Pelt (32582) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997477)

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

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

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?