What are you reading?

[Tale]

 

William Gibson's Alien 3 script

 

Pretty good. Needs more Ripley.

Heh, did you know Michael Biehn refuses to watch Alien 3, because he felt that Hicks deserved a much better death sequence? Something along the lines that for all the effort he put into shaping the character in Aliens, there shouldn't have been some glossed over "panning shot of Hicks with chest exploded" as the end of that character.

 

Didn't know it, but not surprised by it. Cameron also thought 3 was disrespectful to the characters last I heard.

 

The one thing I really don't like about this script is it's all Hicks. Ripley's in a coma then shoved into a lifepod. That's it.

[Walsingham]

 

William Gibson's Alien 3 script

 

Pretty good. Needs more Ripley.

Heh, did you know Michael Biehn refuses to watch Alien 3, because he felt that Hicks deserved a much better death sequence? Something along the lines that for all the effort he put into shaping the character in Aliens, there shouldn't have been some glossed over "panning shot of Hicks with chest exploded" as the end of that character.

 

 

Well he was sodding well right. Biehn/Hicks would have been a very interesting person to throw into the mix of the prison colony.

[Serrano]

 

 

William Gibson's Alien 3 script

 

Pretty good. Needs more Ripley.

Heh, did you know Michael Biehn refuses to watch Alien 3, because he felt that Hicks deserved a much better death sequence? Something along the lines that for all the effort he put into shaping the character in Aliens, there shouldn't have been some glossed over "panning shot of Hicks with chest exploded" as the end of that character.

 

Didn't know it, but not surprised by it. Cameron also thought 3 was disrespectful to the characters last I heard.

 

The one thing I really don't like about this script is it's all Hicks. Ripley's in a coma then shoved into a lifepod. That's it.

 

 

Sigourney Weaver didn't want to do another alien movie at various points in the series, I think that script was from when the studio were looking for ideas to go on without her. Everyone thinks they should have kept Bishop and Hicks alive, I'm one of those people but they aren't actually very well developed characters, they just made an impact (as did Burk and pretty much every single colonial marine apart form Wierzbowski and Crowe) which is still impressive when you consider how little screen time they got in Aliens but they've been built up a lot more than they deserve over the years. My younger self is screaming at me for saying that but I stand by it.  

[Serrano]

 

 

 

William Gibson's Alien 3 script
 
Pretty good. Needs more Ripley.

Heh, did you know Michael Biehn refuses to watch Alien 3, because he felt that Hicks deserved a much better death sequence? Something along the lines that for all the effort he put into shaping the character in Aliens, there shouldn't have been some glossed over "panning shot of Hicks with chest exploded" as the end of that character.

 

 

Well he was sodding well right. Biehn/Hicks would have been a very interesting person to throw into the mix of the prison colony.

 

 

Hicks would have probably ruined a lot of the things Alien 3 had going for it imo, he'd carry too much authority and Ripley and Hicks together would be too capable in that situation, the prisoners would be more dangerous than the alien itself and they were trying to go back to the series' roots. I liked Alien 3, I think that the series as a whole would have been better if they'd gone with a different script but Alien 3 was a good movie. It's Resurrection that grinds my gears.  

[Raithe]

Hicks would have probably ruined a lot of the things Alien 3 had going for it imo, he'd carry too much authority and Ripley and Hicks together would be too capable in that situation, the prisoners would be more dangerous than the alien itself and they were trying to go back to the series' roots. I liked Alien 3, I think that the series as a whole would have been better if they'd gone with a different script but Alien 3 was a good movie. It's Resurrection that grinds my gears.

Resurrection is an interesting one. Whedon wrote the script and he the one thing he's always said about it is he's amazed at how they followed so much of what he wrote, but emphasised all of the wrong parts which left it coming across as wildly different to how he wrote it.

Something along the lines of "Technically, they followed the script. But in reality, it was completely wrong."

[Woldan]

 

 

Is it any good?

 

Can't say without having finished the book, I've read too many books that burned all their powder in the first third and then quality and information value dropped to disappointing levels. But so far its good.

[Tale]

 

Hicks would have probably ruined a lot of the things Alien 3 had going for it imo, he'd carry too much authority and Ripley and Hicks together would be too capable in that situation, the prisoners would be more dangerous than the alien itself and they were trying to go back to the series' roots. I liked Alien 3, I think that the series as a whole would have been better if they'd gone with a different script but Alien 3 was a good movie. It's Resurrection that grinds my gears.

Resurrection is an interesting one. Whedon wrote the script and he the one thing he's always said about it is he's amazed at how they followed so much of what he wrote, but emphasised all of the wrong parts which left it coming across as wildly different to how he wrote it.

Something along the lines of "Technically, they followed the script. But in reality, it was completely wrong."

 

I do like a lot of what they did in Resurrection. They showed the Aliens as more capable and intelligent than previous movies. The scene where the Aliens kill one of their own to use its acid blood to create an escape is practically ripped straight from my favorite scene in the comics/novels.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I do like a lot of what they did in Resurrection. 

 

 

Me too. Then again, I was never crazy about the previous installments of the series, so...

[Woldan]

I consider myself a hardcore Alien fan and I hate Resurrection with a burning passion. It feels nothing like Alien 1-3 and even viewed as a standalone film its simply a mediocre scifi flick. 

[melkathi]

Started reading Redshirts.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

Hicks would have probably ruined a lot of the things Alien 3 had going for it imo, he'd carry too much authority and Ripley and Hicks together would be too capable in that situation, the prisoners would be more dangerous than the alien itself and they were trying to go back to the series' roots. I liked Alien 3, I think that the series as a whole would have been better if they'd gone with a different script but Alien 3 was a good movie. It's Resurrection that grinds my gears.

Resurrection is an interesting one. Whedon wrote the script and he the one thing he's always said about it is he's amazed at how they followed so much of what he wrote, but emphasised all of the wrong parts which left it coming across as wildly different to how he wrote it.

Something along the lines of "Technically, they followed the script. But in reality, it was completely wrong."

 

I do like a lot of what they did in Resurrection. They showed the Aliens as more capable and intelligent than previous movies. The scene where the Aliens kill one of their own to use its acid blood to create an escape is practically ripped straight from my favorite scene in the comics/novels.

 

 

If you look closely you can kindof see the beginnings of Firefly in the mercenary crew. But yeah, the treatment of the material was all wrong, in part due to the budget (major budget cuts in the middle of production led to every possible corner being cut to even get it finished) and in part due to the director not having the right vision. I like Jeunet but whoever thought he was the right fit for this particular project needs to get their head examined. Resurrection, honestly, had good ideas but it was woefully done.

 

Currently trying to read House of Leaves again. I don't know what it is about this book, but it gets under my skin like nothing else. I couldn't finish it last time I tried.

 

EDIT: Wofully instead of woefully? Maybe I need to get MY head examined.

Edited December 18, 2013 by TrueNeutral

[babaganoosh13]

I decided to look up Agatha Christie eBooks at Kobo.com. Her full-length novels run between $6.99 and $9.99.

 

Her last novel, Postern of Fate cost $1.99 when it first came out on paperback. The eBooks should probably cost no more than that considering it would have cost more then in those dollars to make that book, none the less ship it then it would to send me a digital copy now in today dollars (ignoring inflation.)

 

She died of old age almost 38 years ago.

Her only child died over 9 years ago of old age.

She has one living grandchild who's getting up there. She gave him "The Mousetrap." He's made millions from that alone.

 

There is no reason why these cost so much. There's no reason why the paperbacks cost as much as they do either today. They've about doubled in price over the last 10 years or so.

Edited December 19, 2013 by babaganoosh13

[Monte Carlo]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that the third Aliens movie was all about Sigourney Weaver's wish that they didn't make a movie "full of guns." Which was a bit rich after the second movie, but then again I'm not a libtard millionaire Hollywood actress.

[Monte Carlo]

I decided to look up Agatha Christie eBooks at Kobo.com. Her full-length novels run between $6.99 and $9.99.

 

Her last novel, Postern of Fate cost $1.99 when it first came out on paperback. The eBooks should probably cost no more than that considering it would have cost more then in those dollars to make that book, none the less ship it then it would to send me a digital copy now in today dollars (ignoring inflation.)

 

She died of old age almost 38 years ago.

Her only child died over 9 years ago of old age.

She has one living grandchild who's getting up there. She gave him "The Mousetrap." He's made millions from that alone.

 

There is no reason why these cost so much. There's no reason why the paperbacks cost as much as they do either today. They've about doubled in price over the last 10 years or so.

 

Ooooh a pet subject of mine!

 

Intellectual property rights. As you know, generally, they last for seventy years after the death of the creator (which was why they made 'The Great Gatsby' when they did, as F. Scott Fitzgerald's anniversary was that year).

 

Let's forget, for a moment, that ebooks are overpriced (which they are, especially from legacy / Big Five publishers). The author, with a legacy publisher, gets about 25% on an ebook and perhaps 12-15% on a physical copy (which is why I turned one down recently). I get 70% direct from Kindle. More and more writers are going indie for this reason*. I digress...

 

Nonetheless, with the likes of Agatha Christie, who would have been with a legacy publisher / imprint, they still have a residual interest. They nourished that IP, developed it, marketed it and squandered gazillions of dead trees. Furthermore, Agatha's lack of family notwithstanding, most of us have people we would like to leave some sort of legacy to. Including the profits from property we've created and established. That doesn't mean, however, that they need to be overpriced.

 

Legacy publishers are bleeding profit due to digital distribution. They stick their fingers in their ears and go nyah-nyah-nyah when faced with the reality. They make the music industry's reaction to digital look prescient, and make the Retreat from Moscow look like an orderly tactical withdrawal.

 

They will try to squeeze every last cent from every last IP in their back-catalogue, like a man in a lifeboat licking condensation from the rubber.

 

Ha ha ha.

 

* Google 'Scott Trurow and Joe Konrath' to see an indie author go hammer and tongs regarding the US author's guild if you are interested in this sort of thing. Trurow is fisked within an inch of his life by Joe, who is one of the most successful ebook authors around.

[Tagaziel]

I'm currently making my way through Asimov's Currents of Space after reading Harris' Fatherland. Both books tickle me in the right places.

 

Innuendo aside, anyone got recommendations for alternative history books? Apart from Harry Turtledove?

[Monte Carlo]

Innuendo aside, anyone got recommendations for alternative history books? Apart from Harry Turtledove?

 

If you liked 'Fatherland' (which I love) you might enjoy SS-GB by Len Deighton, or Dominion by CJ Sansom. Both are set in Nazi-occupied Britain, although the ever-classy Deighton has the edge as far as I'm concerned.

[Oerwinde]

Reading Princess of Mars. I really liked the John Carter movie and the first 6 or so books are free on the kindle store so I snagged them. So far enjoying it, John Carter is much less everyman and much more well spoken and intelligent in the book than in the movie, but so far the movie kept pretty close to the spirit.

[Walsingham]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that the third Aliens movie was all about Sigourney Weaver's wish that they didn't make a movie "full of guns." Which was a bit rich after the second movie, but then again I'm not a libtard millionaire Hollywood actress.

 

WTF did she want to fight the aliens with? Bad language?

[Raithe]

 

 

 

Is it any good?

 

Can't say without having finished the book, I've read too many books that burned all their powder in the first third and then quality and information value dropped to disappointing levels. But so far its good.

 

 

I keep seeing this at the top of the page and want to put down "It's so good it'll make your head explode"....

[melkathi]

Finished reading Redshirts fairly soon after starting it. That probably means it was fairly good.. Or at the very least a pleasant read. Very Scalzi, if that is a thing to say about a book written by Scalzi. Like everything he has written besides the Old Man's War series, it is better than the Old Man's War series.

 

Had a good laugh at the fact that he deffinitly decided that if he can't come up with names, he will celebrate the fact and not hide it at all anymore. Some of the character names are Abernathy, Kerensky, Dahl... even Q'eeng is pronounced King...

[babaganoosh13]

 

I decided to look up Agatha Christie eBooks at Kobo.com. Her full-length novels run between $6.99 and $9.99.

 

Her last novel, Postern of Fate cost $1.99 when it first came out on paperback. The eBooks should probably cost no more than that considering it would have cost more then in those dollars to make that book, none the less ship it then it would to send me a digital copy now in today dollars (ignoring inflation.)

 

She died of old age almost 38 years ago.

Her only child died over 9 years ago of old age.

She has one living grandchild who's getting up there. She gave him "The Mousetrap." He's made millions from that alone.

 

There is no reason why these cost so much. There's no reason why the paperbacks cost as much as they do either today. They've about doubled in price over the last 10 years or so.

 

Ooooh a pet subject of mine!

 

Intellectual property rights. As you know, generally, they last for seventy years after the death of the creator (which was why they made 'The Great Gatsby' when they did, as F. Scott Fitzgerald's anniversary was that year).

 

Let's forget, for a moment, that ebooks are overpriced (which they are, especially from legacy / Big Five publishers). The author, with a legacy publisher, gets about 25% on an ebook and perhaps 12-15% on a physical copy (which is why I turned one down recently). I get 70% direct from Kindle. More and more writers are going indie for this reason*. I digress...

 

Nonetheless, with the likes of Agatha Christie, who would have been with a legacy publisher / imprint, they still have a residual interest. They nourished that IP, developed it, marketed it and squandered gazillions of dead trees. Furthermore, Agatha's lack of family notwithstanding, most of us have people we would like to leave some sort of legacy to. Including the profits from property we've created and established. That doesn't mean, however, that they need to be overpriced.

 

Legacy publishers are bleeding profit due to digital distribution. They stick their fingers in their ears and go nyah-nyah-nyah when faced with the reality. They make the music industry's reaction to digital look prescient, and make the Retreat from Moscow look like an orderly tactical withdrawal.

 

They will try to squeeze every last cent from every last IP in their back-catalogue, like a man in a lifeboat licking condensation from the rubber.

 

Ha ha ha.

 

* Google 'Scott Trurow and Joe Konrath' to see an indie author go hammer and tongs regarding the US author's guild if you are interested in this sort of thing. Trurow is fisked within an inch of his life by Joe, who is one of the most successful ebook authors around.

 

 

I have no problems with them retaining their rights. If I'm the grandson, I wouldn't want to see someone else make millions off of The Mousetrap play without getting in on it - especially considering she gave all of the rights for it to him when it was released when he was 9. They should get paid when someone makes a TV movie of one of her novels.

 

The novels themselves though - they had nothing to do with them. The grandson might have been a slight influence on some her latter ones in some way, but otherwise it's probably safe to say anybody else who was an influence to her whom in any way shape of form could have seen some of the residuals is dead. I can't imagine anyone is buying them at that price. Put the whole lot up for say $60, or other smaller bundles; I bet they'd see more money in one week than they have up to this point for all the digital copies they've sold.

 

Oh well, I'll see what good tweeting them does with my ideas.

----

I'm follower 10,100. I feel so metric.

[melkathi]

----

I'm follower 10,100. I feel so metric.

 

 

Better metric than binary

[Walsingham]

*off-topic comment about patrimony deleted*

 

I'm currently reading a rather weird book by an ex-SS man called Erich Stahl. I simply cannot believe it's non-fiction. The anecdotes he gives are far too pat, and illustrative of his views.

 

Yet, strangely, it's filed under non-fiction. Mind you, I did find it in a charity shop.

[WDeranged]

Catching up with Rincewind in Interesting Times, it's a comfortable read like most of Pratchett's work but my current mood is making most kinds of entertainment a chore.  I think I'm making a mistake in not reading the second book of The Aspect Emperor series, I've been trying to ignore it until the third book is released so I can properly binge but the temptation is making it hard to read less ball gripping stuff 

[Malcador]

Legions of Rome - light history on Roman legions and a blurb on what every legion with a record did, where they fought, etc.