just back from seeing the, somewhat bloated, last part of the harry potter movie series. i am not overly keen on the films - they are ok, they have some nice visuals in them. they are long.
i have never read the books. i am not likely to. it is not that i have anything against children's books. it is just that the books get increasingly larger and longer.
there was a time when i was excited when i got hold of a large paperback - the thrill of reading dune, lord of the rings or the stand. stories that went on for 4 or 5 hundred pages. epic.
same with movies - it it was two hours plus then you knew it was an event movie. something special.
now every paperback seems to weigh in at 300 or 400 pages and in the large format. no more the classic paperback format (pocket sized) and 200 pages.
now ever movie seems to be two hours plus.
and now it is no longer special.
now it becomes a chore, an endurance test.
some movies become numb bum evenings where fidgeting is the order of the day.
some books are so obviously padded that they are more filler than they are filling. authors talk about editors who want a three books series or only want a book if the author puts in another 100 pages or so.
i have no idea why they want to do that. smaller books seem to be the way to go. why? think of it this way if they can knock out a 500 page novel each year, they could do two 250 pages novels a year. twice the sales. already i have made it a winner. smaller books means more on the shelves, means less restocking, means more sales (just go into a sainsbury's that sells books and there will always be at least one of them that does not have a book or two on the shelves). or how about: if it takes me a month to read a 500 page book i am only going to read 12 books a year. make them shorter and i will read and buy more. (ok in my case that is a pointless assumption as i buy books in the full knowledge that i will probably never read them, but i just have to have them).
movies are the same. filled with padding and fluff. a 90-minute movie (the almost perfet length) gets turned into a two-hour plus itchy bum fidget fest. the longer the movies the fewer times they can be shown in the cinema. the fewer times they are shown the less sweets that can be sold. comedies that have two jokes in them stretched to over 120-minutes; acton films that have a smidgen of action but two hours of story; art house movies that redefine what it means to watch paint dry.
smaller is often better.
it is also more profitable.
and i wonder why they don't have me running a publishing company...
(well it might be that a line of books involving girls in skimpy costumes running around the world blowing things up might not be times bestseller material - but it darned well should be....)
i have never read the books. i am not likely to. it is not that i have anything against children's books. it is just that the books get increasingly larger and longer.
there was a time when i was excited when i got hold of a large paperback - the thrill of reading dune, lord of the rings or the stand. stories that went on for 4 or 5 hundred pages. epic.
same with movies - it it was two hours plus then you knew it was an event movie. something special.
now every paperback seems to weigh in at 300 or 400 pages and in the large format. no more the classic paperback format (pocket sized) and 200 pages.
now ever movie seems to be two hours plus.
and now it is no longer special.
now it becomes a chore, an endurance test.
some movies become numb bum evenings where fidgeting is the order of the day.
some books are so obviously padded that they are more filler than they are filling. authors talk about editors who want a three books series or only want a book if the author puts in another 100 pages or so.
i have no idea why they want to do that. smaller books seem to be the way to go. why? think of it this way if they can knock out a 500 page novel each year, they could do two 250 pages novels a year. twice the sales. already i have made it a winner. smaller books means more on the shelves, means less restocking, means more sales (just go into a sainsbury's that sells books and there will always be at least one of them that does not have a book or two on the shelves). or how about: if it takes me a month to read a 500 page book i am only going to read 12 books a year. make them shorter and i will read and buy more. (ok in my case that is a pointless assumption as i buy books in the full knowledge that i will probably never read them, but i just have to have them).
movies are the same. filled with padding and fluff. a 90-minute movie (the almost perfet length) gets turned into a two-hour plus itchy bum fidget fest. the longer the movies the fewer times they can be shown in the cinema. the fewer times they are shown the less sweets that can be sold. comedies that have two jokes in them stretched to over 120-minutes; acton films that have a smidgen of action but two hours of story; art house movies that redefine what it means to watch paint dry.
smaller is often better.
it is also more profitable.
and i wonder why they don't have me running a publishing company...
(well it might be that a line of books involving girls in skimpy costumes running around the world blowing things up might not be times bestseller material - but it darned well should be....)
No comments:
Post a Comment