Penguin House pulling all titles from Unlimited Services

[DiapDealer]

Which authors does KU "cheat"? The ones who voluntarily sign up up for KU for a limited period? Or the ones whose publishers sign them up for KU for a limited period? Are all the details about how KU pays kept secret until these poor, abused authors (or their publishers') voluntarily sign up?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Unlimited [...] subsides heavy readers at expense of low consumption subscribers.

By definition, all unlimited/all-you-can-eat plans do that, whether for books, music, videos, talk time, texts, data plans, food and drink or access to venues.
Subscribers have the choice to join or not. They know the price in advance, it doesn't change.
You don't have to bring up any perceived bad behaviour of Amazon in every thread they appear in.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Maybe if you've read the books (or have someone sitting next to you who has read the books keeping you up to speed). Otherwise it's a hot mess of jumbled, unintelligible timelines and a merry-do-round of confusing characters that leaves one wondering WTH they just witnessed (and why people are raving about it).

Don't get me wrong. I wanted to like the show, and I get what what they were trying to pull off RE the timeline-complexity, but not having any forehand knowledge of the books, the games, or the Witcher universe in general, the wheels still just completely fell off the bus for me.

It's great that pre-existing Witcher fans have something new to love, but great adaptations don't rely so heavily on viewers having already read the books (or played the games) just to keep up.

Sorry for the slight derail... carry on.

Actually, the (first) books *are* a merry-go-round of confusing characters and scrambled timelines.



The first two books are anthologies and the "saga" really gets going with the third book. The first season actually linearizes the stories. Plus, title aside, Geralt isn't even the main character of the series.

If you want to try again:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...Witcher_series

Tastes vary but I found the triple storylines a good reflection of the three characters' importance and the final twist aligning the timelines clever. A purely linear timeline would mean Geralt doesn't show up for at least two episodes (Yen is over a hundred years old) and Ciri (who is younger in the books) until the penultimate episode. The other alternative would've been to start near the end and run most of the series as flashbacks.

The way they did it featured most of the short stories and set the stage nicely for the triad to assemble.

My main complaints are two much Jaskier and having to wait two years for the next season. Loved the cliffhanger, though. "Who is Yennefer?"

Adapting books is always complicated and adapting an anthology more so.

That is why I'm skeptical about the announced adaptation of Foundation, which isn't a trilogy of novels but a three anthology collection of standalone stories set in a common framework.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

That is why I'm skeptical about the announced adaptation of Foundation, which isn't a trilogy of novels but a three anthology collection of standalone stories set in a common framework.

Look how well it worked out for I, Robot

Asimov is tough to adapt to movies or TV. His work just isn't cinematic. Though I do have a soft spot for the Bicentennial Man film. Not a great movie, but at least it didn't crap all over Asimov the way that Will Smith vehicle did.

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Unlimited cheats authors and subsides heavy readers at expense of low consumption subscribers.
It also fuels Amazon's almost monopoly, also it & Prime encourage dishonest advertising of titles as "Free".

Is someone forcing those authors and publishers to use the KU program? If the authors are being cheated, does that make those of us who subscribe to KU complicit in the abuse of those authors?

I happen to really like KU, and easily read 3-5 books per week. How am I reading at the expense low consumption subscribers? How am I being "subsided"?

If a program doesn't meet your needs, as an author or as a reader, don't sign up. It's like anything, joining a gym, swim club, golf club. Many do sign up and then don't really make good use of what is offered. But the onus for that is on those who sign up.

It's not like heavy readers pay less to join. They may garner more value because they use it more, but that wouldn't change just because another subscriber drew less value from the program.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Tastes vary but I found the triple storylines a good reflection of the three characters' importance and the final twist aligning the timelines clever. A purely linear timeline would mean Geralt doesn't show up for at least two episodes (Yen is over a hundred years old) and Ciri (who is younger in the books) until the penultimate episode. The other alternative would've been to start near the end and run most of the series as flashbacks

You're actually proving my point for me. Everything you're mentioning is predicated on you already KNOWING ALL OF THAT BEFOREHAND!

Spoiler:

To many others (myself included), the fact that all of the different substories' were playing out on different timelines (though each were linear on their own) was not at all clear. And when it became clear in the final episode, it was too late to unmuddy the waters of what came before.

There's such a thing as trying to be too clever, and/or too intricate. I love non-linear story-telling, and I pride myself on being able to keep up with the most intricate plotting and time-line jumping an author/director can throw at me. I seek it out regularly. But that's usually equal parts me and the story-teller's abilities when it "works". In my opinion, they did a poor job of allowing me (and any utter newcomer, really) to ever get--and stay--with the program.

The bottom line is that it's not my fault the adaptation had its work cut out for it in combining the salient points from several different short stories (and multiple timelines spanning 90+ years) into one "coherent" presentation. As a complete newcomer to the Witcher ouvre, I shouldn't have to have it explained to me why the series it had to be the way it was. I should have been able to just "get it" from what I was given. And that's on them, not me.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I happen to really like KU, and easily read 3-5 books per week. How am I reading at the expense low consumption subscribers? How am I being "subsided"?

Same. I've found some favorite series on it that I then end up buying just to make sure I own for re-reads. I wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of these books otherwise, so KU does have benefits to many independent authors. As for how many were available with Penguin House (perhaps none other than some classics?), I think it's more of a reaction with Audiobooks with Scribd that is bugging me personally about this.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're actually proving my point for me. Everything you're mentioning is predicated on you already KNOWING ALL OF THAT BEFOREHAND!

Spoiler:

To many others (myself included), the fact that all of the different substories' were playing out on different timelines (though each were linear on their own) was not at all clear. And when it became clear in the final episode, it was too late to unmuddy the waters of what came before.

There's such a thing as trying to be too clever, and/or too intricate. I love non-linear story-telling, and I pride myself on being able to keep up with the most intricate plotting and time-line jumping an author/director can throw at me. I seek it out regularly. But that's usually equal parts me and the story-teller's abilities when it "works". In my opinion, they did a poor job of allowing me (and any utter newcomer, really) to ever get--and stay--with the program.

The bottom line is that it's not my fault the adaptation had its work cut out for it in combining the salient points from several different short stories (and multiple timelines spanning 90+ years) into one "coherent" presentation. As a complete newcomer to the Witcher ouvre, I shouldn't have to have it explained to me why the series it had to be the way it was. I should have been able to just "get it" from what I was given. And that's on them, not me.

Well, not all of it.
I binged it with my sister over the holidays. One day.
All I did was point out that the series logo reflected the pendants of the three characters because they were all important.
It takes a while to sink in but eventually you catch on that the Yennefer timeline is over a century, Geralt's is a couple decades, and Ciri's but a few months.
Not immediately obvious but if you stick with it you catch on...eventually.

It's a lot like the WATCHMEN show. They both tease you, they both demand attention to detail and they both do weird things--from a TV point of view-- but in both cases they payoff is good. It all makes sense. If you stick with it.

With Witcher the biggest ask was the, apparently filler episode of the dragon hunt. Which was actually important in aligning the timelines for Geralt and Yen.

One of the good thing about streaming series is they're not constrained by the lowest common denominator thinking of tge broadcast networks. It does open the door to gratuitous nudity and sex, especially in european co-funded shows, but it does give creators a lot of latitude in pacing, episode count, and narrative twists.

They demand more of viewers but it usually pays off.

Another example of this is in THE BOYS over on Prime. The final reveal at the end of the first season changes everything we were led to believe (but was properly foreshadowed) and totally undercuts Butcher's rationalization for what he does.

Viewers need to put more in to get more.

As I said, it's not for everybody.

Your gripes are fair, especially if you stopped partway through.

But these shows are built for bingeing unlike, say, THE MANDALORIAN, DOOM PATROL, or TITANS, which are all excellent but more episodic in nature and thrive on making the viewer wonder what comes next.

This dichotomy between shows designed for bingeing, like a singoe massive novel, versus the serialized ones, like an anthology of novellas is only going to grow as streaming originals become the mainstream of video.

Me, I'm looking forward to the more complex shows.
Next up, I'll be hitting HIS DARK MATERIALS. I tried the first and quickly realized it needs bingeing. In the meantime, I'll get by with HARLEY QUINN. Crass, funny, and surprisingly deep for a crass animated show.

I'm loving the streaming era, even if it means I'm reading less.

Only so many eyeball hours, after all.

Something the penguin had better take into account if they do trot out a streameing service. Streaming is a very different business than what came before.
(So yeah, it all stays on topic. Barely. )

[DiapDealer]

You seem to be under the impression that I didn't "stick with it." I did. I binged it all. Diligently. Alone. Hoping against hope that it would all pull together. It never did. It wasn't a matter of not being "for me." I like the milieu. Many characters were enjoyable.

Complex, I enjoy. Heck, I'd go as far as to say labyrinthine is my bag. It's "neener, neenering" those out of the know until the very end that I don't care for. It wasn't complex. It was mayhem with easter eggs scattered around for pre-existing fans and boobs for all the rest.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Look how well it worked out for I, Robot

Asimov is tough to adapt to movies or TV. His work just isn't cinematic. Though I do have a soft spot for the Bicentennial Man film. Not a great movie, but at least it didn't crap all over Asimov the way that Will Smith vehicle did.

For your sake, I hope you never started to watch NIGHTFALL. I paid good money for those 15 minutes. Almost threw up.
And Nightfall is structured like a noir mystery; it shouldn't be hard to adapt.
But it does require two working brain cells.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

One of the good thing about streaming series is they're not constrained by the lowest common denominator thinking of tge broadcast networks. It does open the door to gratuitous nudity and sex, especially in european co-funded shows...

You say that like it's a bad thing? Frankly, Americans attitude toward violence vs. nudity in media baffles me.

I remember being in a GameStop and seeing an angry mother and her embarrassed preteen son come in. She berated the clerk about the content in Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball (which features jiggly women in bikinis playing volleyball) until they allowed her to exchange it. The kid picked out a Mortal Kombat game (a series which features extreme levels of graphic onscreen brutality and violence). The clerk warned her of the violence and she had no problem with it.

Weird.

[fjtorres]

Some clarification from the randy penguin:

Penguin Random House has decided that at this stage we will not participate in unlimited access subscription models. Our decision was made collectively by the company’s international leadership team to preserve a diversity of content in the marketplace and the actual and perceived long-term value of our authors’ intellectual property.

Via:

https://the-digital-reader.com/2020/...cess-services/

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You say that like it's a bad thing? Frankly, Americans attitude toward violence vs. nudity in media baffles me.
.

Remember the word "gratuitous"?
It applies to both violence and sex if they have no story reason to be present.

A lot of those shows go out of their way to feature nude actresses, for no story reasons. Rarely do nude actors get the same focus. Even action flicks rarely linger on gore that strongly.

It's one thing if the story calls for it, but just throwing it in for no reason?
You may be wondering about the wrong side of the Atlantic...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You seem to be under the impression that I didn't "stick with it."

Sorry for misreading your gripe.
To be honest, I was only generally familiar with the series before watching it.
Read the books afterwards.

Still don't like Jaskier.
Reminds me too much of the Ted Raimi character on the Hercules show.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A lot of those shows go out of their way to feature nude actresses, for no story reasons. Rarely do nude actors get the same focus.

I do agree that is skeezy.

Even action flicks rarely linger on gore that strongly.

I'd like to point you to any Quentin Tarantino movie.

You could argue that any nudity or violence is gratuitous. Some of the greatest films of all time were made under the Hays code.

I love horror movies, especially the George Romero zombie movies and Sam Raimi's Evil Dead movies. I'm not a prude or calling for censorship. I just always thought the dichotomy between sex and violence in the States was strange. (I can only talk about the US as that's all I'm familiar with.)

At any rate, I don't mean to derail the thread. I'll let it go.