Why e-books?

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

At least in the places I haunted back then I remember the PS3 being marketed with blu-ray as a secondary feature and it was certainly not Sony's flagship player by a long shot (that would have been the BDP-S1).

BDP-S1 was quickly supplanted by PS3 due to the console's superior BD feature set. I suppose you could say that BDP-S1 was the flagship on paper. In practice? It was the console.

Even in 2016 there are plenty of folks that are happy to play low rez DVD's and have no desire to upgrade to blu-ray (although blu-ray now outsells DVD). It wasn't until 2008 however that all major studios even started releasing movies on blu-ray (Universal & Paramount being the last).

Including me. I bought my first non-game Blu-ray disc last month (I've had a second-hand PS3 for 5 or 6 years, now ).

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I'm not familiar with her but I do know that Steven King and Charlie Stross, to name two, sell tie-in merchandise so yes, there definitely is a market for such things.

Stephen King and Arthur C. Clarke also had Stanley Kubrick turn their works into all-time classic movies. Why don't other authors follow that model?

Certain authors with a certain type of following are able to sell merchandise as a side business. That doesn't mean it will work as a dependable model for the bulk of authors.

I read all sorts of genre, niche and small press books. That doesn't mean I want to deck myself out in their t-shirts, hats and beach towels.

My mother-in-law is a Stephen King fan and is the type that would buy some merchandise. I'm a much bigger fan of horror fiction and follow Stephen King on Facebook. But I wouldn't buy merchandise. Much less from Clive Barker, Bentley Little, etc.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Stephen King and Arthur C. Clarke also had Stanley Kubrick turn their works into all-time classic movies. Why don't other authors follow that model?

So... what Charlie Stross stories did Kubrick turn into films?

But seriously, King and Clarke were well-known, successful authors before their stories were turned into films. Kubrick didn't make them famous; Kubrick adapted their stories because they were famous. This is true for most novels turned films. Hollywood studios tend to be unwilling to invest in unknown properties.

Certain authors with a certain type of following are able to sell merchandise as a side business. That doesn't mean it will work as a dependable model for the bulk of authors.

I read all sorts of genre, niche and small press books. That doesn't mean I want to deck myself out in their t-shirts, hats and beach towels.

I know some people who would.

I also know a few who wouldn't, not because it's not their thing but because they think Stephen King and Clive Barker are too mainstream.

It takes all kinds .

[Cinisajoy]

Actually, if anyone cares, 2001: A Space Odyssey was a collaboration between Clarke and Kubrick. The book and screenplay were written at the same time.
This is according to Arthur C Clarke himself.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ratinox

So... what Charlie Stross stories did Kubrick turn into films?

The point of course is that just because one author (or artist of any type) found a path to success doesn't mean that it is repeatable by everyone else.

Selling merchandise might work for some writers. Proposing it as a solution to the problem overall is unrealistic

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Actually, if anyone cares, 2001: A Space Odyssey was a collaboration between Clarke and Kubrick. The book and screenplay were written at the same time.
This is according to Arthur C Clarke himself.

Yes. Yes. Am well aware. My satiric point stands.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

The point of course is that just because one author (or artist of any type) found a path to success doesn't mean that it is repeatable by everyone else.

Selling merchandise might work for some writers. Proposing it as a solution to the problem overall is unrealistic

I didn't. It was a rebuttal to the assertion that near zero people would buy t-shirts and other merch for Ms. Diamond's stories.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

At least in the places I haunted back then I remember the PS3 being marketed with blu-ray as a secondary feature and it was certainly not Sony's flagship player by a long shot (that would have been the BDP-S1). It started out as more of a hey get this to play awesome games on, oh and by the way it also has the added benefit of being able to play blu-ray movies. A way to try and get the masses into their new format. It just turned out that the PS3 was a very good BR player and it did more and was cheaper than the dedicated player so it was the player that many started with. Not to say the PS3 was a niche product, but blu-ray itself, as a movie format, was at first very much a niche or enthusiast format much like Laser Disc was (although Sony was hoping it would take off as quickly and thoroughly as DVD too over from VHS), even some hard core theater hobbyists didn't jump right away due the the format wars.

Even in 2016 there are plenty of folks that are happy to play low rez DVD's and have no desire to upgrade to blu-ray (although blu-ray now outsells DVD). It wasn't until 2008 however that all major studios even started releasing movies on blu-ray (Universal & Paramount being the last).

Given that most Blu-ray plays will upscale DVD's when playing, there isn't a huge incentive to replace DVD's. I got a PS3 mostly to play blu-ray movies. That box finally gave up the ghost and now I have a generic blu-ray player. I find myself buying more movies via iTunes now that I can make backup copies, just for the convenience. Pretty hard to tell a difference between an HD digital movie and a blu-ray movie on my TV.