The Conversation with Nadine Matheson

Bonus Episode: Adventures in Publishing-Land Debut Episode

Season 3

Send us a text

Watch as a full video episode on YouTube!


Subscribe to Adventures in Publishing-land's own feed for future episodes or watch on YouTube!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the debut episode of Adventures in Publishing Land, a no-holds-barred exploration of the publishing industry's most fascinating developments, delivered with candor and insider perspective.

This week:

  1. The Unbound Saga continues
  2.  Authors hounded off social media - is it worth it?
  3.  Literary Estates and copyright - how long should it last?
  4. James Frey - the self-proclaimed literary bad boy is back, but should anyone care?
  5. Off Script - Nadine and Marco argue over the latest cinematic iteration of Superman

Articles

Unbound

1. Authors will not receive unpaid royalty payments 

2. Boundless position morally unacceptable

Social media bullying

Conan Doyle Literary Estate Deal


James Frey

I use AI because I want to write the best book possible 

Next To Heaven review

Marking the launch of the new Stet Podcast Network, hosts Nadine Matheson, Marco Rinaldi, and Tarek Ashk

Support the show

"Enjoying 'The Conversation'? Support the podcast by buying me a cup of coffee ☕️! Every contribution helps keep the show going.
https://ko-fi.com/nadinematheson

Don't forget to subscribe, download and review.

You can purchase books by the authors featured in our conversations through my affiliate shop on Bookshop.org. By using this link, you’ll be supporting independent bookstores, and I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you.

Follow Me:
www.nadinematheson.com

BlueSky: @nadinematheson.com Substack: @nadinematheson Instagram: @queennads
Threads: @nadinematheson Facebook: nadinemathesonbooks
TikTok: @writer_nadinematheson



Speaker 1:

Hello and welcome to the Conversation with your host, nadine Matheson, and I understand you're probably sitting there wondering why am I getting an episode of the Conversation on Monday afternoon? I normally get a new episode on a Tuesday and I know that we get coffee break samples on a Thursday. Today's Monday. Let me explain this is not the conversation. This is Adventures in Publishing Land. And if you're now wondering what Adventures in Publishing Land is, let me explain. So I have joined forces with Marco Rinaldi and Tarek Ashkenani, who are hosts of Page One, the writer's podcast, and we've come together to form a new network called Step Podcast and Step Podcast. Think of it as an umbrella, and both our podcasts the Conversation with Nadine Matheson and Page One will be underneath this umbrella and it's just a nice, convenient place where you can find us both.

Speaker 1:

But in addition to our own podcast, we thought that we would come together to do a fortnightly podcast called Avengers in Publishing Land, and Avengers in Publishing Land is where we take the opportunity to discuss all the latest news in publishing and our very first episode dropped today.

Speaker 1:

And in addition to listening to Avengers in Publishing Land wherever you find your podcast, you can also watch the full episode on YouTube. Now all of the links are going to be in my show notes and today I'm sharing our first episode with you and I really hope that you enjoy it and you can like, follow, share and subscribe to Adventures in Publishing Land. It's available wherever you find your podcasts. But also remember, the conversation with Nadine Matheson is not going anywhere. I will still be here every Tuesday having amazing conversations with my brilliant guests, and when season four starts in September, I will still be here every Tuesday having amazing conversations with my brilliant guests and when season four starts in September, we'll also have coffee break episodes on Thursdays in addition to your regular Tuesday episodes. Anyway, I really hope that you enjoy Adventures in Publishing Land, episode one and don't forget there will be a new episode of the conversation tomorrow with my guest, chris Bridges. Now enjoy.

Speaker 2:

Hi and welcome to the very first episode of our new podcast Adventures in Publishing Land. You may recognise us from other podcasts. I'm Marco. That's where you're meant to say. I'm Tarek. Oh, I'm Tarek. I don't live in Nadine. We've done this before. Honestly.

Speaker 1:

This is day one and I'm Nadine Matheson. Honestly, this is day one and I'm Nadine Matheson. Host of the Conversation podcast.

Speaker 2:

Yes, she even introduced her podcast.

Speaker 1:

I know what I'm doing, Terry.

Speaker 2:

Page one, the writer's podcast does. But yeah, on this podcast, we thought we'd combine our podcast experience and expertise, which we do have. Despite that, help is needed. Yeah, nadine has we're, we're rubbish. Yeah, and? And this podcast? The idea behind it is to look at the the latest stories in publishing. It's going to be every couple of weeks. I think that we're planning on releasing this, obviously. Obviously, we'll be releasing our own podcasts in between as well, and you'll be able to catch all of our podcasts together on a podcast network that we're calling Steppodcasts. But why don't we just get straight into the news section then?

Speaker 3:

So this section, we've got to have three news topics. Each of us is going to introduce a topic that we've found interesting in the last couple of weeks. Then we'll have a little bit of chat about it. So I'm going to go first and I'm going to chat about the whole Unbound saga which has been playing out in the news in the last few months and I feel it's a story which we might end up coming back to a few times saga which has been, uh, playing out in the news in the last few months.

Speaker 3:

and I thought, I thought I feel it's a story which we might end up coming back to a few times because it's kind of, you know, unfolding, but, um, I thought I'd start off with a kind of basic run through of what's actually happened for people who maybe aren't aware of of what the issue is. So unbound is a publisher, but it's crowdfunded, that's its whole. Publisher it was publishers a publisher, but it's crowdfunded, that's its whole. It was a publisher Spoiler spoiler it's crowdfunded, which is the first of its kind and only it probably won't be anymore now. And essentially, the way it worked was that readers would back every book that came out, and I was trying to find targets online and I found one person saying the target for their book was £20,000. So that was what they were trying to raise to get that book out, and the argument that they were making was that it's a model that gives voices to books that might struggle to be sold by a traditional publisher, because, you know, I suppose if they had a £20,000 limit, it goes out there. If no one buys it, they've still made money off it because it's is in the cost of everything. So that's that's the point of it, um, and there's a much less of a risk, etc.

Speaker 3:

So it launched in 2011 and it did have good success. At first they put books out. They were in bookshops. One of them, the wake by paul king's north, was nominated for a man man booker prize in 2014, and that was a big thing. It was the first crowdfunded book to be up for that award, so it was.

Speaker 3:

Everyone was like this is a very exciting model, but cracks started to show, and one evidence I found, for instance of many, was a book launch in 2024 where unbound organized a launch event and told the author six minutes before it started they hadn't been able to get any books to the event. And now I have to say part of me is like how would you get six minutes before it starts and not realise there's no books there? I don't quite know what they said it was, and she said she was emailed it as well. So I don't know, it might be a bit of an exaggeration there, but basically they didn't get any books for this person's book launch.

Speaker 3:

Now jump cut to January 25, 25, widely reported authors and freelance contributors working for Unbound had missed payments, so royalty payments that were owed to them weren't being paid, and Unbound announced they hadn't raised enough money in the previous year, they were restructuring and they ceased commissioning any new books. One author, tom Cox, said he'd been waiting for a payment for more than six months. Believes it's a five figure sum. So it's a lot of money, a lot of money.

Speaker 3:

It's a lot of money yeah, yeah, a lot of money. It's like tens of thousands that some authors have not been paid yet. Um, he, he got the rights back to his books. Unbound sent him 5 000 copies of his books for him to sell himself, which is just insane. Um, a month later, in february this year, unbound launched a magazine, boundless, which they raised over a hundred thousand for, and I was kind of as above, I could have spent a hundred thousand other things in a magazine which no one's reading anyway.

Speaker 3:

March now this is the big bit unbound go under administration. And it gets a bit weird here, because so unbound was originally founded by a number of people, including a man called John Mitchinson, and in January, when the issues first started happening, the CEO was replaced with someone called Archana Sharma. Now, in March, when Unbound goes into administration, they're bought by another company, boundless, which is a brand new full risk traditional publisher founded by John Mitchinson and Archana Sharma. So the original founder of Unbound and the new CEO both set up a new company to buy the existing company. So it was all a bit weird.

Speaker 2:

A phoenix company, essentially, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3:

So the latest update is May. Last month, sharma says the CEO says that all Unbound authors will not be receiving any royalty payments until Boundless is cash stable and at the same time John Mitchinson quits Boundless saying it stands as morally and financially unacceptable, which is the company he founded in March, two and a half months earlier, like bonkers. So you know it's a total mess and I think it's a story we're going to come back to, and I think authors are.

Speaker 2:

I've seen authors saying that they're owed 40 grand 60 grand.

Speaker 3:

I mean it's proper life changing sums of money not to be getting in a negative way, you know.

Speaker 1:

Well, the author you were talking about, the one who was sent 5,000 copies of his books. I'm sure it's the same author I saw on Substack, you know, trying to get people to buy his book, and he was continuously showing updates. Yeah, showing the stack like slowly, slowly going down. But you updates. Yeah, showing the stack like slowly, slowly going down. But you know, as a criminal lawyer in my head.

Speaker 3:

I'm thinking it's all just a scam.

Speaker 2:

It feels like a scam, right, it feels like a scam yeah, yeah, because I mean, I suppose, by forming a new company, what they're trying to do, I suppose, is say that they didn't buy the liabilities of the old company, so they don't know anything, or something yeah, yeah, I'm sure, I'm sure it's exactly like you know, I don't know enough corporate law. We're all lawyers or we're lawyers, and none of us are corporate lawyers. But I but I'm pretty sure you know you can I remember the phrase from from law school piercing the veil.

Speaker 2:

You know so if you're doing something like that, to pretend that you're actually, but it's really just the same people doing the same thing just to avoid liabilities, then then whether that's legal or not is questionable, but the problem is, sorry, gone, sorry, no, I was just going to say, putting that to one side, what you've got is a lot of people that raised it's the authors that actually raised this money for the company. You know. They raised all this money they wrote the books and they're getting nothing at the end of it getting shafted.

Speaker 1:

It feels like a scam because they're the ones raising all the money and how you know liquidation works when you're going into administration. When it comes to creditors, you're right at the bottom.

Speaker 2:

So when it's time for them to get.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, they're not. They're not going to be getting paid at all and I don't, I don't understand the whole why you would do the whole crowdfunding method in order to run a publishing company. Because some I think there's going to come a point when the accounting is just not.

Speaker 3:

It's just not going to balance. It's going to be less coming in. Yeah, it's so risky and all the crowdfunders who put their own money up to buy it they aren't getting anything back. It's always a risk when you crowdfund anything. If it doesn't happen, you lose your money.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think what can happen with crowdfunding, because I've seen it. You can probably just about see that I've got lots of shelves of board games here. I crowdfund board games, but what you often see with board game companies is that they'll have success, which then causes them to crowdfund something else and crowdfund something else. But it almost becomes like a Ponzi scheme which legally I'm not saying this is what's happened here, but you know they're relying on the next one to be bigger so that they can then publish.

Speaker 3:

I think that is what's happened here. It's a similar thing to that. They certainly said that the problems really started when they didn't raise enough money the previous year, and that was, and so I think that is a problem is when you're continually having to hit these targets every year and when you don't start doing that, then it just collapses because there's no financial base there.

Speaker 1:

I think I understand crowdfunding if you're doing it on an individual basis, because I've seen loads of self. You know independent publishers so not publishers, authors crowdfunding their own books and but the thing is they've grown their following, they've got their base, so they're continuously getting their that support and they're getting something. And you know the people giving them money. They're getting something out of it. But when you're running a whole company, I know which is what they're doing doesn't to me.

Speaker 1:

That doesn't make any sense. I can't see how it can be viable well, it clearly hasn't in the long term.

Speaker 3:

No, exactly, and I'm just very wary of the people behind it who are now coming out and saying this is morally unacceptable and I'm like well you've been in it from day one. I think it's just such a mess and I feel like, all with these things, it's the authors that are getting squeezed in the middle who are getting. I mean, there'll be people who, as you say, tens, 40, 50 thousand down, who are stressing about paying their bills.

Speaker 2:

I think they're even trying to see if they can get. It's not like a simple thing to get their rights back off this company.

Speaker 3:

You can pay for it and they simple thing to get their rights back off of this.

Speaker 1:

No, I'm sure it's not that sort of stuff.

Speaker 2:

You could pay for it, and they're having to get lawyers involved, which then costs more money. So it's, you know, it's a bit. It's a disaster for the authors. You've got to feel for them, because they must have felt. Oh well, it's an unconventional route, but I am there.

Speaker 1:

I've got books, and especially especially when you're looking back, and that's right, they had success and yeah, you know that I just feel like, when I just it's, you're taking advantage of people who are desperate yeah, they really are desperate to see their books out there and, um, I don't know, I can't remember what article it was um, oh no, it was a taylor. There was an article about taylor jenkin reeds in the. I think it was in. It was either in the time magazine or new york time, one of the two and the opening paragraph was saying that you know, there's 16 million submissions made to agents every year, so 16 million manuscripts going on to a slush pile. So you've got a group of people, not a group of people.

Speaker 1:

You've got a lot of people trying to find a way to rise above the slush pile, and they're seeing these, yeah, and they're seeing companies like unbound, where it's being crowdfunding, which makes it feel like it's all about. It's all about the people, it's about you, we care about you, and they think, okay, I can rise above the slush pile, I can get my book out there and, as you said, someone gets um, you know, nominated for the man booker prize. They see you, you know, it's all about a win, it legitimises it, yeah. Yeah and then. But I said it comes to a point, it's like how viable is it?

Speaker 2:

And it's cost a living.

Speaker 1:

Everyone can be giving you. I don't know how much a tenner every week.

Speaker 3:

So the article I read they raised £20,000 for one book. It was 700 people, which is People are giving a lot of money.

Speaker 1:

But what are they getting for that?

Speaker 2:

A t-shirt, if it was like any other crowdfunding you would get the book, but there will be other benefits Maybe you get a name in the back of the book or something like that.

Speaker 3:

I wonder if there was tiers that you could unlock. Yeah, exactly, I don't know. Some people are giving a lot of money over there. I just don't quite understand.

Speaker 1:

I feel it's all a bit. It's like those BBC One documentaries like Rogue Traders. I'm basically a little bit of a conspiracy theorist. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think everything is a scam. That's basically what I feel it's a scam.

Speaker 2:

It's a safe position to approach things. If you think it's a scam to begin with, then you're going in you're asking me for money.

Speaker 1:

Some random guy at the market came up to me and goes can you give me a tenner to help me make my book? I'd be like what, no?

Speaker 3:

I was caught by one of them. I was in Starbucks in New York years ago by myself. I was caught by one of them. I was in Starbucks in New York years ago by myself. I was in the queue.

Speaker 1:

They saw you coming.

Speaker 3:

They saw me coming and the guy came up to me and he was like, oh, I'm like 20 cents short of my coffee. And I was like, oh fine, there you go. And he took it and he was like, thanks, thanks, and he turned to his walk to the shop.

Speaker 2:

And I was like it was nothing. I mean, I didn't feel too bad, you need to get better at it.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, you could have got a lot more exactly. I had like 50 cents oh it's.

Speaker 1:

I think it's sad because, as I said earlier, it's like you know, it's hard.

Speaker 2:

It's hard and it's demoralizing, it's and it's heartbreaking at times, absolutely, I mean, I think you know and people look for different ways in whether I mean I think you know and people look for different ways in where there is but the trouble with if you want to self-publish yourself, that's a huge amount of effort and you know you're spending a lot of money with editors and I think what Unbound were saying was you crowdfund, but we'll get the editors, we'll design the book, we'll design the cover. Go, design the cover, we'll deal with distribution.

Speaker 3:

It's almost like a vanity.

Speaker 1:

It's in that vanity press ballpark, it feels too close to it, but it kind of avoids that whole vanity press like bad tag, because it makes it feel like it's a communal thing. We're doing it for the benefit of the whole.

Speaker 3:

And it's not. You're not stumping up your own money, You're raising money.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, you're raising money.

Speaker 3:

So it's yeah, you're raising money. It's just different enough, isn't it, that it still leaves a bit of a bad taste. So anyway, yeah, unbound Total Maze.

Speaker 2:

I suspect it's not the last we've heard of it yeah, no, indeed, I think, as you say, that as a story we will probably revisit in the future how are you going to sell 5,000 books?

Speaker 1:

because when I get sent proofs of my own book, I've got mine in a storage unit oh, because I'm like there comes my book, I'm gonna get buried with those things, probably killed and fall on me I got foreign editions of mine and so you get the proofs and then I'm like I, I literally I have no room, like I give them, give them away to the, to the community library, like anyone will take them, because so how are you going to sell 5,000? I know exactly.

Speaker 2:

You have to basically set up your own distribution network is is pretty difficult, but yeah, we will crowdfund, some kind of system where you like people, you sell your books. Why don't we set that's a good idea for business. Let's do that. This will for business. Let's do that. This will be our last podcast, because we're not going into crowdfunding distribution, but uh, yeah, we will come back to that story but, um, I think you wanted to talk to us, nadine, about, uh, something to do with the hunger games.

Speaker 1:

Oh, this, I don't know if it's good or it just makes me just feel like I do not understand what's wrong with people. So this all happened this week. So there's an author, an American author called actually she's not American, but she's based in America called Ali Hazelwood. That's her pseudonym. Um, in her other life she's actually a neuroscience professor and so Ali Hazelwood is her pen name, but she writes some romantic comedies and New York Times bestselling author Books come out, shoot to the top 10. Everybody loves her. So, anyway, this week it emerges.

Speaker 1:

I think she was on a podcast and she said that, when it came to the Hunger Games, that she was team girl. Who told her to say that? Because she said it? And then, all of a sudden, she gets this massive onslaught. She starts getting bullied on her Instagram, on all her social media accounts. How can you be team girl? She's out of touch, she's this, she's that and basically all these I'm trying to be polite all these people, all these people, basically they bully her of social media. Basically, they bully her of social media. She deactivates her account because she's expressed an opinion that she's team Gail and not team Peter, because she said Peter was kind of useless and if she had just stopped at kind maybe that would have been better.

Speaker 3:

Can I double check? I remember Peter who's Gail again.

Speaker 2:

Gail was Chris Hemsworth's brother, was it, oh, liam?

Speaker 3:

Hemsworth, is it again? Gail was Chris Hemsworth's brother, was it? Or Liam Hemsworth is it? Yeah, I've read the books years ago, but I can't is this the original book?

Speaker 2:

so yeah, originally, when you first meet Kat so it is her oh, they're the two love interests, right? Yeah, yeah ah, right, right, right, okay, okay, and Peter's the the so people went mad because, she chose.

Speaker 1:

They went mad. She had I'm reading the comments she had 600,000 followers on Instagram, wow, and someone said she couldn't work out how to deactivate her comments or to turn off the comments, so she just deactivated the account. And I'm like no, she's a neuroscience professor, she knows how to turn off the comments on her social media. She just thought the hell with this. I'm neuroscience professor, she knows how to turn off the comments on her social media.

Speaker 1:

She just thought the hell with this, I'm just deactivating everything yeah, but my thing was I don't understand how you can't recognize one. That is okay for you to have an opinion, and I don't understand why. Because there is this thing that some people feel that if you are someone in, if you have some kind of platform, you're in the public eye. So, whether you're a writer or an actor or musician, that you shouldn't. That that means you cease to have an opinion on anything, and that's where it all stems from. It's like why can't she just say she's team, what is it, teen girl? Why just take issue with that and then do bullying?

Speaker 3:

yeah, I never understand the whole fandom of. I mean because the one I always think about is the Jar Jar Binks guy who got absolutely atrocious mail and hate mail and campaign from fans who hated him and to the point where he was always thinking about suicide you know like it was dreadful and I never understand this. But this is what's almost worse in this example, because it's a made up thing, it's not even something she's done, it's a fictional thing that she's said.

Speaker 2:

It's not linked to her books and it's also books that have been out for ages. I'm surprised it created such a storm.

Speaker 1:

I don't understand why you would care so much. Because I mean, if someone said to me, um, like, okay, with my books, like with my main character, henry's got a husband and she's got her ex-lover and there's clearly a divide, people are definitely like they're against the husband. So when I've done polls on instagram like are you team robo? You are you esteem? Oh, are you team peluchier? They're going for team Pelletier. They don't want the husband. But no one's bullying people. You know it's just fun. But to just to drive someone off social media because you can't, it's a toxic fandom where the lines are.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and it shows that you know, it shows the dangers of you know social media can be really helpful for authors, particularly I think certain you know we've discussed this in our podcast certain genres of story have big followings and passionate followings on social media. I think you know romance particularly and it so it can be a force for good, I suppose, for the author because it can get you a big readership. But the trouble is, the bigger your readership you, the more and more careful you have to be about what you actually post, because then you get reactions like this I mean, I'm almost completely unrelated, but you're almost like scared to post anything.

Speaker 3:

If that's the kind of reaction you get from folk, then what? Where's the line? What do you? How do you know if what you're going to post is? I mean, I can see why you're like, fuck it, I'm not going to post anything because that's the reaction I get and you just hang off.

Speaker 1:

but it's just, it's just so, it's just so ridiculous. I just, I mean, you want, you want to have passionate readers, because you need readers to be invested in your books and to keep following you through with the next book, and the next book, and the next book. But they shouldn't then turn on you because you suddenly decided you know what? I can't stand EastEnders, I prefer Emmerdale. Oh my God, how dare you what if I turn around and say I haven't watched EastEnders for years? Oh my God, are you even human? It's like what? Why does that matter?

Speaker 3:

yeah, I don't, I just don't, it's just, it's, it's a viewpoint that I will never understand. Keeping that I, I don't even, I don't even get it, because it's not even like you're as we said, it's not even like she was anything to do with hunger game no exactly these are hung games, fat. It's like it's two different worlds. I've somehow pulled in this weird fandom into her orbit it's fictional, it's not even.

Speaker 1:

It's not okay. If you're expressing um an opinion about you know, political opinion. There's so much going on politically, I could understand. If you're like I can't believe, you know I get that this way I get it, but still it doesn't give you the right.

Speaker 3:

You're this way, I get it, but still it doesn't give you the right to no, no, no, but. But I get people being getting up in arms but or get annoyed. It's very emotive, etc. This is just it's fiction.

Speaker 1:

It's like people need to get a grip and step back from could you imagine I mean, I have no idea what the comments are, because you know that she's deactivated her account but can you imagine what someone must be saying to you if and for you to feel like I? I don't feel safe? That's what it comes down to.

Speaker 3:

You don't feel safe on that platform yeah, and it's also probably made much worse by the fact she's a woman. You know I can imagine the comments and the horrific stuff that's been said about her. Um, it just it's a kind of prime example of the the whole. Is social media a good force for good or bad, and stuff like that. I'm kind of like is it even worth it? Like, is it in the grand scheme of things, does it do anything at all?

Speaker 1:

you know I don't know. You know, you mentioned jar, jar banks and I was thinking when did um phantom menace come out? It was, was it.

Speaker 2:

It was 1990s it was late 90s, wasn't it?

Speaker 1:

yeah, yeah, so we're not even in well, I'm saying the early days. We're in the days when it took you like four hours to download a trailer, not even that 12 hours to download a trailer. Yeah, yeah, it's true no, not to what we have you're right.

Speaker 3:

The folk kept that inside. They kept that hatred burning for years until they were able to find an output oh, they were on the hotmail messenger board or whatever.

Speaker 1:

It was called MSN it was called.

Speaker 3:

MSN, was MSN around then? It was MSN or something yeah, I mean, george Everton is just a dreadful character, but it's not the guy's fault. No, it's not his fault. The only reason you're going mad is George Lucas. But, can you?

Speaker 1:

imagine if that was now, and they released that now and they had that much passion, passion that I hate for him.

Speaker 3:

Can you imagine it much passion, passionate hate for him, can you imagine?

Speaker 2:

it was the kid as well. Right, the kid nugget the yeah the kid got bullied.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, he quit acting pretty much yeah, it's like.

Speaker 2:

It's like with the, the last of us as well, um bella ramsey because she's going off social media because, like I, I read it will because I've liked the last of us, obviously. So reddit will show me various I think there's about 10 different subreddits for last of us, but some of them are just unhinged and they'll just yeah, stuff falls over face yeah exactly yeah, it's just well.

Speaker 1:

It's like, um, oh god, what's the? Is it how to train your dragon?

Speaker 2:

yes, yeah.

Speaker 1:

I don't know the characters. I don't know the characters. They've also. They had the characters. They did the animated movie. Now they've done the live action movie and I don't want to get it wrong. But one of the female characters they were basically complaining about her on social media, verging on bullying, because oh, she's supposed to have blonde hair in the book and now you've given us a brunette.

Speaker 1:

And you're like what the? I was going to swear? I'm not going to swear, but you're like what is wrong with you? What the fuck is wrong Seriously? What is wrong with you Seriously? It just I don't understand people, yeah.

Speaker 2:

No, I don't I just don't.

Speaker 1:

That's why I read it and I and I just thought you're not okay. You can't be okay if this is what you're getting passionate about.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. I can't imagine taking the time to do that, actually, as you're typing it out.

Speaker 1:

Why aren't you stopping yourself and thinking what? The hell I haven't bullied James Gunn. We'll get on to that. We'll get on to.

Speaker 2:

James Gunn later. But yes, so yeah, I wanted to bring up a different story, though, which was that there's a story that Simon and Schuster are going to publish new works based on Arthur Conan Doyle's characters, in collaboration with Conan Doyle's estate and we've seen something like this before with the Bond, the Ian Fleming estate and the Bond books and sort of officially licensed books and stuff like that and I think you know they're publishing an anthology which is going to feature you know great names. It's got like Kate Moss, anthony Horowitz, ac Cosby, joe Hill, vasim Khan.

Speaker 1:

Janice.

Speaker 2:

Hallett, you know lots and lots of great authors.

Speaker 2:

What I wondered was you know lots and lots of great authors. What I wondered was you know, because the Sherlock estate has Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright and they kept trying to hold on to bits of his character to try and stop some of the more recent films, like how he was portrayed in Enola Holmes, the Enola Holmes films, certain bits of his character and stuff. But you know it brings up that old thing about how long should a copyright be exploitable by the author's family. You know is Sherlock Holmes. Should the estate still have control over that or should it just be it's, you know, free?

Speaker 2:

for all and anyone can write stories about any of the characters.

Speaker 3:

I can kind of see both sides of the argument, to be honest. On the one hand, if I create something, why should, then why should my creation and the work I put into something, why should that just be allowed to go to everyone? After a certain amount of time I can kind of see the argument, but then another if you're dead. If I'm dead, yeah if I'm dead, but then.

Speaker 3:

But then see, if it was a physical thing, if it was a physical thing that I'd made like an art, piece of art, like an actual painting, for instance, that wouldn't just become available to anyone who wanted it. Like what, like?

Speaker 1:

but you could, it would you could bequeath it to a museum, isn't it? And then they also.

Speaker 2:

It becomes after a certain amount of time you can do prints of any, any artwork you want well, can you because?

Speaker 1:

it's a copyright it's the copyright thing.

Speaker 2:

No, I think what probably the issue is is that not necessarily the estates doing whatever they want with it, it's, it's the projects they choose to do, because sometimes I think it just feels like it's just exploitative yeah, and not in keeping with the true meaning of I don't know sherlock holmes or agatha christie, like it just moves away from the original intention I think, I think that's true and I think, when it gets down to sort of great grandkids having a say over these characters, it's like they didn't even meet them exactly what the hell do these great grandkids know about the character where, compared to people that might actually want to tell good stories with these characters and stuff like that, you know why should they still have a control over that at that point?

Speaker 3:

I suppose. I suppose it becomes like a company, right, it becomes like a shareholders in a company running.

Speaker 1:

But it's a company.

Speaker 3:

That's what it basically.

Speaker 1:

I mean they call them estates and it sounds like, oh, it's all very much all about family and keeping it within the family, but really, when push comes up, they are companies who decide and it's their business products and they're giving out licenses because it's all about generating income for the estates.

Speaker 2:

It can be for the good as well. I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here because you know some estates do manage it very well and are protective and protect it in a good way, you know, like the Tolkien estate, arguably. I mean I think they were extreme at some points, but you know they did protect it from being exploited into nonsense until although they didn't even like the films, I think, at the end of the day but the films, the films were a good, they allowed the films to be made and they were ultimately what? What a lot of people associate with Lord of the Rings now.

Speaker 3:

So yeah, I suppose, I suppose, I suppose you're right. When it comes to grandkids protecting something I suppose it was it becomes a kind of crazy question of how do you know what you're protecting? How do you know what the original artist would have wanted, necessarily? To do exactly, I think that does become a bit artificial, doesn't it? Yeah?

Speaker 1:

yeah, I think that's what I not I have issue with, but I I question whether, like, oh, we're going to be doing a new sherlock holmes book. I'm like from where, from how? You're just okay now we're going to be doing a new Sherlock Holmes book. I'm like from where, from how? You're just okay now, what you're doing. We're making something in the voice of how we think, but it's not as if you've got old material there. You know, you've got their notes for whenever it's basically a fanfic, isn't it?

Speaker 2:

Yeah it is, I feel, like it's fanfic I mean also if it comes out of copyright. There's nothing stopping the great grandkids of Conan Doyle or Fleming, or the people that created Superman or whatever, creating their own versions of it.

Speaker 3:

If they're so bound to the character, they can tell the stories as well, so I could write a James Bond versus Sherlock Holmes book, because they're both out of copyright.

Speaker 2:

I don't think Bond's out of copyright yet.

Speaker 3:

Bond's not out of copyright yet. No, it's not. I could do Winnie the Pooh versus Sherlock Holmes, mickey Mouse.

Speaker 2:

I don't think you could do.

Speaker 1:

Winnie the Pooh, but theoretically.

Speaker 3:

Winnie the Pooh is out of copyright. There was that horror film, yeah, oh yeah, it was Blood and Honey oh, yeah, and so is.

Speaker 2:

Mickey only the only steamboat, willy version of mickey mouse well, you could do.

Speaker 1:

You could still do early steamboat, I could do steamboat, steamboat, ricky with uh, versus with sherlock winning the poo. Yeah, investigating a sherlock case, you've got something. It's like it, just something. It gets to a point where the stuff that's being produced starts getting farcical, like when you give someone a license and you know it ends up on yogurt but that's what I mean.

Speaker 2:

Like I think, even though mickey mouse is becoming out of copyright, most people would associate mickey mouse with disney anyway, so and they'll trust the disney version of it more than other people coming out with it. Until someone else tells maybe tells a different version of it. That is better, but that's for the benefit of all ultimately yeah, but the whole, um, I'm saying dead people.

Speaker 1:

I'm very I'm simplifying it, sorry, I apologize, but you know the whole out. Um right, I suppose writing in the voice of someone who's passed, like I have an issue with the whole james patterson and michael michael crichton books. I'm like he's been dead since, yeah, but I can't remember 2000 and something.

Speaker 3:

What's the argument Patterson found, or has Mick Crichton's wife found a half-finished?

Speaker 2:

book in a drawer.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, a half-finished book. I know it's probably. I wonder how much truth to this, how much it is in marketing it probably was a post-it note. Yeah, I don't, I mean sorry I'm being terrible, but I have each eye, but I, I have yeah, and also, but it'll have patterson and crichton's name in it, probably neither of which have anything to do with the book.

Speaker 1:

At the end of the day, it'll be something else allegedly, allegedly, allegedly no, but allegedly like, hypothetically it's, it's something you would consider because, um, you know, if an author, if author a has been, it's been rumored or known that they use ghost writers and then they then suddenly produce a book and their names all over it and they've written that book or phrase, written that book in collaboration with mike smith, and mike smith's been dead for 20 years, I'm thinking some woman called deborah in stockport's written that book. How much did she get for it?

Speaker 2:

I mean it might still be a good book, but yeah.

Speaker 1:

No.

Speaker 2:

It's almost like it is almost like fictional characters that you're putting on the front cover to attract people to buy it almost.

Speaker 3:

It's all marketing. It's more selling exactly.

Speaker 2:

It's selling a type of story rather than the actual story itself.

Speaker 1:

I think I can probably accept the whole estates. You know having different licenses and extending the story with different authors. I think I can probably accept that than the other version of which is basically the James Patterson and the Michael Crichton.

Speaker 3:

That doesn't sit comfortably with me and I have to say there's part of me is like Mickey Mouse will eventually become free for anyone to do what they want. Part of me is like why? Why shouldn't Disney be able to maintain like that? Why, should that become open to anyone? It feels weirdly artificial. Why shouldn't it? Well, yeah, I know, but it becomes. Why should that?

Speaker 2:

become open to anyone. It feels weirdly artificial. Well, yeah, I know, but it becomes difficult. You're getting into difficult points because I think, especially in America copyright they start copywriting. That's why it's only the Steamboat Willie version.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I suppose that one example I guess is abroad they start copywriting different versions of Mickey. Mouse that looks like this, that's why they change the look of these characters and you can register and stuff, because the Seagulls, they lose control of Superman one of the families, I can't remember.

Speaker 2:

But yeah, they try and stop each new Superman film that comes out because they were suing. They were suing DC everyone's getting sued basically, they never seem to be successful.

Speaker 1:

America's system of copyright is different too. Yeah, I say mine, because you two are in scotland and I'm in england. But no ask, you know our copyright is. Yeah, but you don't have to, you don't have to register it, you don't have to file a form with the copyright division yeah, it's just as soon as you write it, copyright is deemed to be yours?

Speaker 3:

yeah, it's always been to being able to prove it, isn't it?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it's just about being able to prove it. I think in America you can actually file like filing, like registering a trademark.

Speaker 3:

You don't know, postcard is a new to yourself.

Speaker 2:

I think it's similar, but yeah there are obviously nuances internationally as well. But yeah, it's an interesting thing that you do wonder, because obviously there have been Sherlock Holmes books that haven't been done by the estate because he has been out to copyright the character for a while. So the estate is still trying to control part of it, even though other people are still writing and growing it.

Speaker 1:

Is he Peter Piperkin as well? I mean, I did copyright. I should remember it's 70 years after you die. I think it's 75,. Yeah, yeah, when copyright, that's when 75? Yeah, is it 75? Yeah, yeah, when copyright, but that's when it, that's when it finishes yeah, I mean, you know I'm dead and gone, I don't think I'll be too.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I know that's that's you know. For the purpose of it was to you know you protect copyright during the life because you need to earn, because you created it and you're 75 years gives it not only to you but also to your to your family to your, to your, you know, uh sons and daughters, and then potentially even your grandkids as well at that point. Yeah, so you know, they've had a good time to, to, to get money out of it, and they still can, obviously, like we say.

Speaker 3:

But I was. I was just um final point in this before I know we have to move on, but um, when, the when, barbara broccoli and michael g wilson, so you know they were obviously the Bond film side of things and that was very much like oh, the family keeping the family. You know, albert Broccoli did the old films and his son yeah, you know, is his daughter is his daughter-in-law yeah, daughter, okay anyway there's a family connection, keeping the family, it's nice.

Speaker 3:

And then Amazon bought MGM, but they kept the rights and was like it's good, it's good. And then, obviously, like six months ago, they were like, oh, if you give us a million or a hundred million, whatever, you can have the bond fully and you can make bond and oh, probably it was a long one and everybody was like up in arms about this.

Speaker 3:

Right, they were like, oh, amazon, amazon's not gonna, is not going to get Bond, they won't care about it they don't care enough about Bond they're going to write him in a way that's not true to his character and I was like have you seen some of the Bond movies? Absolutely awful, as if only the Broccoli's know what they're doing with Bond. Some atrocious Bond film is it? It's on his pedestal, his perfect character.

Speaker 1:

Do you think you would have had the same reaction if it'd been sold to I don't know netflix, or that would have?

Speaker 3:

no, you're right, I love it. I love it was anti-amazon stuff, it was it's that. Yeah, it's perfect because it's all wrapped up in that.

Speaker 2:

It's all, yeah, I think well, I think more if it had been, I think any of these streamers, but if it'd been sold to like A24 or something like that.

Speaker 1:

Oh yeah, I reckon they still would have complained, because they're like that doesn't fit in with the aesthetic of Bond. Yeah, yeah yeah, probably.

Speaker 3:

I would love to see them do a 1960s reboot like a speedy piece.

Speaker 2:

I'm sure you'll get it, don't worry. One thing Amazon will do is give you all types of Bond. There'll be a.

Speaker 3:

TV show yeah, maybe a TV show yeah, obviously, maybe a car getting made working in a factory with.

Speaker 1:

Doug Norton, yeah but I think about Reacher and I'm like they did a good job with Reacher. Yeah, they did, and I also, yeah, they did a good job with Reacher.

Speaker 3:

They've done a number of decent. I mean, they're just a platform they buy, they don't make the stuff the production company just sell to.

Speaker 1:

I didn't mind the first one that much. It's another form of distribution, isn't it it?

Speaker 3:

is Mr and Mrs Smith, if you've not watched that on Amazon Prime, that's genuinely terrific. Donald Glover.

Speaker 2:

Right, so I think are we doing one more News story, nadine, not so much a news story, but you read I don't know why it's Nadine.

Speaker 1:

I don't know why.

Speaker 3:

Basically none of us want to touch the barge because it's highly litigious.

Speaker 1:

Oh, no reviews. What was I talking about? Okay, so, and I'm going to do this in a very diplomatic, I won't get sued way. So James. It's the first episode could you imagine?

Speaker 3:

could you imagine these? This podcast is no longer available. Sued by every single estate of all corporate books well, the james fray um estate.

Speaker 1:

So james fray is this author who, early 2000s he wrote I'm saying I'm doing the quotes he wrote a memoir called a million. I think it's called a millionces, I think that's what it was called. Anyway, he writes his memoir and it's critical success, commercial success. I think Brad Pitt what interruptioned it, even though he pulled out at the end. But you know, everyone loves it. Oprah picks it for her book club shoots to the New York Times bestsellers list. It's amazing, you know, he's living the author's dream and then it emerges that he made up large sections of the book and then he's basically crucified everywhere oprah brings imagine. Oprah puts you on the on her show. You remember you got imagined back then. And even now you get the oprah book club stamp. Yeah it, you're catapulted. So oprah puts him on her show to celebrate him. Then she calls him back to basically ask him like, what the fuck were you doing?

Speaker 3:

like, you like him back at her show?

Speaker 1:

yeah, I would have gone on. I would have you're mad nope, I would have like, I've got. No, you don't know me, I've moved on. You can't contact me, I'm new.

Speaker 2:

Get it.

Speaker 1:

Let me just take my advance and disappear, I'm done. She gets him back on the show to ask him like what you know? What were you thinking? Like you lied to us because it basically his memoir was about his drug addiction and he talked about being in rehab and being arrested and all this stuff, and it never happened. So she called him back on the show and I was um, I can't remember. I can't remember what he said, but it didn't go well. So his career kind of goes down the toilet.

Speaker 1:

Fast forward to the present day, in 2023. So two years ago, he does an article and he talks about um basically using ai to help him write this book. But he's basically saying, um, I don't use what is it called generative ai, just help it. I just asked it to like give me suggestions and maybe like fix a sentence, but do it in my tone of voice. So that's in 2023. Fast forward to today.

Speaker 1:

He has a new book out called next to heaven, and then it's all up for on book fridge. It's always on book fridge like, how can he release this book? I'm not buying this book. And there's a company called book of the month in america. They made that book book of the month and there's a after, there's a review. He got reviewed in the times. The times basically slated it called it's like the worst book ever. It's the best review, so you need to read it. But my thing was right. He said in regards to this book so this book called next heaven, which has been released. He didn't use ai at all. But my thing was how can you accept that as being true when he's previously said in articles that he's used AI to help him write a book?

Speaker 3:

And he's made stuff up completely from scratch.

Speaker 1:

And Oprah called him out. So even if they hadn't slagged off the book, how can you accept what he's saying is true?

Speaker 2:

It's the danger of, as you say, as soon as you touch. You know that's another. There's all sorts of reasons that you shouldn't use AI as a writer, but you know that is one of the ones which is as soon as you start doing it and people know. Then they'll never know, whether you've used it in the future. No matter what you say, it's a difficult.

Speaker 3:

I think you'll never be able to get that off your no I think it's such a poison chalice ai at the moment that that to be associated with it in any kind of creative capacity I think it's such a dangerous move because even if, even if you are able to argue that you use in such a way that was completely justified, that it wasn't creative. But you know, whatever, I feel it's just such a dicey thing to say, to be out there that people are not going to ever rationally back you and all you're doing is inviting trouble, and I just don't think it's worth it at all to stick your head above the parapet in that sense, to be honest and I mean it's bad enough that you know you've said it in an article, even if you just said, okay, I'll just use it to give me some.

Speaker 1:

I need it to come up with a name for a fictional magazine in my book.

Speaker 3:

I mean, have you name generators and stuff for that kind of thing?

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So if you'd done that, maybe people could have been like, okay, maybe I could overlook it. But because you've got this history from 20 years ago where you lied in what's supposed to be a memoir and you were called out by not only oprah but the whole publishing world calls you out that you have to disappear. And then you, then you come back and I have to say like to say his line about.

Speaker 3:

I put something into the AI and asked it to rejig a sentence in my voice that very much feels like the AI doing the hard work for you. Surely the point of being a writer is that you are doing that part.

Speaker 2:

That is a part you have to do yourself. Surely that is writing. It is writing exactly what is the point in have to do yourself. Surely that is writing a sentence in your voice. It is writing exactly what is the point in writing? If you're not, you're not actually writing.

Speaker 3:

I feel a bit uncomfortable putting that much control into the AI and then have that much say over the final product. That seems like a lot, a lot of oversight that you're giving.

Speaker 2:

So yeah, I'm just going to wrap this bit up by telling you I've just looked it up On the New Yorker. The headline is James Frey's new cancelled guy sex novel is as bad as it sounds. So that probably sums up pretty well.

Speaker 1:

There I'm going to find a way because it's behind the paywall. The Times review, but it's a good one. But on the one hand I know we're going to move on, but on the one hand I was like I wish you'd taken that space that you'd given him and given it to another author. Like a new author, like a debut, a mid-lister sort of wasting like he's got a whole thing.

Speaker 2:

It's not even like a little block in a collection of like four reviews, he's got his whole review page it must be fun for book reviewers, though, because, like restaurant reviewers, they must like it occasionally when they come across a bad restaurant, because it really lets them go to town yeah, and with books, I suspect they don't want to do that too much, because you're, you're, you know, especially with new authors, you don't want to tear a new author book apart. Yeah but if it's someone that you can just attack, they probably enjoy it.

Speaker 1:

I don't know, but can I tell you what he said before? Just the last line in the review. It says um it says no one in the in the novel feels remotely real. The characters are dead, the language is dead and it says terrible things about publishing that this ever saw the light of day. It's also coming to a tv near you because phrase sold the screen rights before the. The manuscript.

Speaker 2:

There you go. That sums up publishing, modern day publishing in a sentence Brilliant, okay. Well, let's move on to this next section, which're calling off script, and just to wrap up the podcast. We want to talk about something that is unrelated to publishing news, just random things, and I think, tarek, you wanted to especially.

Speaker 3:

You just wanted to see me and Nadine have a fight so you guys, we're all comic book nerds, the three of us. I am much more of a Marvel man, and Marco and Nad. I am much more of a Marvel man, and Marco and Nadine are much more of DC folk, and so I could only have assumed that they shared my view, which I believe is a view of the general public, which is the Snyder. Stuff is absolute dog shit, and the new Superman film looks like a nice kind of breath of fresh air. But no, that was not the case.

Speaker 2:

No, well, so see, I actually think between the three of us I'm the most reasonable, because, are you?

Speaker 1:

trying to say I'm unhinged.

Speaker 2:

I 100% disagree. I didn't. There was aspects of the Snyder stuff that I quite liked. There's aspects that I think didn't work. I really really like the look of the new Superman film from James.

Speaker 1:

Gunn.

Speaker 2:

It's very comic book-y. So you know, I'm happy to watch all versions of this, but I don't think we all are, are we?

Speaker 1:

I'm sitting there pulling so many faces. Let's just say next month I will not be going to the cinema to watch it. I will be going to watch.

Speaker 3:

Jurassic.

Speaker 1:

World. No, I'm going to wait for it to come on digital download, because I'm going to watch Fantastic Four and I'm most likely to watch Jurassic World.

Speaker 3:

I know, look, I've got my little contact box, but you don't have to pick between them. Exactly I can. I'm such a DC fan of yourself to not see the cinema that feels like I don't know, but it's important for the new dc, for more dc films.

Speaker 1:

This has you know what I have. No, I have no issue with james gunn being given I mean given the keys to dc studios. You know they want to emulate marvel and do that. Good for them, Let them do that. I have no issue with that. I don't like James Gunn's style as a director. I just never have. I just feel he's been dying. He's been burning to make a Superman movie. He came out of that nonsense that was Brightburn. He's just been begging to make a Superman movie. Now he's got his chance. I could have respected him more if he'd. You know he's been given the keys to DC If he'd given it to someone else to write and direct without them, putting all his mates and his brother and his wife in it. So that's the one issue I'm a bit bitter.

Speaker 3:

Do you not want the person who's super passionate to be the one behind it?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, he's not being Batman and stuff, because he is handing that off, because he thinks he needs to.

Speaker 1:

I mean, look at the Penguin. I mean that just goes like. And even the new Batman. It wasn't my favourite, but I didn't mind it. No, I don't like James Gunn's directing style. I don't like the look of it. I just think it looks like a Poundland version of Christopher Reeve and a Poundland version of Henry Cavill, and he's just giving in to people.

Speaker 3:

What's your ideal? Look at the past Superman films. Who's your top? Where are you coming from in terms of what you like?

Speaker 1:

It's a generational thing. I will always love Christopher Reeve. He's my Superman, which I'm always love Christopher Reeves. That's always going to be. He's my Superman.

Speaker 1:

I'm fine with that. Yeah, I don't need. I don't need him and that whole aesthetic, even down to the musical score, to be replicated today. I'd rather I always feel like there's so much material within you know DC comics for them to do anything they want, but just to kind of feel like they're doing the same old thing over and over and over again, like I didn't even mind. I say that um, what's his name? Brandon ruth. I mean, superman returns movie was not the best. I mean the airport scene, it was terrible. So the airport scene, the airplane scene, was cool, but other than yeah, but other than that, it was terrible.

Speaker 1:

However, when they brought Brandon Ruth back for the Flash series and they did the crisis and they had the kingdom come, he was perfect he was perfect, so I appreciate that I even like Superman and Lois. I can't remember the actor's name it's so no, no, no not Dean. Cain. No, no, no, no, not Dean Cain, he's gone a little bit.

Speaker 2:

No, you mean the new one, tyler Hochi.

Speaker 1:

I think it's brilliant. Even though they've finished it now it's so good. I appreciate seeing those different versions of Superman, which is why I like man of Steel. I know Terry's like probably going to roll his eyes.

Speaker 3:

It's fine it's just I actually I liked Henry Cavill as Superman. I just I like Henry.

Speaker 2:

Cavill. Yeah, man of Steel was actually, I thought, the best Snyder film oh, it was 100%, it was the best yeah, I think downhill very rapidly from there.

Speaker 1:

I mean I do like the Snyder Cutter Justice League, but I feel with DC's problem was they didn't just trust their directors any of their directors, like the ones they originally chose. They chose to do the job.

Speaker 2:

I think there was a lot of interference. Yes, yeah, and that's the issue. And they're trying.

Speaker 3:

They were trying to become Marvel become marvel? Well, yeah, but I think also the lack of a kevin feige character at warner, I think was a problem you had all these people, committees ruling by. Oh, what's garden is doing? That that's doing really well. Let's throw some color in the suicide squad. And just these.

Speaker 1:

There's no one voice yeah, yeah, I think it is important to have I think that was the problem, because I was talking about this the other day, literally so much the other day with the whole, I think, the whole snyder things that they bought. If you bring someone like snyder in, you know exactly what you're getting like he did watch me, you knew exactly what he, so then you shouldn't be crying and throwing your toys out of the pram when he gives you exactly yeah, that is a fair point and then.

Speaker 1:

But then they're looking at marvel. Marvel studios did brilliantly before dis Disney took them over. But then you know it's another story for another day. But you know they're looking at Marvel and they're thinking, oh, we need to be exactly like Marvel. It's like no, you don't. Your comics aren't like Marvel. You just need to be like DC and just have confidence in the people you're bringing on board to do their job.

Speaker 3:

I'm looking at the big stuff that DC have done recently that I've really enjoyed. It's been the stuff where it's been. You've let a creator have free reign to do their own little like Matt Reeves' Batman I thought was brilliant. Todd Phillips' Joker I haven't seen the second one. I know it's meant to be crap. The first one I thought was fantastic and letting them have the freedom and not be constrained by an overarching shared universe. But you've just. That contradicts exactly what you've just said. No, because in those examples you had that like vision.

Speaker 2:

You had someone but you didn't have a fight, you didn't have one person no, no, no.

Speaker 3:

But I think if you'd said, like Todd Phillips or someone, do a Joker verse or something and let him do it. You know, but I think both Matt Reeves and Todd Phillips were given creative control to do it themselves.

Speaker 1:

I think my argument has always been you've got multiverses, you know what I mean. You don't have to stick to one particular theme. You're justified in giving us so many different versions.

Speaker 2:

But I'm just not keen on Gunn's version to be fair to Mr Gunn, he has done that, hasn't he? He's saying that the Batman Matt.

Speaker 3:

Reeves stuff he has. He says that these are Elseworlds movies. Robert Patterson's not going to be the Batman of it.

Speaker 1:

No, but Matt Reeves' Batman was happening and Joke was happening way before James Gunn got told where the toilets are at DC Studios.

Speaker 2:

I'm just saying about how it is now organised. But anyway, we will see. Probably the movie will come out to terrible reviews and you'll be proven right, but I'm looking forward to it.

Speaker 1:

You know what, if it does well, I'm not going to be like, and if it fails, I'm like. I may say I told you so, but I'm not going to be like. Oh my god, and you know, people, they do want, they do want that sort of aesthetic, so they'll love it.

Speaker 2:

I think it might fail, because I just think Superman's a very hard character to do well, and also I think people are a bit burnt out in superheroes and they're also very cautious about DC films generally, which is annoying.

Speaker 1:

That upsets me as a DC, as a co-book fan, because I love the comics.

Speaker 2:

But I think it'll do reasonably well.

Speaker 3:

I don't think it'll be like. I mean, marvel can have gone downhill quite a bit the last few years, but you're right, I think we might talk about it next time, but I think it's that whole superhero fatigue, yeah.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. That's why I say you need to be giving people something different and sticking with by your convictions.

Speaker 2:

One thing before we wrap up, just related to what you said about Brandon Roof. These sorts of things show me what a different script or director makes, because I saw a deleted scene from. This brings us back to the George RR Binks thing. There was a deleted scene from the prequels that I saw this week that had characters that are now in Andor the TV show, which is brilliant, like Mon Mothma, and it was the same actors and stuff.

Speaker 3:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

They were awful in it. Like just the acting and the line delivery was terrible. And compare that to her performance in Andor, where it's just. I think she's been the best things in the series. It just shows you the difference a good script and a good director can make.

Speaker 3:

To casting Wait sorry, is it the same actress in Andor that was in the prequels?

Speaker 1:

I haven't watched season 2, yet I've been saving it. Oh, it's so good.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, we just finished watching season 1 again. It's phenomenal.

Speaker 1:

The prison scene, the breakout scene, the, the prison.

Speaker 3:

It's the wee mini arcs. I love the wee mini arcs.

Speaker 2:

The mini arcs and the monologues throughout the whole season.

Speaker 1:

I think like when you watch a good movie, you watch a good TV series. As writers, it makes you think about your own writing and how you want it to come across and be interpreted.

Speaker 3:

And they do. They have like two episodes to flesh out a group of people, mercenaries, and and and they do so quick, like andy circus, and inflict two episodes. But yeah, he's such a big character, like you you know they do so much with them in that short time it's really well written stuff.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it is, but we can maybe have a discussion about andorina once you both watch season two. Let's do that.

Speaker 3:

Let's do that yes, let's do that yeah I'm not superman we just forget the book stuff and just chat about comics. Yeah, exactly, yeah, let's do that I'd love that one day.

Speaker 1:

One day, let's do a comic book episode.

Speaker 3:

Yeah you have to watch superman though um, yeah, but I think we better wrap it up.

Speaker 2:

This is going way longer than I think we originally planned, but it's been good. Hopefully we've enjoyed it.

Speaker 3:

I don't know if people as long as that's been there, okay exactly, um, but yeah that's what james gunn said.

Speaker 2:

I don't care about thanks, uh, thanks for everyone for tuning in for this first episode. Uh, I'll do the usual youtube, you know, follow, subscribe, thumbs up, all that sort of stuff and tell lots of people about it. Because it is a new podcast, as I say, you can go to the state podcast we're gathering at our podcast, the page one ones, nadine's conversation and coffee. Uh, what is it? Coffee break, coffee break, yeah, yeah, you'll be able to find them all in one place on youtube and obviously you'll still be able to get them as you were getting them before as well. But, uh, yeah, an an exciting new partnership. We hope, and we hope you enjoyed this episode and we'll be back, hopefully in a couple of weeks or so, with another episode of these adventures in publishing land. Bye.

People on this episode

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.