Clive Cussler really, really dislikes Sahara
Today’s LA Times has a lengthy article about Clive Cussler’s lawsuit over SAHARA. It’s a fun, gossipy read, partially because I’ve had beers with many of the people involved:
- Josh Oppenheimer and Thomas Dean Donnelly are classmates of mine,
- James V. Hart often works at the same Sundance labs,
- and the estimable Josh Friedman’s anal canal gets a shout-out. (At this point, 47% of my readers click over to the story.)
For those who don’t have time to read the article, I’ll summarize the moral: be very careful when adapting the work of living authors. Particularly when they go on about how much they hate Hollywood.
Cussler had unprecedented and frankly unconscionable control over the adaptation. He bitched and bullied and couldn’t be placated. And if the resulting movie was less-than-stellar, well Mr. Cussler, three fingers are pointing back at you.
But on another level, I get it. Screenwriters are used to seeing their material altered, mangled and reinterpreted. Screenwriting is part of a process, and the craft can only support medium-sized egos.
The novelist, on the other hand, is God. And God doesn’t like to be told he’s a crotchety old jerk who’s been coasting on a mediocre franchise for years. I sympathize with Cussler’s dilemma: he wanted a big movie to bring new readers to his books, without any risk of the cinematic version replacing his literary one. Dirk Pitt has black hair, damnit! It says so here on page two! He wanted Hollywood on his terms.
Have fun with that lawsuit, Mr. Cussler.
My own experiences with adaptations have been more positive. (How couldn’t they be?)
For A WRINKLE IN TIME, Madeleine L’Engel functioned through a trusted producer, and while I had some significant disagreements over what plot points really needed to stay or go, at least I wasn’t arguing with the author. BIG FISH was a love fest from the start, with author Daniel Wallace so intrigued by the screenplay form that he became a screenwriter himself. And CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY was made with the blessing of — and little interference from — the Roald Dahl estate.
What lessons should an aspiring screenwriter take from the SAHARA debacle? For starters, remember that the unhappy stories get press simply because of the train-wreck factor. Most times, the author and screenwriter have a decent relationship — if they have one at all. A smart novelist remembers that the existence of a movie doesn’t change anything about the book sold at Barnes and Noble. And the smart screenwriter remembers to praise the author at the press junket.
Filed under: Adaptation, Big Fish, Charlie, Film Industry, Los Angeles, Projects
December 8th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Interesting since Mr. Cussler barely even writes his own books. From what I UNDERSTAND, he has several writers writing different sections of the book only to take the final run-through himself to give it a VOICE.
But… Now that I think about it… That may be the very reason he wants to make sure Dirk has black hair.
It’s hard to respect someone like Cussler when it was discovered that he was the one that leaked to the press that Stallone was interested in playing Dirk Pitt when Stallone was never interested.
It’s ALL ABOUT THE HEAT, Baby…
Unk
December 8th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
What a shame, because the movie was great, and it’s one of the few where I was looking forward to sequels. Maybe they’ll still be able to continue the film franchise with the same actors, but under a slightly different premise and with different names so it technically isn’t a Cussler adaptation.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Come on now, have you read the book and then seen the movie John? I have, and I believe that Sahara was not a typical case of adaptation woes. We’re not talking about having to leave out half the book or more because of time constraints, we’re talking about a film that took maybe two-and-a-half elements from the book total and then made up the rest. The movie isn’t even really an adaptation, there is no possible way it could qualify. It’s almost entirely original.
Cussler had every right to be infuriated, just look at the result. The movie did poorly in the box office and barely took more from the book than its name, while the studio blatantly violated its contract by giving him script approval only to ignore him completely.
That single book probably made more money for Cussler than the studio makes in profit in a year. Like it or not, it had a proven story with a great lead actor and honestly I thought it was a beautiful shoot and a fun movie to watch, the problem was it simply wasn’t a story I’ve ever seen before because they friggin made it up.
The lesson to be taken away from this is that studios can’t be trusted under any circumstances — ever — even if you have the contract written in their first born’s blood.
If they didn’t want him to have script approval, than they shouldn’t have given it to him in his contract. If they didn’t want to adapt his book into a film, then they shouldn’t have bought the rights.
For the work he put into that book and the obvious success it has enjoyed, he deserves every penny he can win and hopefully it will serve as a lesson to studios that contracts need to be honored, whether it’s working to their advantage or not.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Sahara was truly awful.
When watching that movie, I couldn’t believe how poorly the production was executed. I mean, even the editing was bizarre. But the Direction was abysmal. Truly abysmal.
I hope Clive Cussler gets every penny.
(Actually, I don’t but I understand why he’s upset. Sahara was one of the worst adaptations EVER).
December 8th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I agree with Paul. It’s a Hollywood disease. Just because most screenwriters/authors bend over at the whim of the Money People doesn’t mean that all should (or that it should be expected). They bought Clive Cussler’s book based on the fact it was Clive Cussler’s book. Cussler let them buy it based on the control he, believe it or not, is entitled to (contractually). Dirk-what’s-his-name is his character, not Mr. Money Bags’. Clive Cussler may be crotchety, a poor writer, whatever, but the Money saw something they wanted and they bent to his demands (as they should). Now, if that turns into a movie great. And if it doesn’t – that’s the ten million dollar risk they took.
Why is the world built on who bends over the farthest? Why is that those who stand up for their original creative ideas get shit on? How is that physically possible?
Yeah, I don’t think the screenwriters should’ve been treated the way they were, but they were providing a service to Mr. Cussler (or at least that should have been the thought process). Hollywood is so backwards. Don’t they know that when you gamble you break even. And making a movie, no matter how much control you think you have, is always a gamble (unless there’s a few penguins in it – they’re so cute). Hollywood - start taking some creative chances! On original ideas! Even if they are coming from Crotchety Old Idiots! What’s the worst that could happen? You end up with a shitty movie? Looks like you end up with one anyway.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Hoo-boy. Where to start?
“…Screenwriters are used to seeing their material altered, mangled and reinterpreted. Screenwriting is part of a process, and the craft can only support medium-sized egos. The novelist, on the other hand, is God. And God doesn’t like to be told he’s a crotchety old jerk who’s been coasting on a mediocre franchise for years.”
Shame on you John. Double shame.
EXACTLY this kind of attitude is what I’d point to first as one of the root causes of SO many truly CRAPPY adaptations hitting The Big Screen to the howls and utter dismay of the fans of franchises that have in many cases entertained people for longer than the screenwriters adapting them have been alive.
A few points to consider…
First off, I don’t know of ANY authors “coasting” along with “mediocre” franchises. Especially not these days. I’d offer that you’re being incredibly naive if you think it’s even SLIGHTLY easier to keep a franchise, any franchise, in print and moving books off the shelves, than it is to stay consistently employed as a screenwriter. Before you go calling somebody else’s work a “mediocre” franchise, or talk about them “coasting” along with it, maybe you should take a look at your own work, because frankly, I don’t see you having accomplished even that much yet. You’ll earn the right to think like that AFTER you’ve gone through building and nurturing a lasting franchise from scratch, but not before.
I’m not trying to be insulting here J, I’m really not. But after a comment like that it seems to me you need a bit of a slap up side the head here. You brought up the issue of “egos”, well, seems to me yours could use a little tamping down as well.
For one thing, looking over your credits it strikes me that you’ve spent a lot more time working with characters somebody else created, than you’ve spent creating your own.
Character creation is a bitch John, a ROYAL bitch, especially when you’re dealing with a multi-book deal where you know that the characters you’re creating are going to have to pull their weight over several stories while maintaining a consistent tone, style, and voice, throughout all of them, without becoming boring. Try it. Believe me it’s not as easy as it looks, and it doesn’t happen by magic, luck, or the Muse droppin’ ‘em into your lap.
It IS easy (an frankly beneath you), to point to some novelist that got ticked about somebody changing the hair color of one of his or her characters as a way of illustrating how unreasonable authors can be. (And ten’ll getcha twenty, the hair color thing was something someone seized on in an attempt to make the novelist look like a nut, while conveniently IGNORING the more pertinent points of that novelist’s original argument).
Come on John. Too much of this reads like a conspiracy theory, or a frustrated rant.
You, and I, and everyone in here (I would hope), knows that novelists, in particular novelists that have sold enough books to get a studio interested in their scribblings in the first place, are not hair-brained morons, or amateurs. THEY’RE PROFESSIONAL STORY TELLERS, just like you, and they didn’t get to where they are, or sell as many books as they did, by waxing their carrots.
What would almost certainly help the art of adaptation is people, just like you, cultivating a bit more respect for the people that, not only did the heavy lifting of creating the characters and the worlds you’re using in the first place, but then went on for years developing them into a “mediocre franchise” that moved enough books off shelves to justify risking the multi-million dollar budget that got you paid.
Instead of looking at novelists as “crotchety old jerks” and an impediment to you doing your job, I suspect you’d be much better off, and produce better work, by trying to see them as what they really are - professional colleagues, that have spent far more time with the material than you have, and an exceptionally valuable resource that could save you time, and quite a bit of heartache.
When novelists get ticked off, for the most part, it’s because they’ve been around the block with the characters and/or story involved FOR YEARS. They know where the pitfalls are, FAR better than anyone who’s only been working with them for a matter of months, and sometimes just a few weeks. They can often CLEARLY see the mistakes being made, and yet, screenwriters with exactly the attitude problems you’re demonstrating here, won’t listen.
“For A WRINKLE IN TIME, Madeleine L’Engel functioned through a trusted producer, and while I had some significant disagreements over what plot points really needed to stay or go, at least I wasn’t arguing with the author.”
And you think that helped? (Deep sigh)
She spent 25 years developing that story J, 25 YEARS of thinking what she wanted to say about faith, and developing some of the best characters I’ve seen in print to do it. She penned a classic that’s been in print and moving people, deeply, since 1962, and you don’t think she’d have had anything worth listening to on your part?
Oy.
There are TWO sides to this argument J. And being able to kick the novelists to the curb may make your job easier, but I don’t see where it’s producing all that many good films.
You think it’s a fluke that with, by FAR, the vast majority of all adaptations made, the audience walks out and says “Eh. It was o.k., but the book was SO much better.”?
I don’t. And I think you’re kidding yourself if you do.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Fuck Cussler and the horse he rode in on. Anschutz is the real victim here.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Man, rage is -awesome-. Righteous fan rage even better.
Come on BumpOnnaHalfApple, John can read, much like the rest of us and is as entitled to his opinion about Cussler as you are. I haven’t read the damn things, so I shall make no comment on that.
As for why adaptations tend to be not as good as the book, it probably has something to do with the fact that the mediums are very different. The book will always be better. That’s why it was written as a book first. The only way for the film to be better is if A) the book was a poor implementation of a good idea or B) the movie significantly departs from the book (See: The entire Kubrick ouvre).
And why take issue with John’s characterization of his relationship with Madeline L’Engle? He said he disagreed with her on which plot points to retain, but wasn’t fighting with her. How on earth does this become “[he doesn't] think she’d have had anything worth listening to”? Can you not imagine there being a disagreement? Then why have a screenwriter? If the author is self-evidently right, if the medium demands nothing new, then why not just have the damn novelist write the screenplay? Or better yet, just film someone reading the book!
And Seth, why should the writers believe they were in service to Mr Cussler? Cussler certainly didn’t hire them. You can either subscribe to the theory that one should be the servant of your own artistic impulse, or one should turn in the work that you were paid to create. Since Cussler neither hired these writers, nor is he the personification of the Muse then I think that theory is bunk.
I’ve not read the Cussler books, seen the movie, sold a script, or even seen the movies that the hired screenwriters are known for. So in my pretty fucking unbiased opinion, the article paints this picture: Clive Cussler is a crotchety old man who is within his legal rights to sue, and is doing so, the hired screenwriters may or may not have been talented, but were stuck between the studio requirements (PG13, for example), their aesthetic impulses (cutting scenes to make a filmable movie), and aforementioned crotchety old man (”Reinsert violent resolution to already cut subplot!”), while the producers were bunch of lying, manipulative…..producers, trying to appease everyone and get the damn movie made and profitable as quick as possible.
And I think there is a worthy lesson in that, don’t you?
December 8th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Hooray! I’m delighted to see spirited discussion on a post that doesn’t have to do with Buffy or atheism.
What I could have said, should have said, in my original post is this: Clive Cussler didn’t need to sell his book. In fact, he seemed well aware of the pitfalls of Hollywood, after RAISE THE TITANIC. He had the ability to say no, and the certainly vast wealth to make saying no easy. But he said yes. Again. And trying to control the process of moviemaking through contractual approvals — script, casting, whatever — is impossible. It’s like agreeing to fight a war, but only if you’re guaranteed victory.
As for adapation: Books are not movies. One can’t rip pages out of a book and feed them into a projector. Many literary conventions which work terrifically well in a novel simply fail on the big screen. (As example, thinking in italics.) And yes, it’s frustrating to be posting this out on a site devoted to the craft of screening.
If Evil Hollywood Types had gathered up every copy of a Cussler’s novel and replaced it with an inferior version, I would fully support his rage. But they didn’t. His book will be his book forever.
I think he’s a $10 million whiner who wants to be a $12 million whiner.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
I’m thinking you’ve had Mr. Cussler visit your blog a few times tonight, John. Can’t think of another explanation for a reader of a screenwriter’s blog to rant in defense of an outrageously successful novelist who sells the movie rights to his book and whinges because the resulting movie sucks. And the notion that the author’s franchise is irremediably damaged by a bad adaptation of one book is silly. If readers love the series, they’ll buy the new books.
As a fledgling screenwriter working on an adaptation/update of a revered novel by a (thankfully) long-dead author, I find your blog comforting.
December 9th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Never heard of this Cussler. But Wikipedia helpfully put his work into some perspective for me:
” … Cussler prefers fantastic spectacles and outlandish plot devices. The Pitt novels, in particular, have the anything-goes quality of the James Bond or Indiana Jones movies, while also sometimes borrowing from Alistair MacLean’s novels. Pitt himself is a two-dimensional, larger-than-life hero reminiscent of Doc Savage and other characters from pulp magazines.”
I found this tidbit particularly illuminating;
” In what started as a joke … he now often writes himself into his books, at first as simple cameos, but later as something of a deus ex machina, providing the novel’s protagonists with an essential bit of assistance.”
With an ego this size I’d say it was an act of foolhardiness to grant Cussler screenplay approval.
December 9th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Um, which WRINKLE IN TIME was this? The TV version with Alfre Woodard? I remember L’Engle saying something about it: when a reporter asked if the movie had met her expectations, she said, “Yes. I expected it to be awful and it was.”
I’m for both sides, really, but that’s because I aspire to be both a novelist and a screenwriter. Novelists HATE to see their writing edited, and movies have to edit them for length and clarity. When you’re turning a 400 page novel into a 120-page screenplay, that’s a lot of chopping that makes novelists pretty upset.
However, if authors give their okay, they should already be aware that, hey, their 400-page baby is going to be squished into a two-hour movie, and that they really have only a few choices. One - they can accept the fact that scenes will be missing, and try to help make a movie that will be entertaining enough to inspire movie goers to go and read the original books (hey, I’ve done it). 2: Try to squish everything into a two-hour movie until it is not in the least entertaining - like the Harry Potter films. My god, the first three movies were basically slideshows of the major scenes from the novels with tiny threads of narrative in between.
I’ve seen/read good novels that have been adapted into films that are different, but are still GOOD because they maintain the spirit of the original novel. I’ll cite V FOR VENDETTA as an example, although I have heard that Alan Moore was a tad bitchy about it being adapted at all. The movie had a whole lot that was different/cut from the novel, but the most crucial scenes were nearly identical.
If I had a novel adapted into a screenplay, I’d want it to be a good movie first and foremost - a cohesive, entertaining, and uncluttered movie. My book will still exist after the movie comes out - and people will have actually had to read and enjoy it before it was optioned for film. The movie would of course change and cut things, but above all I would want it to keep the POINT of the novel. V FOR VENDETTA, in my mind, kept the basic premise and point of the graphic novel.
For one that didn’t, I give you ELLA ENCHANTED. Premise of Novel: Clever Cinderalla retelling. Premise of Movie: OMG! Curse of obedience! LOLFUNNY! The movie wasn’t particularly entertaining even on its own, and I felt it failed dismally as an adaptation because it completely did away with the entire plot of the original, keeping ONE element from the novel, ONE: the curse of obedience.
And then there are examples that are just bizarre - for instance, is it true that they bought the rights for a story named “Blade Runner” JUST so they could use the title for the adaptation of Phillip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” ? Ha, I’d hate to be in that author’s position!
Basically, I’m for the middle ground: filmmakers should respect the basic point and themes of the material, and authors should realize that their work will be best represented if the movie MAKES SENSE AND IS FUN TO WATCH.
December 9th, 2006 at 9:29 am
I have never read Cussler nor did I see the movie. I’ve read all of Nick Hornby’s books as well as many interviews and he seems to not have a God complex when it comes to movie adaptations. Many of his fans (particularly the English fans) were outraged when John Cusack and company moved High Fidelity from London (the novel’s setting) to Chicago (the movie’s setting). They also changed a lot of the music from Hornby’s tastes to their own. But Hornby said he thought what was more important was that they’d been faithful to the characters, and in any event he said he wasn’t in a position to bitch since he didn’t have to accept the Hollywood money in the first place. That’s a pretty healthy attitude.
I was an aspiring jazz musician when I was younger, so I look at it from that persepective. The old joke goes that jazz is music for people who never want to hear the same song twice. There’s some truth in that. When you’re in a jazz group playing an old standard, you try to remain true to the spirit of the composition, but while you’re playing, it’s your baby and you can take it in all kinds of new directions. It would be healthy for a novelist to have a similar attitude; if not, then it would be wise to not license the rights to your novel.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:25 am
AnimeJune — The Wrinkle in Time I did never got made; the TV movie was a different project.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Wow, heated debate on johnaugustdotcom… must be the Christams spirit. I like that John points out how a screenwriter’s material gets altered all the time, but a novelist always has his/her book to show. Very true, and I never thought of it that way. Nobody is actually changing the author’s creation! So I guess my opinion is ’shut up and enjoy the cash, and if possible the movie made from your masterpiece (or in this case trashy airplane romp)’.
December 9th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
The idea that the author doesn’t have to take the Hollywood money is not an excuse for a production company to violate their contract. Likewise they never had to buy his book rights either, it was a gain/gain deal that both sides went into willingly to get what they wanted. The prod company promised Cussler in a legally binding contract script approval and then didn’t give it to him.
Everything else is ancillary to that, and they are going to pay out the nose for that breach, and rightly so. The only person on the planet that gets to opt out of a contracts requirements is a judge.
I sympathize with both sides. Cussler demanded script approval precisely to avoid this very situation and had a book thats sold millions of copies turned into a junk film for the second time. The prod company entered into a deal with a guy that seemingly cannot be pleased, so they say. I don’t really buy that when you look at the final product, I wouldn’t have approved of it either. Good or bad, that film represents 99% new material, so who wouldn’t be upset about that?
Regardless of these issues, a contract is a contract, and they broke it.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
On another blog, an ICM agent posted this:
“McConaughey was a client at the time, and that article is dead-on. Cussler was ****ing nightmare. And despite the endless rewrites, they could never get the script right. The project was doomed to fail.”
Even if a writer adapts her own novel, a movie will always be a collaborative work, as good as its weakest major link (script, director, lead actors, cinematographer, editor). If you don’t like those odds, don’t sell the rights.
December 9th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Hmm,
Cussler may indeed be a nightmare to work with, and the books may be terrible (and written by committee a la that other old faker, John Patterson) but may I point out, John, that while it is true that Cussler didn’t have to sell his books to the movies, neither did the movies have to give him creative control. Right?
You can’t hold one party up to a standard without holding the other party to it as well, methinks.
I haven’t seen the film, nor have I read Cussler’s books (tried reading one once, it didn’t take. I have no doubt Friedman is a better writer than he is.
That being said . . .
It seems, just from reading that article, that the producers in question lied to both the novelist and the many screenwriters hired numerous times . . . why is that not commented upon? I know that stereotypically that’s supposed to be business as usual, but personally it sorta makes me queasy, you know?
Is it not easy to understand why someone wouldn’t think less of Hollywood types for such duplicity?
Especially a company dedicated to works with “moral” messages . . .
December 9th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Carrie,
Which blog was it that quoted an ICM agent commenting on the SAHARA project?
December 9th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Hmm, Sahara the film was awful. BUT, the books are WORSE. Oh my God, the author just has NO talent at all. Not only does he have ZERO talent, he is also very whiny. If I ever met him in real life, Id like to give him a NICE, stinging slap. Life is too short to waste like this. Move on you idiot!
December 10th, 2006 at 5:47 am
I hated Sahara. It was boring, and lacked wit or flare. I’ve never read the book. But reading that article I have to say I am appalled at all these mediocre writers getting paid outrageous sums for scripts no one used. It’s disgraceful business practice.
The thing about a bad movie based on a book is you think to yourself, “Well I’m not going to read THAT book. The movie was awful!”
I think Cussler is damn right to take a stand and fight for what he was promised. I also think this just proves all this multiple hiring of writers is a backward system, which I cannot get my head around why anyone who consider this the best way to write a script.
If any lesson should be learned, pick a writer(s) and stick with him/her. That way, maybe they’ll choose a great writer to begin with, instead of a dozen weak ones.
December 10th, 2006 at 9:29 am
It’s kind of funny that Cussler started out defending the screenplay. You have to wonder if they had shot the original script — incidentally by the guys who revealed he’s an anti-Semite — if this never happens.
I found the entire article hilarious. It’s always amazing how adults become kids as soon as they’re unhappy. I love how the female Baldwin was talking out of both sides of her mouth. She told everyone whatever they wanted to hear.
If this article should point anything out to us, it’s this: if you’re not a screenwriter already, then go for it! The lowest amount paid for a rewrite (!) here was $250,000. Someone else got $700,000. This was for rewrites that never got used (or only partially used).
Poor Josh and his anal canal. That note “scrawled” on the cover of the script — about Josh’s “beyond comment” trite dialogue and where his keyboard should or should not be shoved — made me laugh and laugh and laugh…
December 10th, 2006 at 10:35 am
It’s hard to watch a movie when you don’t care about the protagonist’s goal. Did I give a Dirk Pitt whether Matthew McCoughnehey finds his special sunken boat or not? No, no I do not.
There may have been more to the movie than that, but I switched off at the 30 minute mark, which I think is a feat of endurance.
I’m far more pleased than I should be with this post however, as I appear to have invented a new bit of rhyming slang. Off to Urban Dictionary to make it count…
p.s. Apologies to everyone involved that John knows re the feat of endurance comment. But it’s not a good film.
December 10th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
This is an interesting discussion.
How can a corporation working in the best interests of it’s share holders start production on a script that even it’s most illiterate stock holder can tell is a bomb?
My opinion is that someone stopped the gravy train of development money at the $4 mill mark. Was that a line in the sand? Shoot whatever you got - or pony up the pay-or-play penalties - and do the walk of shame?
This show appears to have been forced into production with Cussler’s greatest fear - a script he hated.
In the last 15 years, look at the line items that have exploded - talent costs, marketing costs, producer compensation - but that line for maximum d-money (as far as I know) has been chiseled into the sidewalk.
The Gulf-streams keep getting bigger, but the script money remains the same.
Would $5 mill have been too much to pay for a shooting script? $6 mill? $7 mill?
John August - I think you should side with Cussler. He sounds crazy. He sounds like a bastard. But he was given script approval - and IF they short sheeted the d-money and forced a shoot - then the producers and the studio effectively created a life-less monster.
This is kinda like the producing equivalent of the Terri Shiavo story.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Erik and others,
I would argue that Cussler is the personification of the screenwriter’s muse.
In adaptation, there is no original material being accessed from within the screenwriter. The writer can only access the tools of interpretation and from there apply his art.
Cussler is not an adaptor, he’s an original voice, and he had the savvy to hold artistic control over his original product. We should be praising him for his struggle. If we believe our work to be worth fighting for, like Cussler, then let’s fight.
Cussler has every right to whine and we as writers must support that right or we’re going to maintain the myth that the original writer (the creator) in Hollywood is a second-class citizen (one who must bend over to the whims of Directors, Producers, Executives, and others). It kind of irks me when writers buy into the idea that what we do (write), we must be willing to alter.
Sure there are instances (adaptation) where the screenwriter is in a more collaborative (more of a boss, employee) situation. And, sure, that first draft might suck donkey balls and you need somebody to slap you and say, “Hey, this sucks donkey balls!” But when you write for consensus that means someone is compromising and that means you’re losing an original voice.
That’s not to say there shouldn’t be discussion and that the writer should not bend over from time to time. It’s to say: why does he/she/it have to bend over all the time? Why can’t directors, producers et al.? Why must writers have medium sized egos? Why don’t we fight oversized egos with oversized egos? An arms race of big heads if you will.
Only writers have to sit down and face the blank page. Have to stare into nothing and pull out something. Our art is of creation not interpretation (ideally). And that’s the hardest thing in the world (especially if you’re good). And it has been taken for granted in Hollywood for too long.
Viva la revolution!!! Viva Clive Cussler!!!
December 10th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Dear BumpOnnaHalfApple,
First of all, I do not understand, how is this possible that a novelist dictates film makers how to make films?
The second is I wish I knew why novelists so often display bad temper and disrespect to the writers who work on their texts? Over time this sad tradition has already grown into banality.
Thirdly, why novelists give film makers ludicrous advice, alike to insisting on the hero’s hair color, awaiting back respect and taking offense at an adequate response?
For the fourth, I simply find offensive picturing screenwriters as parasites and hunters for ideas from literary works, which I believe is equal to accusing music composers in prowling for ideas from architectural projects.
I had written an adaptation only once. I did it about eight years ago and still feel disgusted. The author of a novel, an old respectful man, started our first and the only conversation verbally insulting me. The reason was, as I have later known, my much younger age, my sex, my smile, my soft manner to hold myself, not my work, that was done well and in time. And you know what? Now I have my own holy professional code I never broke and will not. I do not write adaptations. Based neither on the material of living authors, nor on the text of the dead. I let them go in piece - both. I can make it myself. Much better and brighter. And this is for the fifth.
P.S. Forgive my poor English.
Kind regards, Anastasia Pozhidaeva Moscow, RU
December 10th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Sam W– sorry, a public forum (DD), not a blog. I agree with all the comments that the producers came off as completely unsympathetic and unethical. But I still think if you’re a writer who wants complete creative control, you need to stick to prose. Or finance the movie yourself (in Cussler’s case, that might have been an option).
December 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
AnimeJune says: “…novelists HATE to see their writing edited, and movies have to edit them for length and clarity.”
I think, the comments like this enhance misunderstanding between novelists and screenwriters. You are not right, for the writing is never being “edited”. But transformed. And not for “length and clarity”. But for translating into the language of cinematography, which never meant to appear a castrated narration. Every single bit of text must be reworked into another media - the media of Moving Pictures.
Josh Boelter says: “…and he seems to not have a God complex when it comes to movie adaptations.”
Did WGA ever deal with this problem?
Paul William Tenny says: “… had a book thats sold millions of copies turned into a junk film for the second time.”
I dare to suppose, the key word is SOLD. He also sold rights to make a film of it, didn’t he? Creative misfortune can happen to anyone anytime. According to you, a better movie with a brunette lead would placate the author. It’s naive to think so, in my opinion.
“good or bad, that film represents 99% new material, so who wouldn’t be upset about that?”
Any movie MUST represent new material, simply because it is a movie, not a book. I think, all the matter is in the inconvenient agreement.
I am also curious, does the novelist bear responsibility for the quality of the movie, since he was given so many rights to interfere?
Sid says: “Oh my God, the author just has NO talent at all. Not only does he have ZERO talent, he is also very whiny”
Sid, why for the god sake they BUY the obvious crap? I was taught in my film school (VGIK) that crap never goes to screen, meantime I see the very opposite happens, which becomes a sad standard. Do you have an idea why?
The Writer says: “… Cussler is damn right to take a stand and fight for what he was promised. I also think this just proves all this multiple hiring of writers is a backward system, which I cannot get my head around why anyone who consider this the best way to write a script.”
I do my best to understand, why people who comment here blend two separate problems, that do not depend one on another into a single one. This is not correct at all.
The movie is bad is one question. The control over the film production Cussler obtained and the way he used it is the very different point of conversation. Just imagine, every single bit was made as Cussler dreamed and the movie was still bad. So what? You do believe a novelist knows better how to make movies than film makers do, don’t you?
I think, in case professional community let the cases like this one happen, next ten years we will see cusslers making movies hitting our imagination with lack of intelligence, talent and professionalism.
P.S. And again, pardon me my lame English.
Anastasia Pozhidaeva
December 10th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
(partly in response to Seth)
The idea that the source material should be a holy well of inspiration is debatable. Consider Kubrick’s Lolita. The film differs substantially in tone from the novel, had Nabakov’s grudging consent, and is a fine work. How about Fast Food Nation? Or The Brady Bunch Movie? Certainly few of the plays of Shakespeare stand to this criterion.
If thee movis is good, then what’s wrong with variation, even sizable variation? In principle, the goal should be to do good work, the specifics of this case aside. In fact, one wonders what the point of a film adaptation is, artistically, without variation.
It’s shameful to buy the rights to a work, and then simply use name recognition to draw in the box office. It disrespects the audience, and squanders a creative resource. It’s just bad damn filmmaking.
Caring more about the height and eyecolor of an actor than his performance is also bad filmmaking.
Cussler is suing because he didn’t like how the other kids played with his toys. Yes they are his toys, and if he wants to take them from the sandbox, fine. The courts can decide if his lawsuit is valid, and they’re doing a fine job without my support. That doesn’t make him any less petulant.
Who treated the screenwriters like dirt? Who used verbal abuse? Who, in short, acted like every screenwriter’s nightmare of a director? Clive “I AM Dirk Pitt, dammit!” Cussler. It’s the same kind of behavior we don’t tolerate from other people, why approve of it just because he’s a writer? Defend Cussler? Nah, I think not.
This lawsuit isn’t about writer powerless to see his creation realized. It’s about a writer who managed to acquire that power, and then had the contract violated. Cussler winning affords no new protection to writers, makes no great statement, represents no new triumph.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Several readers wonder why the studio-slash-producers gave Clive Cussler script approval. (Or to rephrase, why the studio-slash-producers decided to buy the book with Cussler’s conditions.) However you phrase it, it’s a valid question. In hindsight, it was a mistake. Pretty much everyone left the situation miserable.
But for the pro-Cussler contingent, how about a scenario?
You make the same deal with Cussler, $10 million, script approval, the works. And he goes absolutely insane. Not just grumpy and disagreeable, but drywall-chomping, space-alien-seeigng bonkers. He won’t approve any script, because he’s morbidly afraid of paper. And words.
At what point are you as the studio (or producer) morally entitled to say, screw it, we’re shooting this movie without his script approval?
Some of you will defend your absolute positions. I hope the self-satisfaction gives you a warm feeling, because that moral high ground gets chilly.
The rest of you will acknowledge that at some point, enough’s enough. There’s difficult, and then there’s impossible: You didn’t pay a guy $10 million to not make a movie.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Erik,
You’re right, sort of.
Here’s a fact: Cussler was legally wronged, and that, like many other people who are wronged, made Clive lash out at the wrong people. He’s finally lashing out at the right people (the people that agreed to the contract) and we should support the lashing. He’s not suing Friedman or the myriad of other screenwriters he felt fucked up his script, he’s suing the production company.
And, no matter what kind of man Cussler is, we should support him and his cause. He fought for a right, won it, and then (because writers are treated like second class citizens) that right was ignored, dare I say shit on. And, dammit, that’s just stupid.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:37 am
John,
That’s a 10 million dollar risk the prodco took. It’s all a gamble. I didn’t write my script to have it mauled by the ravenous hoards and be sucked into the development hell that is Hollywood… however, I did sell it with that knowledge in mind. I have no right to complain because I sold that right.
But what Cussler did is genius. It was his way or the highway. That’s the product he sold. And that’s the product they purchased. It was their risk not his, because he was honest from beginning. Even if your scenario played out, it’s still his right to say no (no matter how unreasonable).
Apply your scenario to the stock market. The stock looks shiny, it’s a real winner… and then it dies. Yes, it stings. But that’s the gamble the Money plays and I don’t envy them. Cussler did what we all should do. He believed in his product so much that he said, “Hey, I say what goes.” And the Money still paid 10 million dollars. Why? Because they thought it would pay out in the end. It didn’t, and this is after they cheated Cussler out of what was rightfully and legally his.
Was it a wise bet on the prodco’s part? Of course not. That’s clear. Was it a smart play for Cussler? Yeah. He got 10 million, control, and, probably, another couple mil because Hollywood does what it always does - it tries to load the dice. This time they fucked up. They met a guy who could say, “Fuck you and your money too.” And that guy won. Good for him.
And, yes, it’s cold on the high ground, but as Bacon said, “It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tossed upon the sea; a pleasure to stand in the window of a castle, and to see a battle, and the adventure thereof below; but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth (a hill not to be commanded, and where the air is always clear and serene).â€?
I do believe I just Baconed your ass.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:18 am
I think what writers — and, probably more importantly from a box office perspective, fanboy types like myself — are trying to point out is that, quite often, Hollywood adaptations simply fail to identify what makes the source material work in the first place.
A great example is the recent film CONSTANTINE, adapting the DC comic HELLBLAZER. While it may seem like an obvious choice to a producer to shift the character and setting entirely — a London-based, middle-aged black magician and former punk singer becomes Keanu Reeves in Los Angeles — in that shift, you manage to lose everything interesting about the character. It becomes yet another horror/action film, lost in a sea of VAN HELSINGs and UNDERWORLDs and BLADE sequels.
Which, ultimately, satisfies no one: the existing fan base (aka your built-in revenue source), the movie-going public at large (who’ve seen this movie a dozen times in the past three years) or the accountants at the studio (who just see the mediocre box office you’ve generated, because the fanboys boycotted your crappy adaptation and nobody else really cared anyway).
So who wins?
The recent adaptations of the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and the first NARNIA book (done by Anschultz, in the latter case) were successful because their respective creative teams achieved the ultimate goal: they actually understood what it was that people loved about the underlying source material, and managed to adapt it without losing that difficult-to-define something. Hardcore Tolkien dorks might have wanted more songs in Elvish and Lewis fans might have missed the Battle of Beruna Bridge, but most of the people who went to see those films based on their memories and love of the underlying work came away very happy — happy enough to see the films multiple times in the theater and buy the DVD box sets when they came out and spread the love to everyone they knew.
Which is success, by any definition you like.
I think Cussler was a severe asshole here, but I can also understand his protectiveness of his material (even if, in my opinion, there’s not much horror you could inflict upon it that he hasn’t done himself). For every LORD OF THE RINGS or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or FIGHT CLUB, there’s a few dozen nightmares like SINK THE TITANIC! and BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES and THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN that not only fail on the artistic level, but on the commercial one as well — and arguably, the latter actually, in these cases, is related to the former.
And of course, there’s the old (and possibly apocryphal) story about Dashiell Hammett: when a journalist asked him if Hollywood had ruined his books, he just glanced over at his bookshelf and said “Nope. They’re still there.”
Ultimately, I guess, in this particular case, the producers probably should have walked away when they realized that he was mad as a hatter. Their failure to do so at a very early stage was their mistake.
(Also, there are a lot of people in Hollywood who buy novels and comics and such and rework them purely out of ego. Jon Peters, for example, should probably never be allowed within a hundred miles of the creative process, based on Kevin Smith’s hilarious account of his meetings with Peters for the SUPERMAN film in his AN EVENING WITH KEVIN SMITH documentary.)
December 11th, 2006 at 7:59 am
John, with all due respect, though, what about the duplicity of the involved producer? Cussler, maniac or not, signed an agreement with people he believed to be honest. Just from the article alone, it seems as though the producer in question lied often and regularly.
The producer should be held accountable for that as well.
I mean, we all have people we won’t ever work with again because they’re untrustworthy and / or life is too short. Cussler appears to fall in the LITS category, but the producer definitely comes off as Untrustworthy . . . again, you hold one party to a standard of ethics, you need to hold the other party to it as well.
Sometimes the author can be completely ameniable and still the movie will be rotten (I’m thinking BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, chronicled in that wonderful book THE DEVIL’S CANDY) so it’s a bit unfair to put the whole load on Cussler at this point.
I’m not defending him because I believe he’s a great writer - I don’t. But it always strikes me as odd that, whenever someone gets screwed in Hollywood and complains about it, the prevailing response is, “hey, that’s what happens here, you didn’t have to take the money, this happens in Hollywood, people lie to you . . .” before deciding whether or not the author did get reamed. I don’t know which is the case here, but it seems obvious the producing entity entered into the agreement in bad faith, promising approval to an author that they had no intention of ever honoring, don’t you think?
December 11th, 2006 at 8:10 am
“First of all, I do not understand, how is this possible that a novelist dictates film makers how to make films?“
You sell 10,000,000 books.
“The second is I wish I knew why novelists so often display bad temper and disrespect to the writers who work on their texts? Over time this sad tradition has already grown into banality. “
Novelists are Gods in their reality. Nobody rewrites them, nobody tells them to change their witty and lovable academic protagonist into a hot cheerleader who fights crime for a hobby. The only barrier for the stories they tell is whether or not a publisher likes it enough to publish it. Nobody tells them what to do, so you need to understand that they live in a different world (a lot like television) where they run the show.
“Thirdly, why novelists give film makers ludicrous advice, alike to insisting on the hero’s hair color, awaiting back respect and taking offense at an adequate response?“
Dirk Pitt’s green eyes and wavy black hair are signatures of his character that stand out in every single book. It would be like having a character described like Arnold Schwarzenegger in a series of books only to have him played by a midget in the film, at least in Cussler’s eyes. And really, how is it unreasonable that a best-selling author wants the actor to physically resemble his character when all it calls for is hair dye and contact lenses?
…
“You make the same deal with Cussler, $10 million, script approval, the works. And he goes absolutely insane. Not just grumpy and disagreeable, but drywall-chomping, space-alien-seeigng bonkers. He won’t approve any script, because he’s morbidly afraid of paper. And words.
At what point are you as the studio (or producer) morally entitled to say, screw it, we’re shooting this movie without his script approval?”
At no point, because morals are irrelevant. They are legally bound to make the movie with a script he approves, no matter what. If they don’t like it and think they have grounds for dissolving the contract, then they should have put the deal on the shelf and petitioned a court of law. Sure, that would probably tank the movie and possibly the production company along with it, but that is the risk they took when they signed their name on the dotted line. How different does anyone expect it to be with the way it did go down? The movie still lost money and the prodco is likely to lose a heck of a lot more when they lose in court for breaking the contract.
If Cussler was being unreasonable then I sympathize with the producers, but not to the extent where they can be allowed to flaunt their legal obligations — nobody is above the law.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Wellllll, I’ve read the whole article and all the comments above, and I must say before reading those I was thinking about saying one thing, now I’m thinking about another.
I saw Sahara, enjoyed it, bought the DVD, what-have-you. Contrary to Kevin Arbouet above, I thought it was well-executed throughout, but I like and respect Kevin from his many comments on other writer’s site I won’t advertise, so I’ll agree to differ with him cheerfully, which is what no-one was capable of doing here.
Now, I know I’m a lowly spec-monkey, and in no position to argue Hollywood ethics, but my view on adaptation is this - you sells your rights, you forfeits your bitching. Period. Now, obviously this case is a bit different, so I’d amend that to “you forfeits your bitching…somewhat.” As many people have said here, books are not movies. Words are not celluloid, and unless every single adaptation that hits the screen is going to ba HBO eight hour series, something’s got to go. This seems to be a point Cussler could never grasp. I haven’t read “Sahara” - I tried reading another Cussler once, got very bored very quickly, but a friend told me the full plot involves people not dying from illness but becoming, for want of a better word, “zombies”. Which takes us into a whole different arena onscreen from Bond-ian adventure. As soon as I was told that, I figured the adaptation had gone a smart route.
Now I get that Cussler is protective of his characters and story, but there’s protective and then there’s Hari-kari. There’s also verbally abusing people who are trying to make you cash. (I will not hear a word against, Friedman!) There is also the very plain fact in this case, that Cussler is a novelist and makes for an awful screenwriter. Here’s the major problem - he doesn’t understand how to write a movie, and what it needs to have and what it doesn’t and never will and so you end up in hell. To invoke Friedman again, this year “The Black Dahlia” was released, based on a novel I HAVE read and DO love. And I loved the movie too, even though it had enormous differences to the book. James Ellroy, from all I’ve read, is an author with a grasp of how big and nessecary changes are to adaptation. Cussler won’t ever get there.
Damn, this has been rambling. I need to make a point. I guess I’m for supporting an author’s rights to maintain characters and story, but not when it’s clear the author is a moron with no grasp of screen narrative whatsoever. And I will never ever make a rights-deal like that with anybody. Ever.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Simon,
Whether or not Cussler is a good enough writer to write a great movie is a moot point with regard to this discussion.
This discussion hinges on one fact. Script approval. Cussler had it, whether he knew how to use it wisely or not, he had it legally and the producers that gave him said script approval (and paid him ten million for it) have not, in Cussler’s eyes, honored the contract.
That’s why he’s suing.
The question is, did he have it, legally, and if so, did they honor it as they were bound to?
December 11th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
“I do believe I just Baconed your ass.” It’s a cute image, but I’m not sure John wants me entertaining it for too long.
Hmmm. Bacon.
Anyway, I’m not so sure you sit on moral high ground there Seth. Err, vantage ground of truth. You make a fair point, but consider Penny Arcade. A comic strip, created by some kids out of high school, begins to garner some attention. A company offers them a contract to buy the rights to the characters, the existing comics, the works. The whole intellectual property stack. They get some cash, and jobs doing what they’ve been doing anyway, producing comics for the guys who now own them.
Who then promptly vanish to some country without an extradition treaty.
What do they do? They keep making the comic, selling ads on their website, and printing collections. Is this wrong? Is it so easy to look down on them from the vantage point of truth?
There is such a thing as the spirit of an agreement. Would I break the (civil) law to make Sahara? Probably not. A different movie? Maybe. I frankly can’t imagine being someone to invest 10 million dollars in anything, the position of an investor is somewhat different than that of a creator - as a director I can more easily imagine kicking some insane writer politely to the curb, make my movie, contract be damned and perhaps even feel righteous about it.
It’s a complicated question certainly.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Noone here, not even John August, knows what it really says in that contract.
According to the article Cussler had final say over director and lead actors and “wide discretion over the script” — whatever that means.
Over a period of three years the company hired eight screenwriters — all of them name writers — in order to produce a script that would meet with Cussler’s approval. There is no mention of Cussler himself requesting a particular writer, one that he personally trusted. It appears that every writer was made accountable to Cussler himself, they had to meet with him, pitch to him and take notes from him (this arrangement was probably part of the original agreement). I think it’s safe to assume that all those writers tried to write the best script they could. It was certainly not in their interest to write bad scripts.
Finally Cussler decided to write the script himself but it was absolutely no good and even he knew it.
Why did the production company decide to go ahead and shoot the film? I don’t know but I suspect they figured they had done everything they could reasonably be expected to do to meet Cussler’s demands. They had already invested more than $15 million in this project — to say that they should just have dropped the matter at that point in time and forgotten the whole thing is unreasonable to say the least.
And I don’t see there was all that much lying and duplicity going on, not judging from this article.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I read the LA Time article the other day and am enjoying the debate on this web site. From a legal perspective (i.e., standard contract law and not anything specific to California) it’s hard to tell whether there has been a breach of contract by the producers without reading the exact contract terms. From what I have read, I doubt there is. (1) The producers did not give him absolute veto power. (2) There is an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing on every party to a contract. This duty is viewed from the perspective of a hypothetical reasonable person. At the least the way he is portrayed in the article, I doubt Cussler’s behavior would meet that test. (3) Finally, even if the producers did breach the contract, the breach must be material to be actionable. Between Cussler getting $10 million, and the specifics of his complaints, I doubt many courts will care.
I remember reading that Ayn Rand had a similar deal when The Fountainhead was turned into a movie. She micromanaged everything and then still blamed everybody else when the film turned into a schlocky (and unintentionally hilarious) mess. I just wish Ronald Reagan had been cast instead of Gary Cooper.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
“Hooray! I’m delighted to see spirited discussion on a post that doesn’t have to do with Buffy or atheism.”
Me too. I’m also delighted by the fact that “spirited” as this discussion has been, it’s a remarkably civil discussion, and free of the more usual tit-for-tat “na na-na na na na” “I win you lose” attitudes present on all too many blogs these days. It’s incredibly refreshing to see people disagree without talking past each other.
“What I could have said, should have said, in my original post is this: Clive Cussler didn’t need to sell his book. In fact, he seemed well aware of the pitfalls of Hollywood, after RAISE THE TITANIC. He had the ability to say no, and the certainly vast wealth to make saying no easy. But he said yes. Again. And trying to control the process of moviemaking through contractual approvals — script, casting, whatever — is impossible. It’s like agreeing to fight a war, but only if you’re guaranteed victory.”
O.k. I’ll go with that idea, for now, that contractual approvals of any kind aren’t going to do it. But then I have to ask - WHAT WILL?
This point here I REALLY have to change your mind on.
“If Evil Hollywood Types had gathered up every copy of a Cussler’s novel and replaced it with an inferior version, I would fully support his rage. But they didn’t. His book will be his book forever.”
Man, if only. See this is what people in Hollywood just don’t seem to understand, and it gets to the very heart of what drives novelists right up the wall. A film can KILL a novelists ability to keep selling books just as easily as it can put his or her books on the map.
Film is an exceptionally pervasive medium. Most people are going to see the film, and all they’re ever going to know is the film. Which, lets face it, is just tough sh__ for novelists. That’s the world we live in.
But it leaves novelists with concerns that simply CAN NOT BE IGNORED.
This becomes particularly problematic when a film diverges from a novel too far in terms of tone, style, theme, and intent.
If you write a novel that touches on adult themes and issues, and an overly “Disneyfied” version comes out on film, people get pissed, and rightfully so, when they find out the novel is NOT appropriate for their kids, and they stop buying books by that author.
If you write a story that’s funny, and a fun read, and someone making the film version decides that a (GOD how I detest this term) “Darker and edgier” version is in order, again, people get pissed and aren’t going to buy books by that author again.
And it’s NOT a case of just what’s appropriate for kids vs. what’s not. That’s just one example. It’s far more multi-dimensional than that. Basically, when a film targets one audience, and the novel targets another, audience expectations are not met, and the result is almost always a very tough up hill battle moving the books from there on out.
You’re also SEVERELY underestimating the power of film as a medium. Once a film comes out, what the characters OF THAT FILM look like, how they speak, how they act and react, - fundamentally who they are as characters, becomes permanently imprinted in the minds, not only of those that haven’t read the books yet, but even those who already have. Films change the way the books they’re adapted from are perceived.
Once a film comes out the book is NEVER the book again. The book is forever the book as seen through the lens of the film for all those who see the film, for all time.
So it comes back to this - if contractual approvals aren’t a way to address these concerns then what do you propose?
If an author can’t rely on what’s in a contract, any contract, no matter what’s in it, then what’s left? What’s the alternative?
Is it your contention that if a novelist cares about his or her characters, the world they inhabit, and the story they wove, that the only solution is to “Just say no”? “Don’t take the money? Ever?” “Don’t let Hollywood near it? Ever?”
December 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
The outcome of the lawsuit will hinge on the details, and those are buried in thousands of pages of documents. It sounds like each side has reason to complain. Cussler’s unhappy about being misled, producers are unhappy about his stubbornness, etc.
I do think, though, that the producers were entitled to a good faith effort on Cussler’s part to get the project off the ground, rather than an endless succession of No’s.
Let’s do a little hypothetical: Let’s say Cussler sells the rights to one of his novels but never, EVER plans to actually approve any screenplay adaptation. He just wants to pocket ten million dollars and then screw the producers over. It doesn’t matter who writes the adaptation, how many writers are put on the project, or how much money is spent in the process.
Is there a point at which the producers are legally entitled to say that he is not putting in a good faith effort to meet his contractual obligations? Or can Cussler forever hide behind that one clause that gives him final control and perpetually torpedo every effort the producers make to get the project out of development?
Given the money that was spent and the caliber of writers that were hired, I doubt that Cussler will have an easy time with his lawsuit. On the other hand, the producers should have contested the contract and demanded the $10 million back, rather than breach it. So neither side looks like they’ll come out of this smelling like roses.
Like I said, it’s messy. Still, who gave Cussler that much control in the first place?
December 11th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Anna, I recommend rereading the article again. I read it twice when this was originally posted and there are several instances where the producer says one thing to Cussler and a completely different thing to the screenwriters. I’m not going to reread it again, however, so you’ll have to.
And there is the obvious part, Cussler gets script approval, but doesn’t. We don’t know what, for certain, is in that contract, it’s true, wasn’t the point of that article that they gave Cussler approval and he wouldn’t cooporate?
Or they gave him approval but didn’t heed his views or honor the approval granted in the contract. .
It’s one or the other, which I’m sure a judge will, at some point, decide. One or both parties acted in bad faith. As I mentioned, I’m not a fan of the novelist, but my first two readings of the article had noted instances of duplicity on the producer’s part.
Here is how it seems to break down.
So. Cussler wanted the movie made his way. He wanted it so much that he wouldn’t surrender the rights without his approval written into the contract.
Company assures author they want to make it his way. Writes it into the contract and pays him a load of money.
Author doesn’t get script he likes from any of the writers hired. Author writes his own. Company doesn’t care for author’s version. Disputes go back and forth. Company makes the film they want over his objections. Author sues, maintaining they broke contract.
Now, the company can maintain author sold them the rights in bad faith, that he never intended to let the company make the film (which is tough to prove, seeing as that he wrote a screenplay himself, it’s hard to prove he didn’t want a film made, just that he wanted HIS version of the film adaption made, which was the point of his contract).
It may be easier to prove that the company negotiated in bad faith, that they offered him approvals that they never intended to honor. That seems more likely and, well, hasn’t there been empirical evidence of this before?
So from a law point of view, it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
Where’s Warren, he’s the lawyer, isn’t he? Oh right, he’s in Hawaii on vacation, the lucky bastard.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Joshua, there really isn’t much point in discussing this because neither of us knows much about this mess of a case but the whole thing is facinating so I don’t mind. Discussing it, I mean.
About the lies. If I remember correctly (and I think I do) the exec essentially told a writer that she thought he’d done a good job but he’d have to go because Cussler didn’t approve of his script. Then she contacted Cussler and said they both knew the writer in question was a mediocre one and of course they’d get a new one. Or something to that effect.
I don’t know about you but to me this sounds like a person who is caught in the middle and trying to placate both men in order to preserve her working relationships: the writer (perhaps she’ll work with him again in the future, on another film) and the novelist (that she was hoping would approve of a script some day). She sided with both men. Her lies were harmless and they didn’t change the course of events. Cussler got what he wanted, a new writer.
“Or they gave him approval but didn’t heed his views or honor the approval granted in the contract.”
I think they went to considerable lengths to heed his views. They kept hiring writer after writer and Cussler was constantly being consulted. At one point they hired two writers to try to rework Cussler’s own bad script into something that was acceptable.
By the way, the article does not state that Cussler was granted final say over the script. What kind of “script approval” did he get then? The thing is, we don’t know.
“So. Cussler wanted the movie made his way.”
I don’t think there ever was a Cussler’s way. He had absolutely no idea how to make a movie from his book, I think that much is clear. He just wanted to be able to say yes or no to somebody else’s work / somebody else’s vision of his book.
“Company assures author they want to make it his way. Writes it into the contract and pays him a load of money.”
If there had been a Cussler’s way I suppose Cussler’s way could have been written into the contract. In agonizing detail. Then everyone would have known exactly what kind of deal they were entering into and what the final movie would be like. But like I say, I don’t think there ever was a Cussler’s way.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
“I don’t think there ever was a Cussler’s way. He had absolutely no idea how to make a movie from his book, I think that much is clear.”
Again, this would be easier to argue if Cussler had not written his own adaptation. But he did, therefore he did have an idea how he wanted the movie to be made. And there was grounds for a lawsuit.
Now whether or not that a quality decision, I do not know. It’s immaterial, too. Because, according to the article, the deal with Cussler was that he HAD APPROVAL. Right?
That was the deal. The company signed off on it.
There are other authors who get this. King has had it over some of his books, simply because he didn’t approve of the way they were made earilier in his career (the most famous being THE SHINING, which he famously remade into a mini-series).
You are correct when you state - what does approval mean? That’s open to interpretation, of course. It depends on what the contract says, which we haven’t seen and will probably be Item A in the trial.
I read a lot more into the producer’s deception than you, and it seemed far less innocent to me - and while he may be easy to slag on Cussler for being a grumpy cuss, he was at least open and honest about what he wanted . . .
December 11th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Several important points have been made that I’d like break out into bullets so they don’t get overlooked:
We don’t know the details of Cussler’s contract, in particular, his “script approval.” Likely, it was something short of a flat-out veto.
Some readers liked the movie. There’s no unanimity that it was bad.
Several movies that are generally regarded as terrific were not well-liked by the novelists behind them (e.g. THE SHINING).
My readers are the nicest, most thoughtful disagreers in the webosphere.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Anna,
I gotta agree with Joshua. I’m on both sides of the fence and I can tell you from experience that the Karen Baldwin handled the situation as bad as one can.
Recently, I just produced an adaptation of Langston Hughes (A Good Job Gone). We had to change a couple of things but we did it in a way that was forthcoming and honest as to not offend the Hughes estate. Baldwin behaved like a caricature of a Hollywood producer and ultimately made the process much worse. She would tell both sides of the table what they wanted to hear and totally exacerbated the situation. If you have a producer telling you that they agree with you and thinks that the script handed in was mediocre, naturally you’d feel somewhat validated. But then when it was convenient for her, she would switch sides and make everyone feel like they were crazy.
There was absolutely nothing innocent about the producer’s deception. It’s a shame really. While I disagree with Simon Underwood (who has the coolest name ever), I definitely think the movie could’ve been better with a producer who wasn’t such an incongruent hollywoodphile.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
You’d think being described in the LA Times as an “anal cavity” would induce Josh Friedman to finally add another entry to his blog.
But nahhhh….
December 11th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
John,
You inspire good behavoir, what can I say?
December 12th, 2006 at 1:38 am
Kevin,
“Baldwin behaved like a caricature of a Hollywood producer and ultimately made the process much worse.”
Is that the impression you get from the article? You really think another producer would have been capable of goading Cussler into approving a script that the studio approved of?
“I definitely think the movie could’ve been better with a producer who wasn’t such an incongruent hollywoodphile.”
Cussler had script approval (of some sort), the studio had script approval. The first Cussler-approved director was not informed of the extent of Cussler’s creative control; he got fed up early on and left the project. The second Cussler-approved director was unhappy with the script and made changes to it, plus he had a number of writers working on it during shooting. The director (and studio) are ultimately responsible for the finished film. Not KB.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:59 am
I was really surprised and disappointed by John’s take on this, because based on the article:
Cussler was contractually given some degree of cast approval, which he exercised.
He DID approve the initial script, and AFTER the deal was SET, Paramount signed on and wanted the script changed. Then the producers lied to and deceived various parties.
Cussler’s life work (whatever) was made into a mediocre movie that essentially aborted a potential mega-franchise and even bigger paydays for Cussler.
Cussler alleges breach of contract. Paramount countersues, alleging he is “arrogant” (which is clearly against the law in Hollywood) and then character assassinates him. John August piles on and says “he goes absolutely insane. Not just grumpy and disagreeable, but drywall-chomping, space-alien-seeigng bonkers. He won’t approve any script, because he’s morbidly afraid of paper. And words.” Wow, unless that is actually true, that statement is pretty much libel. Did the article say he approved the first script or did I misread something?
Why is Cussler the clueless retard for trying to protect some of the inspiration and success HE CREATED and the faceless backstabbing liars with the studio are somehow going to show him how Dirk Pitt Story Magic is done? The same person who came up with Sudden Death (van Damme, the Stanley Cup–A definite can’t miss!) and Eyewitness to Murder (It’s Adrian Zmed-riffic!)
Why mock the guy for standing up and fighting back? I saw Sahara, but never read any Cussler, maybe the Dirk Pitt books are good, but I and millions other will never know.
Just asking, so please feel free to set me straight with the facts, I’m just going by what was in the article and what John wrote.
P.S. Please don’t call me hurtful names, I don’t have a $500,000 Sahara paycheck to dry my eyes with… (wink)
December 12th, 2006 at 3:12 am
John August piles on and says “he goes absolutely insane. Not just grumpy and disagreeable, but drywall-chomping, space-alien-seeigng bonkers. He won’t approve any script, because he’s morbidly afraid of paper. And words.”
Yes, you did misread it. John was saying what would happen IF Cussler went crazy like that — would his ‘right’ to kill the project still be appropriate.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:38 am
Michael,
You are clearly of the opinion that Cussler was Greatly Wronged. I merely think that he acted like a fool.
Let’s not forget that Mr. A’s company had a policy of inviting authors of original works to actively participate in the development process, which is highly unusual. If the jury thinks the same way you do and gives Cussler a big compensation, or whatever he’s asking for, noone in his right mind is going to entertain ideas of encouraging authors to take part in the development process.
John August said that Cussler’s “script approval” was in all likelihood something short of a flat-out veto. Thing is, if he’d had flat out veto power he could have obtained injunction the moment the studio greenlighted the film. But he didn’t. He couldn’t.
If A’s company is at fault it is for making some sort of promises to Cussler that it couldn’t deliver; it simply couldn’t force others involved in the film to grant Cussler the sort of control he craved.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Yes, I did misread John’s statement since it was posed as a hypothetical. ( I apologize John, I’m not trying to be a bomb-thrower, I skimmed and posted at 3 am after travelling twelve hours with my wife and two-year-old son–I think it drove me not only grumpy and disagreeable, but drywall-chomping, imaginary-quote-seeing bonkers!) But I do think there is some piling on.
I think John is right about all the insider spin implications of being the boy that won’t play nice and its consequences, but the article said they had a script, he approved of it, they set the deal, and then Paramount came along, obviously knew the deal terms and then lied and broke the terms and intent of the contract to get the originator of the material out of the picture so that they could work their magic with the material. They did and made a failure, to Cussler’s detriment.
I don’t know that I would say that Cussler was Greatly Wronged, I don’t really have an emotional attachment to the outcome, he sounds like a jerk, etc. but I do think he was Legally Wronged. A deal’s a deal.
But if writers, who get for-hire type of rewards for their Intellectual Property creation to begin with from Hollywood, can get screwed out of any additional rights they can negotiate in good faith, then that is a situation that should be addressed.
Obviously, it would take someone who is stubborn, vindictive, and doesn’t need the money, plus already has a ton of cash, to be able to enter a lawsuit against a big studio over something like this. It’s not going to be Joe Angel Newbie with a house and car payment who fights back.
I don’t think this will result in companies that allow authors to take part in development to stop doing that, only the wording of the contract deal point that spells out that level of participation. Studios have a track record of wording deal points in a way that are clearly intended to sound like you are getting something that you won’t get. So be it. I would think that most deals are outright purchase (versus author script meddling deals), and a company that has author participation, which rarely happens, does it because it benefits the company in some big way, either to get a juicy property to exploit, or locking in the author to promote to the authors fan base or whatever, not because they are nice guys who just really, really love authors.
Also, to whatever extent all the monkey business- the paper trails and inner workings–by all parties is brought to light via the legal discovery process, I think it benefits us. I think the attitude of take the money and run is great for the rent-a-writers who score big paydays, but saying there was a contract but now we’re going to break it, and you got paid x dollars so don’t complain and if you do, we will character assassinate you, is not great.
With Love, Michael
December 12th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Anna,
Whether or not Cussler acted as a Great Fool has, in a way, no bearing on whether he was wronged legally, you know what I’m saying? I think Michael did a great job of breaking the situation down.
It seems as though that, since you dislike Cussler you cannot see it from his POV. Can I suggest that you try that, if only as an exercise?
Bear in mind - I don’t like him, no do I think he can write. But looking at this objectively, it seems he has a greater case for being wronged as other authors have felt in the past. His difference was, he’s yelled about it and now sued.
As you said, we don’t know what kind of approval Cussler had, not without examining the contract in great detail. Obviously approval to him meant, it won’t happen unless I want it to. To the prodco, it meant, we’ll try to make you happy, but if not, we’ll do what we want anyway.
And again, further reading of the article shows the producer lying, which doesn’t help the prodco’s case that they’ve acted in good faith, and shows Cussler writing his own adaptation and meeting consistantly with the writers, which supports his case that he wanted the movie made. Just made the way he wanted it, which meant something different than it did to the prodco.
It’s a product, authors own their copyright and brand, so they should be protective. Cussler feels he wasn’t dealt with in good faith. Prodco feels that way about him.
Whether or not he is an ass, has good taste in films or can even write has little bearing on the situation from a legal standpoint. Get what I mean?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Anna,
Yeah, I really do. No doubt Cussler comes off as an ass. More than likely he was/is. But dealing with extreme personalities is a producer’s job. Lying is not, although it often seems to the contrary. Since Cussler approved of the very first script that was delivered, it probably would’ve behooved Baldwin to continue to develop that script rather than immediately fire Donnelly and Oppenheimer (perhaps not the exact chain of events but that’s what I’m gleaming from the article).
When you play that type of “I agree with you and only you” double dutch, disaster is inevitable. Here are some “producer” moves from Baldwin:
“Paramount LOVES the script we submitted,” she wrote. This message was to Cussler about the James V. Hart script.
Hart continued to work on the screenplay. Studio executives felt his revisions made the script “close to being perfect,” Baldwin informed Hart on Feb. 6, 2002. “Please know how much we appreciate everything you have done.”
And then Baldwin fired Hart.
“I want you [to] know that the biggest problem is the fact that Clive is insisting on another writer,” Baldwin wrote Hart. “I wanted to be honest with you…. It is an ego thing with him…. Everyone thinks you did an excellent job for us.” So this is what she wrote to Hart.
Which of course is followed up by this remarkable statement:
“I think we really need to remember that we all thought the Jim Hart draft was mediocre,” she wrote. “That is why we brought on another writer.”
What?!
Don’t you find that a bit…counter productive?
December 12th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Something screwy is going on with the universe, Kevin - that’s like, THREE TIMES, three times that you and I have found ourselves in complete agreement on an issue.
Not only that, but it seems you’ve even managed to agree with Olson on something.
I keep looking out the window for a total eclipse. I’m sure we’re on the verge.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Joshua:
Evidently this Cussler is quite a character. I don’t dislike him, I just think he was a fool for thinking that there was no chance the film would turn out to be a success unless he had creative control. Which apparently is what he thought.
Kevin:
Counter-productive? That depends entirely on what Cussler thought of the Hart-script. We don’t know because none of HIS e-mails were published, only a couple of KB’s.
In one of them she claimed Cussler insisted on another writer.
Are you saying that the studio LOVED the Hart-script and Cussler LOVED the Hart-script but that KB, for some mysterious reason, decided to fire Hart and start the script-process anew, with a diifferent writer?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:22 am
She “claimed” a lot of things. But it’s clear that she’s a liar. And just because Cussler’s e-mails weren’t published doesn’t make her less of a liar.
Yes.
Welcome to Hollywood!
But seriously, that does happen. A LOT.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:24 am
And sometimes the reasons aren’t all that mysterious.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:32 am
“I just think he was a fool for thinking that there was no chance the film would turn out to be a success unless he had creative control.”
If so, then there are many, many fools in Hollywood - a lot. Creative Control is what all writers, directors, actors, and cinematographers aspire to.
Do you know why most of the writers that I know, and many I that I don’t, want to write for HBO?
Creative control. Soprano’s. Curb Your Enthusiam. Oz. THE WIRE.
Do you know why HBO wins all the awards it does? It gives the artists creative control. For better or worse.
In films, many established writer / directors work hard for the day so that they may have creative control. They want it because they believe it’s the only way to ensure success. And there is a track record to support that.
Does not Tim Burton have creative control?
I bet he does.
It’s NOT foolish to want creative control.
Foolish acts may happen because of having it, but wanting it is not foolish. How can you even say that? Grisham wanted creative control over A TIME TO KILL, his first and favorite novel.
If your argument is that Cussler has done nothing to earn that creative control, you’re forgetting that he created a brand, a series and has sold billions of books. It could be argued that he knows his fans (of which I am NOT one) better than someone who hasn’t created and carried the series.
JK Rowling knows her fans. If you remake Harry and set it in America, wouldn’t that affect the series and the many that follow? Change it radically, switch the characters around?
She has a say in her films, does she not? And the prodco knows better than to futz with her fans, I bet. Or the author.
I simply don’t get your argument here - you’ve identified with the producer, on record as lying (but they were honest, innocent lies, I think someone maintained) rather than a crusty guy who’s worked on something for years and years and believes he knows what’s best for it and you call him a fool for believing that.
Really, that’s a bit silly, is it not?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:56 am
I don’t find your theory very convincing Kevin.
First off, the only script Cussler ever approved of was the very first one. Or so it says in the article. There’s no mention of his having liked the Hart-script, much less approved of it.
Secondly, isn’t KB an employee at The Crusaders (or whatever it’s called), Mr. A’s company?
Thirdly, doesn’t the studio have the last say in matters? If both studio and Cussler approved of the Hart-script how could she have swept it under the carpet?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Joshua,
Your bottom line being … what?
That the studio / prodco / KB (take your pick) failed to procure even one writer that could do Cussler’s book justice?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
A quick comment on Joshua James’ point about Tim Burton. Yes, Tim does have a tremendous amount of creative control over his movies. But I would point out that he is a filmmaker making a film, as opposed to a novelist working outside of his medium. If NASA approached Tim about building a spaceship inspired by Jack Skellington, I think it would be a mistake to give him final say over the propulsion system.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Not true. Cussler took that Hart script, put in some things of his own and Karen reassured him that the studio loved that script.
And then she fired Hart…
Karen is the SVP of Crusader Entertainment. Full Disclosure: I worked with them for the production, The Game of Their Lives Karen is the producer there.
Anna re-read the article. Because Karen told Cussler:
“Paramount LOVES the script we submitted,” she wrote.
The studio executives felt the script was close to perfect (with the revisions with Cussler) and then Karen fired Hart.
Guess what? Happens all the time…
December 12th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Okay, that’s a bit of a false analogy, don’t ya think?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Well, no, Kevin. I don’t. That’s why I posted it. Usually, when I’m about to post a false analogy, I put a little web graphic up that says, “FALSE ANALOGY.”
I exagerrated to make a point: Movies and novels are vastly different things, and proficiency in one is no indicator of proficiency in the other.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
That is a false analogy, John, so again Kevin and I agree. Holy Smikeys.
They may not give Tim creative control if he wished to build a spaceship, but I’d bet he’d get creative control over any television series he wished, any comic book series or graphic novel, any one of a number of endevours related to story-telling.
Making movies is different from writing novels, but not SO different - both are entertainment-based, both are story-telling - there are a number of novelists who do both very well . . . Michael Crichton comes to mind (wrote and directed WEST WORLD, ER, a whole lotta mo’) - George Pellinicos, novelists, one of the producers of THE WIRE, etc. We could go on, but you get the point.
Lorne Micheals, of SNL, gets a tremendous amount of creative control over the movies he produces, even though his main success has been in television (up until Wayne̵