When you read a book, you have your own imagination on how the characters look like, and what the story is like. Movie adaptations always disappoint some people; especially true fans of the books. This movie cannot really be called an adaptation, but a wannabe. I’m 21 years now, and read my first Clive Cussler at the age of 13; the book was: raise the Titanic (FANTASTIC). I’ve been a HUGE Clive Cussler fan ever since, and I got the complete Dirk Pitt book series up to date!

I have a great understanding that Clive Cussler wanted to go to lawsuit! I think he’s true to his fans when he demands quality in the adaptations of his books. He has turned down offers off making a new movie off his books ever since; raise the Titanic was made into a film. This movie really sucked! And Clive Cussler was disappointed. It’s understandable that he didn’t want this to happened again, so when Crusader Entertainment got the deal to make Sahara, the agreement was that he should be given he was given casting, director and script approval.

They have not fulfilled this agreement, and they made a bad movie adaptation. So I give all my support to Clive Cussler.

Setting up a franchise is tough, be it literary or on film, and harder still when the audience isn’t given a hook into the character and emotional need to invest in the ride through various adventures with that character.

In Sahara, they tried to do the entire backstory via the opening credits. That long traveling computer shot of the walls of the office, revealing nice tidbits about Dirk and Al. While a reader of the novels would get it, the audience didn’t extract all that much and was most likely still texting messages to their baby sitters and wondering when Mathew was going to take his shirt off. (I was pulling for Ms. Cruz in that department)

Will Dirk return to the big screen? I sure as hell hope so, but with different handlers from top-to-bottom. In what form and with what casting? Who knows. But if I was Clive, I’d keep writing and not worry about it. And if it happens, try to take that BIG step back and let the film pros do their best. Or their worst which is more often the case in adaptions.

pb

This article is now on the third page of results for “Clive Cussler Sahara,” so it’s reasonable to think he could have come across it.

I can’t say I loved or hated the movie. It was what it was, and conversely it wasen’t what it wasen’t. Anyone who attends a movie expecting to see the exact novel it was adapted from up on the big screen is setting themselves up for disappointment from the start. Exceptions are book adaptions that are so deep in special effects and scenery that they bring to life fantastic things detail that we could only imagine while reading. These special effects often overshadow the plot and tend to make the audience more forgiving of the deviations from the original plot. The Harry Potter books/movies are a good example. Both mediums have enjoyed success but most readers I’ve talked with who’ve seen the movies agree that they only watched the movies for the visual candy and that the books were far and away better.

Mr. Cussler tells some nice stories. He’s developed a formula not unlike the mass-produced westerns and has used it over and over with huge success. Hero and sidekick find treasure, save the lady in distress and whack the bad guys in the process. That theme usually plays out well in movies, i.e. Indiana Jones style adventures, but the thing that made Sahara a poor adaption, in my opinion, is the lack of backstory or character development. Pick up any Dirk Pitt novel and you get immersed in who Dirk is, what he does and the people who help him. Watch the movie and here’s this guy out of nowhere who rushes in to save the day without any preliminary introduction. I found myself wondering who he was, other than the obvious hero, during the whole movie and never really was shown an answer to that question. Al was portrayed in an interesting light and I felt his role kept some of the humor I reconized from the books. Again, though, I found myself hoping they would delve more into the friendship between Dirk and Al with some of the backstory the novels offer. I think both parties in the lawsuit, which I found this morning to have been judged on, have a legitimate beef and hopefully both have learned some lessons. Those lessons could be: A) Large novels with complex storylines don’t adapt well to two-hour long movies, regardless of how many screenwriters make the attempt. Production studios would do better to base an all-new story on existing characters and hire the owner of those characters, in this case Mr. Cussler, to offer only guidance in the general formation of the new adventure but not the exact storyline. B) Offering the author creative control is like asking them to rewrite the exact same book they’ve already written, but without half the pages. They’ll end up frustrated because obviously it’s not possible to tell the exact same story in half the space. Asking the author to help develope a new story to fit the timeframe of a screenplay however, with his characters involved, makes more sense. I don’t feel it necessary to comment on other peoples opinion on this subject because I have no desire to alter or even attempt to alter their thoughts. I’m just a humble reader who, like many of you, enjoys forgetting my own existance while I dive into a good book or movie. Clive Cussler writes enjoyable books in my opinion. Take the movie Sahara, change the characters names and the names of the shipwrecks and locations they explore and you have a totally different story that, not being associated with Dirk Pitt, would probably stand on its on as a not-too-serious action-adventure farce with some good scenery and visuals.

Cussler is obviously a man of monumental ego. He has always felt that he was the tail that could wag the dog, and felt that he would reinvent the wheel in terms of Hollywood negotiation. Having met Cussler and seen him in action, he is a pompous, egotistical, smary, self important narcissitic man who could not stand to see one single element of the story changed to fit the movie.

Now, having had my rant about Cussler, I must say that he has every right to be angry at the deal he made with Crusader films. I hope he wins.

I think the problem between Clive and Anschultz and the studio is that Clive is a man of his word and when he has a contract guaranteeing him control over the script he expects the participants in that contract to honor their word as well. If that’s not the way they do it in Hollyweird then why bother having a contract? Anschultz should be ashamed of himself.

I also agree with other responders that the movie Sahara, while enjoyable(the guy who played Al Giordino stole the show), bore little resemblance to the book. I sincerely doubt that was Clive’s doing.

As for that moronic comment about him coasting along on a mediocre franchise, you can agree or disagree about Clive’s abilities as a writer but his plots are pure, original, genius and there are few who can argue with his success.

After studiously avoiding Clive Cussler novels for years, I saw SAHARA and loved it. The movie “moved” me to finally go read his books. After two of them it’s obvious Dirk and Co. are little more than cliches; but they have their fun moments.

If the movie encouraged me to read the author…what’s all the fuss about? I was surprised to read Mr. Cussler waxing self-righteous about the movie (mostly because it didn’t make enough money). Everyone here seems to be taking themselves a bit too seriously.

Chill. The movie was a lark, and so are the novels. It didn’t get an Oscar, and he won’t win a Pulitzer. Sometimes the world is a just place, after all.