Wednesday, March 18, 2009

More movie madness!

The other day we talked about movie adaptations and how sometimes the movie is just completely different than the book.

Well, more movie madness is being reported over on Galleycat. Apparently, bestselling author Clive Cussler sued the movie peeps responsible for the movie adaptation of his novel, Sahara.

He claimed that he wasn't allowed a final peek at the script, and that's the reason that the movie wasn't as uber-successful as it should have been. The studios countered and argued that Clive overstated the popularity of his book, and that's the reason that the movie tanked.

Well, the case is closed and Clive lost the lawsuit. Worse yet, he's now responsible for paying $13.9 million (yes, you read that correctly-- MILLION!) in legal fees to the production company he sued.

Now, I can't imagine actually suing anyone responsible for bringing my books to the silver screen. I'd like to think that I'd just be so, SO happy that I'd be too busy jumping up and down with glee that I couldn't possibly ever sue someone over my good fortune in selling book rights. But what if the studio butchered my poor little books? Would I feel any differently? (Or would I just be too busy counting my money?)

So, I ask you: who is responsible for the success of a movie? Is it the screenwriters, the movie studio, the actors? What's the role of the source material in all of this? If the original source material is popular, can that transcend critical pans? And most importantly, what role do Matthew McConaughey's biceps play in all of this?

1 comment:

Carleen Brice said...

Often, the writer has no say in how the film is made (and that's in the contract), but apparently Cussler was supposed to have some input? Or thought he was? I read an article with John Grisham long ago where he said if you take the money, you keep your mouth shut about the movie. I think he was right.