Diss Approval, continuedComplications Ensue
Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Screenwriting, TV and Game Writing Blog


April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021

June 2021

November 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022

August 2022

September 2022

November 2022

February 2023

March 2023

April 2023

May 2023

July 2023

September 2023


Monday, December 18, 2006

Several people think Clive Cussler is right for sticking up for his vision of his novel Sahara as it was being adapted into a movie -- see the comments in my previous post. Here's why I don't agree.

a. It's clear from the article that Cussler has no clue what a screen adaptation entails. He's insisting that one character have black hair and green eyes, like in the novel. That may be important to Cussler, but it speaks worlds to me. Is Brad Pitt going to dye his hair black? Maybe not. Maybe he looks dumb in black hair. Should the producers have to ditch Brad Pitt over hair color? This kind of literal-minded attachment to specific details suggests to me that when Cussler is insisting that certain scenes stay in the movie, he's probably wrong about those, too.

b. I don't think selling ten million copies of your novel makes you an expert on screenwriting. Anne Rice has sold ten million copies. She was wrong to say Tom Cruise would make a lousy Lestat, and she had the grace to take out a full page ad saying so. Picasso was a great painter, but he would not necessarily have made a great motion picture production designer. (Yes, I know he did some nice sets for Diaghilev.) A novel is an entirely different beast than a screenplay, as anyone who's tried to adapt one into the other knows.

c. Features are not a writer's medium. They're just not. They're a director's medium. You want creative control as a writer, run a TV show. Or direct the feature yourself. (See Crichton, Michael.) And even then, it's not really creative control -- it's creative responsibility. The studio or network has creative control. It's their money. Should screenwriters have creative control of their movies? Sure, as soon as they start paying the tab for the production.

Personally, I think there are somewhere between very few to no people who ought to have total creative control of their movies. Woody Allen is a good argument for creative control. He writes and directs and edits, and he brings his films in on budget, so he can pretty much do what he likes. But I don't think he's made a movie as good as Annie Hall, which is about when he stopped working with co-writer Marshall Brickman. Creative collaboration is good. Does anyone thing George Lucas has made a movie as brilliant as Star Wars since then? I think he'd be a better producer/director if he had to satisfy at least one creative collaborator. And there are any number of disasters one can point to that resulted from someone attaining creative control who badly needs not to have it. Think Heaven's Gate. Think One From the Heart.

I think by and large, novelists write very bad adaptations of their own novels. They're bound to be attached to the novel's perspective. They're likely to be attached to scenes that work on their own but get in the way of the flow of the story. The process of adapting a novel is more akin to pillaging it for ideas, characters, and details than to a gentle pruning. The perspective often has to change. The ending often has to change. Characters merge. Subplots vanish.

I'm up for an adaptation right now. I believe I can make a good movie out of it. But the movie will be its own critter. It won't be the novelist's version of his story. It will be my -- and the director's and the producer's -- version of that story. If I had to run my pages past the novelist for approval, I'd be nuts to take the job.

Now, I agree the producers behaved atrociously. They're probably getting what they deserve for lying to absolutely everybody. And it's nice if once in a while, producers get held to the letter of their contracts. And it is completely their fault for giving Cussler creative approvals. And who's to say that Cussler's draft would have made a worse movie? (I have my suspicions, but who knows?)

But I don't think writers should be privileged. We have our own shortsightedness. It is easy enough to write things on the page that don't work on the screen, or miss opportunities that a director will spot. And that's part of the fun of writing for the screen, seeing what the director and the actors and the editor and the composer bring to the words you put on the page.


Question: What's your opinion on William Goldman's screenplay for the Princess Bride? While there are a few minor subtractions, on the whole, the movie is faithful to the book in almost exacting detail--even down to 90% of the characters' dialogue.

True, Goldman was a screenwriter in his own right before the Princess Bride was ever published (unless - of course - you consider the original publishing date of S. Morgenstern's manuscript), and was deeply familiar with both forms. Is he the exception that proves the rule?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:35 PM  


Ok, but we can't have it both ways. How many times has an adaptation of a book produced a piss poor movie? I agree that writing a novel doesn't necessarily equate writing screenplays but it's clear in this specific instance, the producers had no clue what the hell they were doing.

I've seen Sahara. It's God Awful. In my opinion, maybe it would've done better with a bit more Cussler and a little less Baldwin.

But the main point is this: Just because Cussler's an asshole doesn't make him wrong. If the writers of A Sound of Thunder were hired to write a screenplay from my book, I'd probably freak out too.

By Blogger Tenspeed & Brownshoe, at 12:04 AM  

Alex, first off - I agree that novelists by and large should be kept away from the scripting process. I agree a novel is a different beast to a screenplay, etc, etc. And I agree that Cussler was probably overbearing, ignorant and arrogant in his actions in this whole sorry mess.

However, the point is he sold the rights to the book on condition that he kept creative control. That was in his contract and that's what the producers agreed to - they were stupid to do that, but having done so, they were bound to honour that agreement. They didn't. They lied, obfuscated, dodged, ducked, dived, etc. So, they're toblame on two fronts - stupidity and dishonesty. Which doesn't excuse Cussler's ineptitude in this genre, it just makes him legally right.

And I agree too that features are director driven. I also suggest that's why the majority of good work in the visual media is being done in TV where writer/producers are in creative control.

By Blogger African Den, at 2:06 AM  

You'd think established produers would know not to give up so much of the farm to the writer if such adaptations are usually unusable.

I'll bet Warner Bros is glad they didn't give such a contract to Lawrence Block. Can you imagine Block insisting on Bernie Rhodenbarr being played by a white man rather than Whoopi Goldberg? Clearly, the producers of "Burglar" knew what they were doing.

By Blogger Ryan, at 4:30 PM  

As both a novelist and a screenwriter, I agree that a novelist shouldn't adapt their own work. And that's why I haven't, despite everyone suggesting that I do it. I think as a screenwriter, you need to be detached from what made the book a good book versus what makes a good script. That means deleting, restructuring, etc. until it may not look like the book you spent all that time writing.

By Blogger Lawrence, at 1:09 AM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.

This page is powered by Blogger.