Films/DVD Asylum

While there are exceptions to every rule, what I stated above is the more likely scenario.

70.249.139.73

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: Not a likely possibility. posted by jamesgarvin on November 26, 2007 at 13:23:39

>>> "I think you would agree that it depends on the author." <<<

Yes, but even the most successful authors rarely have significant input into the film-making process unless requested by the Producers, regardless of genre or sales status.

>>> "No doubt there are authors who would sell their sole for a new computer." <<<

Only to a heel. ;0)

>>> "On the other hand, there are authors who take their art seriously enough not to compromise it strictly for commerce." <<<

True, they're often referred to as out-of-work authors. :o)

The author's work hasn't been compromised since films aren't the author's medium; an author who takes his/her work too seriously may end up writing only for themselves and serving customers from behind a convenience store cash register. Since my wife is a successful author and I work in the fine arts, I could provide horror stories of authors we know personally who have fallen from grace (even NY Times Best Sellers), but I won't bore you with the facts.

>>> "Well, if film makers as astute as the Coens believe that the novel would make a great film, and since the Coens are not making Hollywood blockbusters, but rather films generally outside the system that do not generate the profits that make authors insanely rich, they may not have had a lot of a money to pay the author, and been forced to give him some concessions to get the rights to the story. Or the author, being financially comfortable, might have said, hey, since you don't have a lot of money for me, I'll wait unti a bigger fish comes a' callin'." <<<

Well stated, but once again you miss the finer point, which is: what would the Coen's offer in order to produce their filmed vision of the author's work? The rhetorical answer is quite simple: POINTS. If you want to produce your vision of a work without compromise (regardless of how the author may see his/her work) and financing the purchase is in jeopardy you offer points which translate to a percentage of net profits. Authors rarely alter work for a different medium unless directly involved from the outset in the screen-writing process and even then other writers will probably be involved in 'stirring the coffee' so-to-speak.

>>> "For who? No exceptions?" <<<

There are always exceptions but if you are talking likelihoods, then the scenario I've described is more typical one regardless of whether you're dealing with the Coen brothers or Jerry Bruckheimer Productions. In truth, the Coen brothers would likely select a property more in keeping with their quirky vision and produce a film very similar to the work that inspired them to purchase it in the first place, but even if the author is pleased with the final result, it will be the Producer's vision of the work, not the author's, that gets green-lighted.

>>> "I have no issues with criticising the Coens for the work on their film. On the other hand, it is not fair to criticize them for an ending which they may have had no choice in making, though you may criticize them for the way they executed the ending. But the critism I have read here does not take them to task for how they handled the ending, but rather the ending itself." <<<

I'll give you odds that it was filmed from start to finish as the Coen brothers imagined it, and that the author placed NO demands on the manner in which they concluded this film. Not for one second do I believe that the Coens were constrained by the author to add elements which weaken the stories ending; this was their choice and they didn't see any drawbacks to it.

>>> "I think the question still stands: If the author told the Coens that if they wanted the rights to his story, they needed to end the film with the same ending as in the book, what would you do?" <<<

In the Coen's shoes, given your hypothetical, I would explain very carefully to the author that what strengthens a story in a literary context may weaken the same story cinematically. The two mediums, while complimentary, are entirely distinct from each other. Sometimes what works in a more contemplative literary context can bog down or defeat the emotional balance of a filmed work.

>>> "We are both making assumptions." <<<

True, but mine are based on some first hand knowledge with this field (my wife has a couple of series under negotiation for optioning); can you say the same?

>>> "But I'm not the one using my assumptions to disparage somebody else's work." <<<

I haven't disparaged anybodies work; all I've done is add my subjective opinions to the mix. While this may be a great cinematic work, IMO it is flawed in a manner that was easily avoidable. Allow me to reiterate that polite, subjective criticism of a film that I find commendable in many ways isn't disparagement.

>>> "From time to time I see these so called legal experts who judge an attorney's work based upon the little they see in the Courtroom. They have not seen all the evidence. They have not talked to any of the witnesses. They have not been a party to any pre-trial discussions with the Court. Yet they make numerous assumptions, and then comment upon what an attorney, who has all that information, should have done. Looks to me like that is what is happening here" <<<

This bears no comparison to what we're discussing here; you're over-ruled! ;0)

1) The critical evidence IS the film itself.

2) I'm just a witness, but with enough knowledge of similar cases to be an expert witness.

3) We can all make assumptions and present evidence; the jury (the public) will make the final determination based upon a preponderance of evidence.

Cheers,
AuPh

Follow Ups: