Films/DVD Asylum

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

216.196.128.235

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: While there are exceptions to every rule, what I stated above is the more likely scenario. posted by Audiophilander on November 26, 2007 at 16:19:29

"FYI, the author's work isn't being compromised since films aren't the author's medium, but an author who takes his/her work too seriously may end up writing only for themselves and end up serving customers from behind a convenience store cash register."

Huh? If an author is successful, they are making a living writing. Films based upon their novels are icing on the cake. Otherwise, writers, before the advent of films, would not have been writing fiction. So if an author is able to earn a living as a successful writer, then the economic pressures of selling the story for big bucks to Hollywood, or, even for smaller bucks to a couple of idiosyncratic hooligans making movies, is not necessary to put food on the table, or maybe even to avoid being forced to serving customers from behind a convenience stand.

"So I can tell you for a fact that there's a price to pay for an unwillingness to compromise and/or make artistic adjustments to meet the expectations of your audience, but I won't bore you with the details."

Well, has your wife ever sold a story to a studio, producer, director, or screenwriter? How much money has she earned from her books being translated to the big screen? Despite what I assume to be none and nothing to the first two questions, you write that she is a successful writer. Apparently, she has found that rare, unique ability to earn a living writing without selling anything to Hollywood. Given that the author of the Coens' latest film is a Pulitzer Prize winning author, I presume that he too has found success outside the arms of Hollywood.

Is it therefore a stretch for a Pulitzer Prize winning author, who may very well have a swelled head from the accolades that such a distinction brings, considers his works to be beyond modification? Even for a lot of money?

"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."

Except that the Coens did not imagine the story - the author did. They merely read what he imagined, then filmed it. Maybe what you mean is that they decided the film, without any input or direction from the author, should be true to his story. That is certainly possible.

"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."

That is the easy way out. The question is what to do if the Pulitzer Prize winning successful author who is selling you the film rights for not a lot of money, not appreciably more than he earns anyway, feels that this is his baby, and he will not allow you to change it, no matter what. Then what do you do?

"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?"

No. But your's are not really based on first hand knowledge, unless your wife is in the same financial and professional position as the author of the Coens' film. We have a saying in the legal biz, which is that the facts are everything, and no two cases have the same facts. If your wife was a Pulitzer Prize winning author, with approximately the same income as McCarthy, with the same track record in terms of volumes sold, critical accolades, and she is negotiating with the same people that McCarthy negotiated with, then, well, maybe you would have some knowledge as to what went down between the Coens and McCarthy.

"The critical evidence IS the film itself."

Evidence is only critical in terms of what the possessor seeks to prove with it. Arguing that the film could have been better without the ending. Sure. Arguing that the ending was because of the Coens. Not necessarily. It appears the comments here have been relative to the latter, not the former.

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

Um, no. Anymore than if you were married to a heart surgeon you would be qualified to diagnose heart conditions. See above. Unless your wife is in a similar circumstance to McCarthy.

"We can all make assumptions and present evidence."

Which is why Judges keep unreliable evidence from a jury. The only evidence here is that there was an ending in the Coens' film. An ending which several people did not like. Assumptions based upon that ending are not evidence. It is conjecture. Counselor, you make the allegation, you have the burden of proof. My job is to simply to create reasonable doubt. You've been overruled.

Have fun.

Follow Ups: