"In case you haven't heard, Clive Cussler, whose ocean-going, globe-trotting adventure tales have only become more popular in recent years, is being sued in two jurisdictions by billionaire businessman and producer Philip Anschutz because Cussler's self-described popularity did not translate onto the big screen in Sahara, which apparently lost $105 million despite starring Matthew McConaughey as Dirk Pitt. (Here's a belated suggestion: if you're making the first movie in decades based on an author known for his deep-sea adventures, maybe you shouldn't name it after a desert.) Anschutz alleges, among other things, that Cussler overstated his following by claiming that his books have sold more than 100 million copies (Anschutz's lawyers claim the number is closer to 30 million, which of course is not bad...)."
All I can say is, wow. Sahara got me into reading Cussler's books to.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I read a couple Dirk Pitt adventures. They're just too pulpy for me. Kind of fun, mindless reading, but really too much to believe.
You can't just suspend disbelieve. You have to take disbelief and lock it into a golden chest, bury it in an active volcano, drop that volcano into the deepest trench in the ocean, cover it with a diamond the size of New Jersey, set a water-breathing tribe of cannibalistic Aztec warriors as a guard, and by page 300 Dirk Pitt will still have rescued your disbelief using only a a leather belt, a 1940 Corvette, and an authentic WWII German machine gun.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
...
...
...
...
roflmao
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Clive Cussler is actually a pretty interesting man. To some extent, his stories are autobiographical. Not the swashbuckling of course (and he freely admits that), but the part where he personally leads and works in expeditions that find lost, sometimes historically very signifigant, shipwrecks.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
His 70's books are just hilarious to read now. No author could get away with how women are treated in those books today.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
If they can prove he claimed 100 million in sales and actual documented sales are only 30 million, they have a legitimate reason to be pissed.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I read a couple Dirk Pitt adventures. They're just too pulpy for me. Kind of fun, mindless reading, but really too much to believe.
You can't just suspend disbelieve. You have to take disbelief and lock it into a golden chest, bury it in an active volcano, drop that volcano into the deepest trench in the ocean, cover it with a diamond the size of New Jersey, set a water-breathing tribe of cannibalistic Aztec warriors as a guard, and by page 300 Dirk Pitt will still have rescued your disbelief using only a a leather belt, a 1940 Corvette, and an authentic WWII German machine gun.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: If they can prove he claimed 100 million in sales and actual documented sales are only 30 million, they have a legitimate reason to be pissed.
Sounds fishy to me. You don't buy film rights to books based on anecdotal data from the author. There are agents involved, and possibly you have some sort of research department. Companies don't spend over a hundred million dollars without doing any sort of market analysis.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: If they can prove he claimed 100 million in sales and actual documented sales are only 30 million, they have a legitimate reason to be pissed.
Sounds fishy to me. You don't buy film rights to books based on anecdotal data from the author. There are agents involved, and possibly you have some sort of research department. Companies don't spend over a hundred million dollars without doing any sort of market analysis.
Well, duh. By "prove he claimed 100 million in sales," it's sort of implied that he and his agents would have falsified documents in order to lend credibility to their claim. It's not like he came up to them and said "Hey, my books sold 100 million copies, make me a movie!" and they said "KTHX."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is a countersuit. Cussler sued the filmmakers because the crappy movie killed the franchise, and this was the response.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This is a countersuit. Cussler sued the filmmakers because the crappy movie killed the franchise, and this was the response.
Sounds like Cussler's a king-sized toolbox.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, the filmmakers did cast Matthew McCouneghy. They are not blameless.
I'll bet Uncle Orson would have a dandy perspective on this. I hope he writes about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it depends on how much control he was promised over the initial movie and how much he actually had...I know he was very disappointed in it from the start.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
If the film makers win, could it set a nasty precedent for sueing authors?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I hope Cussler wins, then maybe writers like Le Guin and Auel can sue... and possibly Asimov and Heinlein's estates.
And, by the slippery slope argument, then maybe we fans can sue George Lucas and prevent him from ruining anything else.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:And, by the slippery slope argument, then maybe we fans can sue George Lucas and prevent him from ruining anything else.
Best.
Southpark.
Ever.
("Free Hat")
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
That was a South Park episode? Man, maybe I'll have to start watching that show.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Yes it is, and yes you should watch that episode at least. Google "free hat" and I bet you'll find it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I tried reading "Raise the Titanic," and fell asleep about 10 pages in. I absolutely could not get into it. Sahara was your average popcorn flick, nothing special at all.
And I have no sympathy for the execs. If they are industry professionals, they should know when they've made crap and when they've made a decent summer bug budget blockbuster. Now I know that what the execs think and what the moviegoing public think often differe from each other, but suing the author because he said he had a bigger fanbase? Cheap. That's the execs being lazy because they couldn't make a good movie, and were expecting a ready made audience to come pay to see their crappy movie. Maybe if next time their first concern is to make a good movie that non-fans can come see, they'll make enough money to not have to sue anyone.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
In related news, the studio plans to file individial suits against 178 million people for "seeming to be, you know, the kind of people who would go to see that kind of movie" and then not turning up to buy tickets.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Even if he did sell 100 million copies his share of that is what? 50 million? 30 after taxes and maybe 20 after expenses certainly it is not likely that his personal fortune is going to come close to their loss, or that a judge would believe that his person fortune should be backing a movie just because he wrote the story.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If they have documentation of the claim and the refutation of the claim, I guess they could do that. Or maybe they could look at Matthew McConaughey a little harder, maybe there's call for suing the casting director. Also, in Cussler's defense (which I hesitate) have there been other 100 million selling authors who's filmed stories were duds?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'd say that there have been at least 100 million Dungeons and Dragons books sold in the last 30 years.
And that movie was awful.
[Edit: 100,000 != to 100 million]
[ February 23, 2007, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sahara was not a horrible movie. After first seeing this newsstory a while back I watched it just to see.
Although it was nothing to write home about, once it got into its momentum it was a perfectly normal, decent and rather interesting-concepted film (albeit somewhat unbelievable). However, the opening half hour was heavy. By heavy I mean it had a lot to establish and we knew it. Part of this was due to the fact that the two main characters, a man and a woman, had quite seperate interests and missions until the very end.
I think a way to solve this would be to get us to care about the characters early on and so we don't mind a bit of backstory. However, the movie did nothing to make us care (Like, yes. Care, no) for the characters' safety, thus making a clumsy ninja attack (OKay, not a ninja, almsot a ninja) on the woman character and her underwhelming rescue by the man, rather laughable.
Anyway, that's why the movie failed as a movie. Partially the book's dualism and partially the adaptation.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I hope this isn't too spoilerific, and I don't know if it was inherent to the book or something that happened in the moviemaking, but the story seemed to go in one direction and then not get there. "Ship of Death"? What the?
I, for one, am glad that "White Death" is unlikely to be filmed at this rate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was unimpressed by "Sahara".
I honestly can't remember if I even finished watching it or not.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Have they figured out whom we can sue for "Ishtar"?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm thinking about suing Philip Anschutz for not making my novel into a major movie, which would have generated enough publicity to make my book to sell in the millions, which would have caused a major publisher to give me a HUGE prepublication advance on royalties, which would have given me a decent incentive to think about writing that book in the first place.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm gonna sue myself for not writing anything worth making a movie about...
Just like any other lawsuit, the only winners are the lawyers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And yet you all keep suing each other!
Mwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Wow, I guess we got OSC's view point in his reviews after all. He makes a good point that the script writers have to try and appeal to an audience other then just the readers.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And yet you all keep suing each other!
Mwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Lawyers FTW!
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
am I the only one here that is somewhat familiar with Cussler's works, but was completely unaware that the movie was related to them? I've read a handful (and was unaware that he had one titled Sahara) but if any of the ads for the movie actually mentioned his name I might have gone. But maybe I just missed those ads
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: am I the only one here that is somewhat familiar with Cussler's works, but was completely unaware that the movie was related to them? I've read a handful (and was unaware that he had one titled Sahara) but if any of the ads for the movie actually mentioned his name I might have gone. But maybe I just missed those ads
My mom reads his books religiously, and didn't realize the connection until she saw the back of the dvd in the rental store.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I wouldn't say the movie was any worse than the book.
I should say that I read the book when a surely well-meaning 19-year-old told me all about it and actually bought it for me because I told her I read historical fiction. I didn't have the heart to tell her that wasn't quite the definition of 'historical fiction' I'd been thinking of. (It really was nice of her.)
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
I was so disappointed in Sahara too. My goodness there were only three gratitutious shots of a well-oiled Mathew McConaughey....
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Coccinelle: I was so disappointed in Sahara too. My goodness there were only three gratitutious shots of a well-oiled Mathew McConaughey....
And they did nothing with Penelope Cruz's... er... talent! Yeah, that's it! Talent!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by Coccinelle: I was so disappointed in Sahara too. My goodness there were only three gratitutious shots of a well-oiled Mathew McConaughey....
And they did nothing with Penelope Cruz's... er... talent! Yeah, that's it! Talent!
I thought that low-cut tank top showcased her talent quite nicely...
-pH
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:And, by the slippery slope argument, then maybe we fans can sue George Lucas and prevent him from ruining anything else.
Best.
Southpark.
Ever.
("Free Hat")
That really is a good episode. I rather enjoyed it. I have it on DVD because I own season six.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was confused, I thought the studio sued Cussler and then in OSC article its Cussler suing the studio. I understand you can counter sue as well but I have no idea how this rhubarb started!
Man I have not used the word rhubarb or heard it used in a very LONG time! Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Rhubarb.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was confused, I thought the studio sued Cussler and then in OSC article its Cussler suing the studio. I understand you can counter sue as well but I have no idea how this rhubarb started!
Man I have not used the word rhubarb or heard it used in a very LONG time!
They sued each other. The studio sued him, after he sued them.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: am I the only one here that is somewhat familiar with Cussler's works, but was completely unaware that the movie was related to them? I've read a handful (and was unaware that he had one titled Sahara) but if any of the ads for the movie actually mentioned his name I might have gone. But maybe I just missed those ads
I never heard his name associated with it. I figured it out when I saw the novel sitting in the bookpile adjacent to the 'throne' my Father in law reads on.
I enjoyed it, as far as standard action/adventure movies go. I'm part of the problem, though, as I borrowed a DVD from someone to watch it. (don't sue me Clive!)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)