That looks like some standard boilerplate that she found and pasted into the contract. I think I would have just sent back a contract with all the objectionable stuff crossed off, instead giving her first "serial rights," as it were. That would have put the ball back into her court. You can do this with contracts. When William Gaines, the publisher of MAD magazine, received a contract, he would feel free to amend it to his satisfaction. Frank Jacobs tells this story:
I would ask for a brief, one-page pitch of what they planned to do with my material, but other than that I'd just leave them to their own devices. I'm a writer, not a screenwriter, director, editor, or producer; I don't know how any of that stuff works. I may voice dissatisfaction if there was any whitewashing, maybe not even see the movie if that was severe, but ultimately I'd just hope that the filmmakers could make a good movie out of my work. However, I would burst into tears if Micheal Bay got the directing gig.
This is a fun thread and all, but y'all realize that authors have zero input in how "their" movie is made, right? The author is a complete non-factor once the rights have been optioned. Filmmakers do prefer a cooperative author and will listen to input most of the time (and then tell you to go fuck yourself)... after all, if they like the project enough to make it there's a good chance they have respect for the author's creative input. But they don't care what you think. The screenwriter doesn't even have a seat at the table where the decisions are made. Hell, most directors don't have creative control over their own projects unless they're paying for it.
So your saying Stephen Spielberg isn't going to swoop in and buy the rights to Xzodis while leaving me with complete casting and final cut approval? Then why did I even write it!?!?
Honestly, I wouldn't my stories to become films, cus they really wouldn't fit that format, if someone wanted to make a short length tv series though.... I'd be fine with that as that format would be well suited. You know, like a six episode series? As for things that would be nice to have control over, it would have to be casting and I'd like an emphasis on practical effects as computer generated ones are a tad overused (and god I'm fed up with the ragdoll effect in tv series when someone leaps about and they decide they can't employ a stunt man or use a green screen and 'have' to use cgi to make the person, it looks crap frankly), but obviously for things that require those sort of effects it would be fine.
There would be only three things I would want to insist on. One would be that the core tech at the heart of my story stays the same, including its implications for society. Two would be that one of my main characters, who is written as autistic, stays that way, but isn’t portrayed stereotypically. Finally, I would insist that they at least try to cast Tatiana Maslany as I picture her as one of my characters—specifically, Sarah’s attitude and Cosima’s aesthetic. Everything else would be up for grabs.
Honestly, I'd say, "Tell them I get full creative control and everything is approved by me. It's that or I'm not signing."
With all the super hero movies they make, then why do they suck lately? I think comic books kinda count as books. But you are probably right, that they would listen to the author and then do what they want any way.
I write my books with the mental vision of them as movies. Being a nobody author, I'll resign myself to taking the check and letting them have their way with it. Sometimes adaptations do very well. Other times they are colossal disappointments to readers and viewers alike. Sometimes (very rarely) they adapt almost verbatim from the book (Paper Moon/Addie Pray is a stellar example, though they only use about 2/3 of the book). Sometimes they don't follow the book hardly at all but are worthy in their own right. The Shining is a terrible adaptation of a Stephen King novel but it is very creative film making. Ultimately the cashing of large checks would allow me to write full time so a bastardization or two would be okay.
I'd want to approve everything. J. K. Rowling did have some control over the Harry Potter films. I'd want to be sitting on set, watching the filming, and if I saw something I didn't like, I'd get them to change it. Look what happened to "How to Train Your Dragon": genuinely, the only thing that's the same as the books was (most of) the character names!
I mean, if it hadn't been based on a book, it'd be a decent movie. I take inspiration sometimes from the films. But I've read a few of the books and I'd have to agree the movie did not do a good job at all. Completely different plot, premise, everything. I mean, in the books Toothless is a tiny green dragon who rids on Hiccup's shoulder and everything that comes out of his mouth is hilarious. A little of the humor in the books was too crude for my taste, but it a good book and I wonder how much more interesting the movie would be if they had followed the book's plot and had everyone own a pet dragon (which they wind up doing in the end, so points for effort I guess.) But honestly, if that happened to my book, I'd be super ticked. Literally if they had just changed the names, title and the Viking setting nobody would know it was based on How To Train Your Dragon.
That's what I think they should do! Change all the names, and then make some films that actually are How to Train Your Dragon! I was also kind of peeved about Camicazi turning into Astrid: not only was she a lot less interesting, but it also perpetuated the trope that seems to be ever-present in kids' films: a girl can only do anything important if the hero has the hots for her.
I think I'd like to be an executive producer just to make sure it was kept in the spirit of my story. I'd like some say in casting but I'd absolutely not like to be in it myself (which is interesting since I used to work as an actress*) *Theatre, not anyone famous, not Gillian Anderson
Well - not a book, I know - the two creators of Avatar: The Last Airbender were executive producers of M. Night Shyamalan's adaptation and...well... They prefer to pretend it doesn't exist and told one of the main voice actors on the show not to see it. EDIT: Found out recently that they were only listed as executive producers because they created the show and they didn't actually have any input into the film.
I would love my book to be turned into a movie or TV serial. I'm looking into retiring one day and could use the money. But, I would like to stipulate that I have a cameo, sort of like James Dickey in Deliverance. Deliverance, the novel, is actually an incredible book, despite what most think of the movie.
Television series? No. Movie or anime? Yes. I'd want to control the one thing I'd realistically have completely control over: who's doing it?
Are you saying I should crowd fund a movie for my story? You'll have to excuse me, I'm drunk and tired, so I'm sorry if I missed your point lol. EDIT: Oh LOL I get it now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Wiseau This is my choice since Kubrick passed.
Not control, but... some kind of inspiring effect. Movie bisnes is very good in spoiling humour. They use to target it to idiots. That does not work. It is not fun. It narrows audiences. If I had any saying, I would be telling that... - Look at the humour in Newsroom, Solsidan, some things in Frazier, Amelie, Billions... Big income and still not directed to idiots only. - "I don't know who did casting to the Newsroom, but I'd love it if casting could be that good." - The warm humour in Amelie is largely based to the way that camerawork and story are put together. I'd love to see that kind of camerawork in my story. But nothing with controlling attitude. More like hinting and stepping back after that.
Tone. If the tone isn't done right the movie can totally wreck meaning. I thought Adrian Lyne's Lolita was beautiful in recapturing the late forties but the tone was so off. It turned the whole story into a love affair that might've gone right had Lolita not been such a bitch. The only one a viewer could feel sorry for was Humbert. In the old Kubrick black humored version he got the tone right. Humbert was shown as a dangerous controlling, fool and Lolita as trapped and bored by him.
I would prefer my books being conveted to a weekly series than to film. Movies aren't made anymore with the capacty to provoke thought; they're almost solely for entertainment now. But, there are a lot of really intelligent shows out there that don't have Hollywood budgets, so they have to rely on smarts as opposed to spectacle to sell their work. Things are changing to some degree with the ubiquity of computer generated graphics; weekly series that employ CG tend to do a pretty good job with it, so some of them can have spectacle with the smart. The books I'm working on are somewhat serial in nature, so they would fit better as a weekly show. I wouldn't be opposed, however, to theatrical films being made from one or two of them, provided that the script/s didn't butcher my work, or deviate significantly from it.
I would, and I would want control over the cinematography, and part of everything else. If it's going to be your story, you need to take part in its creation so no one messes anything up and it turns out just how you had imagined. I'd want it to be a television show rather than a movie, however.
