 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.128.235
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 or non-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.
Edits: 11/26/07Follow Ups:
Maybe I'm off base here or misreading your intent, but it appears that you're determined make assumptions about the lack of insight of anyone who criticizes this film on it's merits. While some of my views may have confused or confounded you it is my hope that the tone didn't come across as harsh or demeaning of your own opinion. For clarities sake I will attempt to restate my position and respond point by point without appearing too condescending in the process (well, maybe a little, but only because I've already sharpened my scalpel for heart surgery! -grin).
> > > "If an author is successful, they are making a living writing." < < <
Just as quickly as success comes it may go, and there is no harsher industry than publishing in that regard. Yesterday's best selling author may be tomorrow's unmarketable writer, and all it takes is one or two failures to reduce an author's future worth, Pulitzer prize or not.
> > > "Films based upon their novels are icing on the cake." < < <
Yes, and no. From a financial standpoint, even a best selling author will typically make more from a movie option than he or she ever sees from the book, and that's for properties that end up in "production hell" and never get made. Turning down a film project over a minor creative difference is something that most authors don't do lightly.
Obviously the Coen brothers wanted to film the book as written, because what ends up on the screen is mostly as written. However, it is my contention that the Coens slipped up with the ending, irrespective of the author, and while I can't provide absolute proof of that, an assessment has already been made in regard to how faithfully the rest of the film adheres to the novel.
> > > "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?" < < <
If you are the author, 'maybe' you can afford to stand on principle, but if you're the Coen brothers it's a much more expensive proposition, and you either negotiate or walk away, find another property and new backers. One thing is for sure: the filmmaker decides what will fly and what won't or he/she won't proceed with filming.
I'm not saying whether the author is or isn't responsible in some capacity for the less than satisfactory conclusion of NCfOM, but regardless of who made the decision to film it that way ultimately it is the Coen's who must bear both credit and criticism for what ends up on the screen.
> > > "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." < < <
My knowledge is based upon a modest knowledge of the industry (which, no offense, is still more extensive than your's), the negotiations I'm privy to concerning my wife's series and common sense. While I won't argue the obvious (that each situation differs), the fact that an author won a Pulitzer prize does not automatically make his/her work more marketable as a film property. You appear to be making more assumptions than I in this regard because my argument doesn't rely on who negotiated for what.
> > > "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." < < <
My contention is that there was an easily avoided flaw in the film's structure that made the conclusion unsatisfying; I am not alone in this assessment. The evidence of this is the fact that the film was shot and released unapologetically by the Coen brothers; what I've stated in every way I know how is that it's still the filmmaker's responsibility because they chose to shoot and release the film this way. If they felt as myself and others did about the questionable conclusion they could've negotiated for more control over the final product, requested test screenings, offered points or walked; they apparently chose none of the above.
> > > "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." < < <
Bad analogy, 'doc'. If I've paid my dues, in this case the cost of admission to see the film in question, then I'm qualified to provide a second opinion and speculate about it's success or failure. Using the strained analogy you've proffered, I guess a christian scientist probably would not be allowed to express an informed opinion about a delicate heart surgury on a member of the congregation because he or she wasn't a heart specialist!
As for similarity of circumstances, I guess neither surgeon nor theologian would be allowed to vent an opinion on your watch about an obvious problem with the collapsed anus of the McCarthy's and Coen brother's film because we don't have your expertise in proctology (just teasin'). ;0)
> > > "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." < < <
Sorry, but your arguments here beg for jury nullification. How do you know the total number of folks who are displeased with the conclusion of this film? Have you conducted a polling? I assessed dissatisfaction at the film's conclusion from the reaction of the audience in the theater where my wife and I saw NCfOM; we both had a similar reaction. You are requesting evidence on a technical point for something which doesn't matter. The bottom line is that the film concluded in an unsatisfying manner for some people; neither you nor I know the exact numbers, but I'd wager the number is greater than you are assuming. The film's saving grace is the crispness of it's dialog and the high caliber of acting.
> > > "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." < < <
There are no assumptions; the evidence, as I've stated before, is the film itself. What I've said about the film's ending is not conjecture; it is what it is, and you either accept the evidence of it or you don't. Personally, I find the conclusion seriously flawed, but I accept the film's other qualities without disagreement.
What has been so frustrating in this case is that you've chosen to overrule common sense by employing the "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" tactic, which may succeed in achieving a not guilty verdict but without a critical consensus based on the preponderance of evidence. ;^D
Case dismissed!
Cheers,
AuPh :O)
"While I won't argue the obvious (that each situation differs), the fact that an author won a Pulitzer prize does not automatically make his/her work more marketable as a film property. You appear to be making more assumptions than I in this regard because my argument doesn't rely on who negotiated for what."
That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that receipt of an award such as a Pulitzer Prize generally brings with it, or is a reflection of, success as a writer. Success that generally involves financial rewards. Financial rewards that mean an author does not need movie treatments to bring home the bacon. Not that they become more marketable to studios. Given that studios release films such as Deuce Bigalow tells me that the quality of the author's work is not always that important. Not that any author dreamed up Deuce Bigalow.
The other aspect of the Pulitzer is that an author may, well, get a swelled head, and feel that their stories and prose is beyond modification. Heck, it is perfect if they dreamed it, and, well, you can't improve upon perfection.
"If you are the author, 'maybe' you can afford to stand on principle, but if you're the Coen brothers it's a much more expensive proposition, and you either negotiate or walk away, find another property and new backers. One thing is for sure: the filmmaker decides what will fly and what won't or he/she won't proceed with filming."
I am think we are maybe making progress. The author can stand in principle. Let's say that McCarthy tells the Coens, hey, you need to film the ending as I have written it. Could the Coens conclude the story is so good that an ending which some, but not all, feel is somehow something of a letdown enough for them not to buy the rights and make the film? I do not recall anyone ever arguing that they thought the film was so good until the last fifteen minutes that the ending made the film a waste of time. Maybe a letdown, or not as good as it should have been. So, the Coens could very well look at the project as one which the ending will not cost them bucks, and they buy the rights anyway.
"My knowledge is based upon a modest knowledge of the industry (which, no offense, is still more extensive than your's), the negotiations I'm privy to concerning my wife's series and common sense."
No offense. I'm perfectly willing to criticize a film, only not willing to blame a film maker for the presence of an ending, as opposed to how the ending was filmed, where there is more than one possible explanation for the presence of that ending. The questions is not your knowledge versus mine. The question, since you raised it, is the extent of your knowledge into the negotiations between the Coens and McCarthy based upon dealings involving your wife and other persons in the film industry. Those may or may not be relevant. Merely having them does not give you more insight into the particular dealings between the Coens and McCarthy.
"I'm not saying whether the author is or isn't responsible in some capacity for the less than satisfactory conclusion of NCfOM, but regardless of who made the decision to film it that way ultimately it is the Coen's who must bear both credit and criticism for what ends up on the screen."
I will not dispute that. If McCarthy tells them he sells them the rights only with the ending, and they still buy the property, and then film the story, they are indeed responsible for what appears on the screen. The question, though, is if their choice was make the film with the ending, or not to make the film, then what choice would you make? Even if they went to McCarthy and said "pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top."
We know what they chose to do. And you can criticize them for that choice. But critism is easy. I guess I am asking the hard question. What you would you have done? Suggeting further negotiations is easy. At some point, negotiations end, and a choice must be made.
Maybe...
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
(nt)
FWIW... and the circumstances are certainly different... Jon Krakauer wouldn't option "Into The Wild" unless the filmaker(s) agreed to be faithful to the book/story.
My understanding is that there was still plenty of interest.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
