Jim Diver
Member
Just finished DE. I loved it. Waiting on the third installment...
John Ross’ Review of Matthew Bracken’s Domestic Enemies
- Thread starter John Ross
- Start date
- Status
kevin davis
Member
futures
Way too many people do not realize the the time traveller idea of a global war against Islam is a very likely scenario. While it has to be admitted that early Christianity had many wars of conversion, none really advocate it now. Islam still does and has done so for the last 14 centuries. I found the story believable and possibly accurate. Muslims would have to actually reject many Koranic teachings about jihad and hatred to avoid this future. How likely is that? To reject part would be to admit that Islam is a false religion since the beginning, so it will not happen. The sad part about all this is that the vast majority of mulims cannot even read the koran. It must only be read in arabic and so many children memorize arabic passages with no knowledge of their meaning, other than as explained by whatever the imam wants them to believe and know. This allows complete ignorance to grow into fanatacism.
there is no moderate islam, just muslims who do not follow the more extreme parts of the koran at this time.
Way too many people do not realize the the time traveller idea of a global war against Islam is a very likely scenario. While it has to be admitted that early Christianity had many wars of conversion, none really advocate it now. Islam still does and has done so for the last 14 centuries. I found the story believable and possibly accurate. Muslims would have to actually reject many Koranic teachings about jihad and hatred to avoid this future. How likely is that? To reject part would be to admit that Islam is a false religion since the beginning, so it will not happen. The sad part about all this is that the vast majority of mulims cannot even read the koran. It must only be read in arabic and so many children memorize arabic passages with no knowledge of their meaning, other than as explained by whatever the imam wants them to believe and know. This allows complete ignorance to grow into fanatacism.
there is no moderate islam, just muslims who do not follow the more extreme parts of the koran at this time.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Kevin, obviously you haven't read Matt Bracken's book(s). It has nothing at all to do with Islam.xd9fan
Member
I second this sentiment.
Writers have NO influence over producers & directors. Even Tom Clancy couldn't prevent Hollywood from changing one of his most plausible stories (Sum of All Fears) into ludicrous nonsense.
Only thing we can do is take the money, cross our fingers, and maybe cry all the way to the bank.
JR
Only thing we can do is take the money, cross our fingers, and maybe cry all the way to the bank.
JR
JOHN ROSS - "Writers have NO influence over producers & directors."
Yep!
When a studio, independent production company, actor, producer, or director buys a published work, they can have the hired screenwriter(s) to change the original work any way they wish.
Happens all the time. Many times to the absolute detriment of the original work.
The only way a writer/author could dictate the casting and retain the original plotline in his novel or screenplay would be to form his own production company, hire his own screnwriter(s), contract with all the various technological "below-the-line" services, arrange his own distribution, and pay out some major, major $$$$ to do so.
Very few writers have either the money, and especially the experience to "make their own movies."
That's just the way things are in Hollywood.
L.W.
Yep!
When a studio, independent production company, actor, producer, or director buys a published work, they can have the hired screenwriter(s) to change the original work any way they wish.
Happens all the time. Many times to the absolute detriment of the original work.
The only way a writer/author could dictate the casting and retain the original plotline in his novel or screenplay would be to form his own production company, hire his own screnwriter(s), contract with all the various technological "below-the-line" services, arrange his own distribution, and pay out some major, major $$$$ to do so.
Very few writers have either the money, and especially the experience to "make their own movies."
That's just the way things are in Hollywood.
L.W.
DRZinn
Member
There is another option. Thw writer can sell not the work, but the rights to produce a movie based on the work, conditional on the original artist's approval of script, etc.
It's happened before.
It's happened before.
DOC ZINN - "There is another option. Thw writer can sell not the work, but the rights to produce a movie based on the work, conditional on the original artist's approval of script, etc.
It's happened before."
Really?? How about an example or two.
Unless you're speaking of a playwright, who has approval over virtually EVERYTHING in his produced play, anyone selling a published work (or even a "speculation" screenplay) has virtually NO say so over what a studio, or producer, etc., does with his/her work. That's one of the major gripes of writers since writers started writing for screen and teeeveee.
If it's "happened before," I don't know of it. (????) That's why I asked for an example.
L.W.
(Current member of the Writers Guild of America,west, since pre-strike 1973.)
It's happened before."
Really?? How about an example or two.
Unless you're speaking of a playwright, who has approval over virtually EVERYTHING in his produced play, anyone selling a published work (or even a "speculation" screenplay) has virtually NO say so over what a studio, or producer, etc., does with his/her work. That's one of the major gripes of writers since writers started writing for screen and teeeveee.
If it's "happened before," I don't know of it. (????) That's why I asked for an example.
L.W.
(Current member of the Writers Guild of America,west, since pre-strike 1973.)
DRZinn
Member
Ya got me; I don't have any examples, it's just something I've heard.
But why couldn't a writer, rather than simply selling the work, sell the right to produce a different version of the work (i.e. a film) subject to his approval of every aspect?
But why couldn't a writer, rather than simply selling the work, sell the right to produce a different version of the work (i.e. a film) subject to his approval of every aspect?
John Ross wrote (in part):
"...he asked us to accept that a principal player in the BATF would engineer a mass shooting at a football stadium and frame a homeless man for the crime, so as to increase nationwide antigun outrage ..."
There are those who postulate that the alleged (and convicted) mass murderer in the Tasmanian shootings (35 killed, IIRC), Martin Bryant, was not really the shooter. That he was a "patsy" for Rebecca Peters & her ilk. I have no idea as to whether there's any truth to the conjecture, but do have to say that it doesn't strain my imagination too much. Apparently, Bryant's level of mental retardation raises quite a few questions as to whether he actually possesses the inellectual acuity required to perform the actions for which he's been convicted.
Rick
"...he asked us to accept that a principal player in the BATF would engineer a mass shooting at a football stadium and frame a homeless man for the crime, so as to increase nationwide antigun outrage ..."
There are those who postulate that the alleged (and convicted) mass murderer in the Tasmanian shootings (35 killed, IIRC), Martin Bryant, was not really the shooter. That he was a "patsy" for Rebecca Peters & her ilk. I have no idea as to whether there's any truth to the conjecture, but do have to say that it doesn't strain my imagination too much. Apparently, Bryant's level of mental retardation raises quite a few questions as to whether he actually possesses the inellectual acuity required to perform the actions for which he's been convicted.
Rick
Mannlicher
Member
I have a problem with what I consider 'whack job' political novels. There is no way I can, to use Mr. Ross's premise, suspend belief in my perceived reality, to find the novel readable.
DOC ZINN - "But why couldn't a writer, rather than simply selling the work, sell the right to produce a different version of the work (i.e. a film) subject to his approval of every aspect?"
Doc, in Hollywood, it just doesn't work that way.
Actually, when you hear the phrase, "I sold my novel to XYZ Studio ...," the novelist didn't really sell his novel to the studio. What the studio bought was the right to adapt a screenplay from the novel.
Within the contract, it will state that the studio has the right to change anything in the novel for the screenplay. The original author, of course, still retains the copyright of his novel, his contracted % of sales by his publisher, novel royalties, right to a sequel novel, etc., plus he might have in his studio contract that he has the right to write the first draft screenplay. If so, it will be in accordance with notes and "suggestions" from the producer. No matter, quite a number of things in the original novel will be changed for the screen.
BUT, the studio owns the film and the copyright of the film. The film and novel are entirely separate entities.
There isn't a studio or independent producer (or other "buyer") in Hollywood, who would purchase the screenplay rights of a novel with the stipulation by the author that nothing could be changed in the screenplay or film. Ain't a'gonna happen.
You'd be amazed at how many screenwriters are often hired to write and rewrite and rewrite ad nauseum, a screenplay adapted from a novel. Just because you might see in the credits, "Written by Joe Blow," it doesn't mean that Joe Blow wrote the entire screenplay. On-screen writing credits are arbitrated by the Writers Guild of America, west. (I've been on the WGA Arbitration committee a number of times, determining a writing credit.) I know of several films that have had as many as 30 writers rewriting the screenplay before filming. Talk about a cluster intercourse...!!!
In fact, one of the most famous films ever, "Gone With The Wind," had 14 writers "tweaking" the screenplay, including William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Neither has an on-screen credit.
I have a good friend in L.A. who did some really heavy "tweaking" on "Quigley Down Under," who is not mentioned in the credits. He also rewrote the "Star Trek II" screenplay, but is not mentioned in the credits.
As I said before, that's just the way it is in Hollywood.
FWIW.
L.W.
Doc, in Hollywood, it just doesn't work that way.
Actually, when you hear the phrase, "I sold my novel to XYZ Studio ...," the novelist didn't really sell his novel to the studio. What the studio bought was the right to adapt a screenplay from the novel.
Within the contract, it will state that the studio has the right to change anything in the novel for the screenplay. The original author, of course, still retains the copyright of his novel, his contracted % of sales by his publisher, novel royalties, right to a sequel novel, etc., plus he might have in his studio contract that he has the right to write the first draft screenplay. If so, it will be in accordance with notes and "suggestions" from the producer. No matter, quite a number of things in the original novel will be changed for the screen.
BUT, the studio owns the film and the copyright of the film. The film and novel are entirely separate entities.
There isn't a studio or independent producer (or other "buyer") in Hollywood, who would purchase the screenplay rights of a novel with the stipulation by the author that nothing could be changed in the screenplay or film. Ain't a'gonna happen.
You'd be amazed at how many screenwriters are often hired to write and rewrite and rewrite ad nauseum, a screenplay adapted from a novel. Just because you might see in the credits, "Written by Joe Blow," it doesn't mean that Joe Blow wrote the entire screenplay. On-screen writing credits are arbitrated by the Writers Guild of America, west. (I've been on the WGA Arbitration committee a number of times, determining a writing credit.) I know of several films that have had as many as 30 writers rewriting the screenplay before filming. Talk about a cluster intercourse...!!!
In fact, one of the most famous films ever, "Gone With The Wind," had 14 writers "tweaking" the screenplay, including William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Neither has an on-screen credit.
I have a good friend in L.A. who did some really heavy "tweaking" on "Quigley Down Under," who is not mentioned in the credits. He also rewrote the "Star Trek II" screenplay, but is not mentioned in the credits.
As I said before, that's just the way it is in Hollywood.
FWIW.
L.W.
Diamondback6
Member
IIRC, Cussler sued the studio over Sahara because the contract was supposed to include Cussler retaining creative control, and they changed a bunch o' stuff without his approval. Didn't hear how it came out, might still be in court.
DRZinn
Member
That's the one I heard about.
If I were a writer, famous enough not to need the money, there'd be no contract without my retaining full approval rights.
Ryder
Member
That's odd considering how much of science fiction past has become present day science fact. I know what you mean though because politics leaves me feeling the same way, it's just an endless stream of mindless crap made up out of thin air.
DOC ZINN - "If I were a writer, famous enough not to need the money, there'd be no contract without my retaining full approval rights."
Then you would not sell it, Doc.
As for the Cussler suit, I don't know exactly what happened, but I can assure you, the studios and their lawyers have so many ways to get around "creative control," or other "paragraphs in a contract, it isn't even funny.
Let me give you an example with which I'm very familiar.
A good friend of mine was hired to do about the fourth or fifth rewrite of what became a very, very successful movie. Now, in "the Biz," a standard deal made with writers, actors, directors, etc., is that part of the "loot" that person receives, is a "% of net profit" from the film.
Sounds good, huh? Unfortunately, the way that Hollywood "creative accounting" works, there is NO net profit. For the studio, there are expenses and expenses and expenses of so many kinds that are thrown against the film's box office gross, that the net profit is reduced to, in most cases, a loss.
The studio beats the tax man, plus anyone who had a contract for a % of net profit.
That's why there are only a very few very powerful directors and actors who can make a deal for a % of the BOX OFFICE GROSS. At that point, that person has what can be a very handsome sack of coins to take to an off shore bank in the Grand Cayman islands.
So, back to my friend. Somehow, when the contracts were made up in the legal department of the studio -- perhaps by some young, just hired studio lawyer who let it slip by, the contract stated my friend was to receive a % of the GROSS.
Later, when the flick became so popular and money was flowing into the studio's coffer like water over Niagara, my friend demanded an accounting. Because of his contract, he figured the studio owed him $7,500,000.00.
The studio said they just made a mistake in the typing of the contract and they would not pay him. Said his cut should have been a % of net.
So, my friend sued the studio. The case went to court. The court found IN FAVOR of my friend. $7,500,000.00 was owed.
Very shortly, the studio lawyers said to my friend, "Look, Joe Blow, we can appeal this and appeal this and continue screwing you around, costing you legal fees from now 'til Hell freezes over. You'll be dead before you collect the money. "
The studio lawyers then said, "So, tell you what. We like your work. You've written a number of screenplays for us before and you'll be hired again, for big bucks ... IF you'll settle this for $750,000.00."
My friend, knowing they could not only out spend him, but outlast him said, "Sounds like a deal to me."
As John Ross said, "Take the money and run."
I say again, I don't know what Cussler's deal was, but I guarantee you, if the studio wants to outspend him and outlast him, they can do it.
FWIW.
L.W.
Then you would not sell it, Doc.
As for the Cussler suit, I don't know exactly what happened, but I can assure you, the studios and their lawyers have so many ways to get around "creative control," or other "paragraphs in a contract, it isn't even funny.
Let me give you an example with which I'm very familiar.
A good friend of mine was hired to do about the fourth or fifth rewrite of what became a very, very successful movie. Now, in "the Biz," a standard deal made with writers, actors, directors, etc., is that part of the "loot" that person receives, is a "% of net profit" from the film.
Sounds good, huh? Unfortunately, the way that Hollywood "creative accounting" works, there is NO net profit. For the studio, there are expenses and expenses and expenses of so many kinds that are thrown against the film's box office gross, that the net profit is reduced to, in most cases, a loss.
The studio beats the tax man, plus anyone who had a contract for a % of net profit.
That's why there are only a very few very powerful directors and actors who can make a deal for a % of the BOX OFFICE GROSS. At that point, that person has what can be a very handsome sack of coins to take to an off shore bank in the Grand Cayman islands.
So, back to my friend. Somehow, when the contracts were made up in the legal department of the studio -- perhaps by some young, just hired studio lawyer who let it slip by, the contract stated my friend was to receive a % of the GROSS.
Later, when the flick became so popular and money was flowing into the studio's coffer like water over Niagara, my friend demanded an accounting. Because of his contract, he figured the studio owed him $7,500,000.00.
The studio said they just made a mistake in the typing of the contract and they would not pay him. Said his cut should have been a % of net.
So, my friend sued the studio. The case went to court. The court found IN FAVOR of my friend. $7,500,000.00 was owed.
Very shortly, the studio lawyers said to my friend, "Look, Joe Blow, we can appeal this and appeal this and continue screwing you around, costing you legal fees from now 'til Hell freezes over. You'll be dead before you collect the money. "
The studio lawyers then said, "So, tell you what. We like your work. You've written a number of screenplays for us before and you'll be hired again, for big bucks ... IF you'll settle this for $750,000.00."
My friend, knowing they could not only out spend him, but outlast him said, "Sounds like a deal to me."
As John Ross said, "Take the money and run."
I say again, I don't know what Cussler's deal was, but I guarantee you, if the studio wants to outspend him and outlast him, they can do it.
FWIW.
L.W.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
