Cussler Ordered to Pay $5 Million in Court Case

A verdict has been reached in the infamous "Sahara" lawsuit:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6636896,00.html

Clive Cussler has been ordered to pay $5 milllion to the production company. The basis of the law suit was that the owner of the company claimed that Cussler overinflated his sales numbers, and that the movie was a flop because of that. (Talk about having no concept of reality. The movie flopped because it sucked!)

However... The case isn't over yet. First, the production company got far less money than they were asking for. Also, according to the article, Cussler could still end up getting $8 million for the rights to a second book that was never filmed. The company is disputing this because they don't want to make another movie. Aww, poor production company. They screw up the first one royally and then cry that they don't want to make another.


According to the article, Cussler sued for $40 million because the production company promised to give him approval rights over the screenplay but reneged. But the production company claimed he fought with the screenwriters they hired. (Look, guys, if you're hiring multiple screenwriters to rewrite your script, you've probably done something wrong anyway.) The filmmaker countersued, claiming they were "duped" into making the film because of overinflated sales numbers. Right. Saying "Sahara" flopped because fewer people bought the books than they thought is like saying "Gigli" flopped because most people didn't know how to pronounce the title.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, those sales numbers don't really count the true readership of a popular novel. They don't count library circulation, including people like my father who have read or listened to almost every Clive Cussler book without ever buying a single one. They don't count used book sales, thrift shop sales, or people lending the book. The movie version of "Sahara" was such a big flop that it probably left the theaters before most fans knew it was there. That wasn't the fault of an allerged dearth of Cussler/Dirk Pitt fans. That was because just about everyone hated the movie.

I think the production company should fork out even more money for being utter idiots. Or maybe the fabulously wealthy owner, Philip Anschutz, should be forced to stand in a public square wearing a sign saying "My movie tanked because it sucked eggs." And perhaps apologize to the millions of Cussler fans he claims don't exist. But maybe I'm just weird.

BTW you can read more about the case in this thread:
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54008&highlight=Cussler

dantem42 said:

It's a dangerous thought to somehow equate a movie's potential success directly with a novel's sales figures, regardless of issues such as direction, casting, et. al. If they'd casted Steve Martin as Dr. Hannibal Lecter instead of Anthony Hopkins, nothing in the galaxy could have saved the Thomas Harris movie trilogy.

Click to expand...

Although Hannibal Rising might have done better with Steve Martin in the role. (And don't get me wrong, I liked the young French guy who played him. He's adorable. )

I've seen cases of terrible changes made to movies. I remember renting a made-for-TV version of one of my favorite Mary Higgins Clark books, only to learn that they'd slashed the plot to shreds. They changed the gender of the killer, thus requiring other changes, as well as changing the existing relationship between two major characters. It was a mess. I should have sued the production company because for months after I rented it, my father and brother made fun of me for renting that terrible movie.

And then there was the adaptation of the Lawrence Block book where white male antique bookstore owner Bernie becomes Bernice so that he, I mean she, can be played by Whoopie Goldberg. And the adaptation of a best-selling LaVyrle Spencer romance novel where the idiot filmmakers changed the love story entirely, IIRC rewriting it so that the guy who was supposed to be the hero was the heroine's brother and then bringing in a new guy for her to fall in love with. Then they probably wondered why it didn't do that well. Weren't these romance authors supposed to have millions of fans? Yeah, and fans of the book felt creepy with the guy who was supposed to be the hero being the heroine's brother. Ewww.

dantem42 said:

Scary thought that a writer bashes his brains out hard enough to get to the point of being able to sell film rights, only to be sued in the event of a flop. Gives me the willies.

Click to expand...

I'm doubtful that this case will create much of a precedent. Also, this case might be different because it started out with Cussler suing the production company because they were supposed to give him more approval over the script. (Hmm, perhaps they should have listened... )

Plot Device said:

Chicken. Egg. Please clarify.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but you've inspired me to start a poll.
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65009