The V

No, it's a bit more convoluted than that. Closed on Mondays, the Oni production arm, bought the actual production option (but I won't be rubbing myself with fivers any time soon). Garner and Jackman have committed to it, and part of that agreement is that Vandalia, Garner's production company, will co-produce if/when it sells to a studio. We still control it, and so we could pull it from Vandalia at any time if we wanted to, but that would all kinds of crazy.

Production option (beer money) -> Studio option (new kitchen) -> Principal photography (helloooooo, Dolly). Many "X comic got optioned" announcements that you see are actually just production options released for publicity purposes (and god knows how many of those we saw during the Great Hollywood Gold Rush of the early 00s). Until the story says a studio bought it, hold off on the begging letters.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to read that and assume you were paid money.

I do think it's unreasonable that Jennifer Garner hasn't given you lots of money though.

You should shout at her.

Eoin

Or at least a handj.

I hope you have some degree of script approval or input.

Hahahahahahaha you're funny.

I'm sure she could kick my head in (with a wig on), so probably best not.

Oh dear.

Then again, the screenwriters are mostly going to be trying to hammer it into a 3-act structure with notes from the stars (and everyone else) anyway.

Nah, she'll leave it to her stunt double to kick your head off.

Oh, come on. You of all people should know that nobody gets script approval unless their initials are J.K.R. Oh, they all say they want your input, and they're really excited to get you involved, but at the end of the day if they want blue and you want red, blue it is. 'Twas ever thus.

Also, I've seen the treatment they're going out with, and it hews surprisingly close to the book, much more so than I expected. Not that I imagine it'll stay that way for more than a minute after a studio gets involved, but hey.

Yeah, but at the very least, especially in the early stages when everyone's still being polite to each other, they should listen to what you say, even they're planning to completely ignore you in the end.  Sometimes, no matter how remote the chance, one or two things you say might actually be remembered and used.  

You'll know how badly things have fallen apart by the time production occurs based on whether or not they invite you to the set.

Ah, but currently, there's a debate in the studios after the success of IRON MAN and HULK on whether they might do better to hue more faithfully to the source than change it out of recognition.  WANTED would be the counter-argument.

"they should listen to what you say, even they're planning to completely ignore you in the end."

That's kind of my point. Yes, I have "some degree" of input, perhaps more than some because of Oni being involved on the production side, but it would have been disingenuous of me to reply "yes, I've got loads of input" because we all know at the end of the day the studio is the one wearing the trousers.

That's what you can reasonably expect.  

If they actually make a show of being rude to you and ignoring you from the get-go, which is extremely rare (unless that first meeting has a temperamental star or psychopathic executive, which doesn't usually occur till later on), then you'll know everything's going to hell before they even set off on the journey.  

"And honestly, I think I'd lose respect for any writer who said he didn't want to tackle the iconic characters of the medium - that urge is exactly why actors want to do Hamlet and Blofeld"

Since the thread's actually gone a little more serious rather than gags, I'd step back to this and note this is complete bollocks, in case anyone bought your line for a second.

Obvious: Actors aren't writers. Actors core thing is an interpretation of others ideas. That they may want  to display their take on one seminal play or character or another is a completely different thing - and I'd take issue with the idea it was a universal thing there either, but I'd give you that it's more essential.

A writer deciding that what they most want to do is rework a pre-existing idea is an aberation. It's Peter Jackson doing King Kong. It's embarassing fanboyism raised up the Gold Standard.

In short: not everyone wants to be John Byrne.

KG

Workblog | email
Phonogram
Busted Wonder

"David Kohl"

"A writer deciding that what they most want to do is rework a pre-existing idea is an aberation."

Sort of.

I think most writers can't help but read something and think that, in many cases, they could do it better. There are probably a good many writers who would write, say, Batman, were the opportunity handed them, even if they have no particular goal of doing so.

Or Peter Jackson doing Lord of the Rings.

Or James Cameron doing Aliens.

Or Cronenberg doing the Fly.

Most of the directors in Hollywood are working off someone elses script anyway, so claims to originality and ownership are suspect at best.

I realise that doesn't apply to comic book writers, but I just felt the need to nitpick the flaws in the comparison.

Eoin

"this is complete bollocks, in case anyone bought your line for a second"

 I'm sorry you think so, and that you choose to express it that way. In fact, I'm outright saddened. Comics is perhaps one of the few places where writers can readily take the approach of the intepreter; where there is a built in opportunity to take on that most exciting of creative challenges, to paint your vision on the walls of another's cathedral. Comics allow the writer to play the actor, the director, the dancer, the singer. In most other forms of fiction, if the courage exists to write like that, there are practical limitations that tend to prevent it. But I think most writers don't see that sort of writing as an opportunity, or as an exercise of their skill. They don't challenge themselves enough. In comics it becomes an excuse to whore downwards and take the money (which I'm told is "nice"). What a terrible, awful, indicting failure of the imagination that is. No wonder 90% of everything is shit.

Can we go into the dual-nit-picky game and note that James Cameron wasn't JAMES CAMERON when he wrote Aliens? Because that sort of thing is really useful to the argument at hand.

KG

Workblog | email
Phonogram
Busted Wonder

"David Kohl"

"that most exciting of creative challenges, to paint your vision on the walls of another's cathedral."

I think this is where the fundamental disconnect lies.

"Comics is perhaps one of the few places where writers can readily take the approach of the intepreter"

Well, if you *want* to, sure.

But you put it as some kind of glorious imperitive which you'd find anyone not doing so disgusting. Yours wasn't a "People can do this" argument - it's anyone who doesn't want to do it is somehow falling beneath what a writer in the medium should be doing. If you don't feel that the world needs to see your take on Superman, you shouldn't be in the medium*.

The former is a perfectly reasonable position. The latter's a Byrnne-ism. Which would be appropriate, given that we're in a thread saying comics these days are shit.

KG

*I didn't even pick up the icon thing, which is a bugbear for another time.

Workblog | email
Phonogram
Busted Wonder

"David Kohl"

 I know the disconnect is there. I'm saying that it makes me sad.

 And now to see if anyone is going to attempt to extrapolate my viewpoint to an absurdist extreme!

Heavens, that was quick!

<-Can we go into the dual-nit-picky game and note that James Cameron wasn't JAMES CAMERON when he wrote Aliens? Because that sort of thing is really useful to the argument at hand.->

Was he JAMES CAMERON by the time he did TITANTIC?  A movie which, one could argue, had been made once or twice prior.  And does TERMINATOR 2 get off because he's sequeling his own material?  And I'd love to know how TRUE LIES wasn't built on a bedrock other people's prior work.

email
aim
desires

I AM JASON

Andat least one of his next two projects is based on an existing property.

We can note that, as long as you note that film is a medium that has a long and rich history of established directors adapting other peoples books, comics and films. And that on top of that, they're usually working from someone else's script.

The idea that King Kong was bad because Jackson was adapting material that he loved is silly, given that that's precisely the reason LOTR is so good.

Eoin

<< Comics is perhaps one of the few places where writers can readily take the approach of the intepreter >>

You can do that anywhere.

Then again, the screenwriters are mostly going to be trying to hammer it into a 3-act structure with notes from the stars (and everyone else) anyway.

How many acts do you think it breaks down to?

I think you're missing the importance of 'readily' in Andrew's statement.

email
aim
desires

I AM JASON

Doesn't matter what I think since I'm not the designated writer.  

Hollywood studios demand every mainstream script has to have a 3-act structure, no negotiations, before they approve it for production.