Will The Movies Be Remade Years From Now?

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by Wab

As I said, directors are creative people. And successful creative people are passionate. I have no quibble about Jackson's dedication to LotR once he had taken it on but it was not a film he had yearned to make beforehand.

And having invested time and effort in writing the script it was natural that he would be tenacious in getting it into production.

My impression differs. You don't invest time and effort in writing a script on the off chance that someday you might get the chance to make the film. Especially when nobody has asked you to write one. Anyway this is far enough off topic.

[ccollinsmith]

I could easily see a miniseries or even a limited series in a decade or two, but I don't really see another multi-film project - largely because of the logistics involved.

Plus, the technology available to the television medium is advanced enough right at this moment to handle this sort of material. I can only imagine how advanced it will be in 10-20 years.

If television can handle shows like Battlestar Galactica, it can handle Harry Potter. In addition, it could spread Harry Potter out over a longer sequence of episodes and thus cut out considerably less material, explore themes in more depth, etc.

Based on these factors, I think I would actually prefer any new adaptation to be done in the television medium.

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

I could easily see a miniseries or even a limited series in a decade or two, but I don't really see another multi-film project - largely because of the logistics involved.

Plus, the technology available to the television medium is advanced enough right at this moment to handle this sort of material. I can only imagine how advanced it will be in 10-20 years.

If television can handle shows like Battlestar Galactica, it can handle Harry Potter. In addition, it could spread Harry Potter out over a longer sequence of episodes and thus cut out considerably less material, explore themes in more depth, etc.

Based on these factors, I think I would actually prefer any new adaptation to be done in the television medium.

That's interesting. Do you think WB would surrender their rights to a British Television company? I can't see Rowling letting anything else but a British company do the job.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

That's interesting. Do you think WB would surrender their rights to a British Television company? I can't see Rowling letting anything else but a British company do the job.

A lot depends on how the rights are legally constituted, doesn't it?

I know WB has film rights, distribution rights, and various other rights to related products and the theme park. But does WB have exclusive rights in perpetuity to any and all screen adaptations? I don't know the answer to that, but I can't imagine any good reason why JKR would sign such a restrictive contract.

Also, "surrender" may be the wrong term here. Even if WB does have some sort of exclusive perpetual rights to the material, I am sure that a very lucrative deal could be struck that would create a "win" for WB.

I agree that a television adaptation would have to be done by a British company. Given the production values of Doctor Who and Merlin, I think BBC Wales is the company in the current British landscape that could best pull it off. But who knows what the British television landscape will look like in a decade or two?

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

A lot depends on how the rights are legally constituted, doesn't it?

I know WB has film rights, distribution rights, and various other rights to related products and the theme park. But does WB have exclusive rights in perpetuity to any and all screen adaptations? I don't know the answer to that, but I can't imagine any good reason why JKR would sign such a restrictive contract.

Also, "surrender" may be the wrong term here. Even if WB does have some sort of exclusive perpetual rights to the material, I am sure that a very lucrative deal could be struck that would create a "win" for WB.

I agree that a television adaptation would have to be done by a British company. Given the production values of Doctor Who and Merlin, I think BBC Wales is the company in the current British landscape that could best pull it off. But who knows what the British television landscape will look like in a decade or two?

Not BBC, there's not enough money in the pot for BBC. I think it's moot anyway. WB I don't think would ever surrender/loan out/share, it's biggest money spinner to British TV. I do think that before it's rights run out there will be remakes. Maybe I'm wrong, but I sure hope so. I know I'm probably in a minority but I didn't think any one film in the series did a good job. Like the parson's egg there were parts that were good and then there was the parts that frankly stank IMO. DH2 really disappointed me. The good performances did not make up for the bad script and bad choices in direction. Rowling told a really great story, I can't help but feel it might have been a good idea to actually tell that story. David Yates took over with the HBP. that was in 2008/9, the final book was published in 2007, he knew the ending, there was time enough to know where to take the films. Also would it have killed them to let the audience see what the heck was going on up on the screen?

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

Not BBC, there's not enough money in the pot for BBC. I think it's moot anyway. WB I don't think would ever surrender/loan out/share, it's biggest money spinner to British TV.

As I mentioned, it depends on how the rights are constituted. Film rights do not necessarily imply rights to all screen adaptations, and unless JKR used rather poor legal counsel, I can't imagine why she would put all her potential "screen" options into a single basket (er... studio).

If she retained a lot of her options to the material, then it might not cost BBC Wales more to make a HP series than it costs them to make other high-profile internationally-distributed series. But we're talking decades in the future here, not the present.

Basically, unless someone here knows the intricacies of the WB contract, we don't really know what legal issues another adaptation might be up against. If JKR was shrewd in her negotiations, then WB might actually not have any rights or power beyond the films it has already made. And I really can't imagine WB retaining rights two or more decades out (which is the timeframe I'm thinking of as being most likely for a new adaptation).

[Wab]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

I can't imagine any good reason why JKR would sign such a restrictive contract.

One reason would be that the contract for the first two books was negotiated in 1998 well before the books were a phenomenon.

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

My impression differs. You don't invest time and effort in writing a script on the off chance that someday you might get the chance to make the film. Especially when nobody has asked you to write one. Anyway this is far enough off topic.

Happens all the time. Read the memoirs of the likes of Stephen Fry or Michael Palin and see how many scripts and projects are written before funding is secured.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by Wab

One reason would be that the contract for the first two books was negotiated in 1998 well before the books were a phenomenon.

From what I understand, though, Heyman/WB were far more interested in buying than JKR was interested in selling. It's my understanding that she drove a hard bargain, retained veto rights, initially gave rights to only the first 4 books, and included a number of other conditions that even Heyman is not entirely aware of. That doesn't sound to me like someone who would have sold off all rights for all potential screen adaptions to WB in perpetuity.

But as I said earlier, unless we know the details of the contract (and apparently no outsiders do), it's hard to say just how much power WB actually holds... or for how long.

[merrymarge]

While I don't want the movies to be remade, somehow, in about 10-20 years down the road, someone might decide to remake the movies. And all the fans from today will check out the new movies and compare them to the original ones and either think the new movies are great or they stink. this is show business, what goes around comes around.

[ajna]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

Uh, I think you were the one who mentioned classics in relation to Harry Potter films. If you want to consider them classics I won't tell you not to. I don't think they're classics and it has been 10 years since the first one was made. I don't know of one person who would call it a classic, but to each their own.

Interestingly enough, on the topic of superhero movies being remade....when I think on it, not really. Because it's always just a different chapter of the superheros stories. Those comic books have dozens of different issues, stories and alter verses. I don't really consider The Wiz a remake of the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz, I consider it an interpretation of the Frank Baum book, not the MGM version. I really don't think anyone will ever take on another 10 year version of real life actors. Maybe some kind of computeresque version or something. Perhaps.

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by Wab

Happens all the time. Read the memoirs of the likes of Stephen Fry or Michael Palin and see how many scripts and projects are written before funding is secured.

Any film producer that dismissed a script by Stephen Fry or Micheal Palin out of hand needs a new career.

[Wab]

That's as may be, but the fact is that most scripts are created on the "off chance" (to use your expression) that the film might be made.

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by Wab

That's as may be, but the fact is that most scripts are created on the "off chance" (to use your expression) that the film might be made.

They are? You mean there are no people in Hollywood, Bollywood, the UK and other parts of the fim making world who get commissioned to do scripts? Producers and directors just sit around waiting for 'the' script to come in the post? I'm not knocking people who write scripts on the off chance, but it seems a pretty chancy way to make a living to me.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

They are? You mean there are no people in Hollywood, Bollywood, the UK and other parts of the fim making world who get commissioned to do scripts?

Don't try to insult my intelligence. There are staff writers and those who are commissioned but they cut their teeth doing stuff on spec. It's just the way writing works.

Producers and directors just sit around waiting for 'the' script to come in the post?

Essentially, yes. Except that scripts and treatments are pitched by agents to the producers. Do you honestly think that the suits come up with the good ideas?

Monty Python finished the first draft of Life of Brian before having secured any money.

When PJ started to write the movie that would become LotR he had no backing.

I'm not knocking people who write scripts on the off chance, but it seems a pretty chancy way to make a living to me.

That's the lot of writers.

[MsJPotter]

=Wab;5958129]Don't try to insult my intelligence. There are staff writers and those who are commissioned but they cut their teeth doing stuff on spec. It's just the way writing works.

Perhaps it is but...I have a hard time believing that that wasn't a learning process and was looked on as one as well. I'm quite sure that there are writers in the business that write on spec, but casting my mind back to the writing credits of most of the movies I've seen in the past few years it's not one writer on the credits, more often than not its a group of writers. Now I can see a few writers in lonely rooms somewhere, writing something that they hope will be picked up, I can't quite see a commitee of them doing the same thing.

Essentially, yes. Except that scripts and treatments are pitched by agents to the producers. Do you honestly think that the suits come up with the good ideas?

No I don't but I do think that they comission quilte a lot. It's not their job to write, but to tell the truth sometimes I think they couldn't do worse than the writers who churn out the stuff. Let's face it, 99% of the films made nowadays are sequels, book adaptations or remakes. An original script is as scarce as hens teeth.

Monty Python finished the first draft of Life of Brian before having secured any money.
..
When PJ started to write the movie that would become LotR he had no backing.

The Monty Python troupe had just come off a very successful TV show. I kinda think the producers were calling their agents.
Peter Jackson had already made a name for himself in the film business. He wasn't an unknown writer, but someone who had a reputation and was respected.

That's the lot of writers.

Some of them, not by any means all. I have a lot of repect for writers but I don't think that everthing that they write is on spec. Writers also have bills to pay. And now I'm finished.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

Some of them, not by any means all. I have a lot of repect for writers but I don't think that everthing that they write is on spec. Writers also have bills to pay. And now I'm finished.

Tell that to my agent.

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

The Monty Python troupe had just come off a very successful TV show.

But your premise was that scripts don't start without funding these didn't. In fact, Life of Brian was unfunded at the start of writing and then was about to shoot when EMI pulled the plug.

It was only that George Harrison was willing to mortgage his house that it got made at all.

[MsJPotter]

=Wab;5958411]Tell that to my agent.

Your agent isn't responsible for what you write. That sounds harsher than I mean, I know it can be hard to get what you want to say down on paper, but it's a sad truth that it's hard to get published. I started in trade magazines, I finished there as well.

But your premise was that scripts don't start without funding these didn't. In fact, Life of Brian was unfunded at the start of writing and then was about to shoot when EMI pulled the plug.

It was only that George Harrison was willing to mortgage his house that it got made at all.

See, they got backing. It would seem that they started it under the impression that they had backing to begin with. Probably because the Holy Grail was fairly successful. 1979, there was a bad recession then, maybe EMI ran out of the cash. And we really ought to leave this here. We are well off topic, Owl me if you want to continue.