INT. WRITER'S KITCHEN - DAY. Writer frets about copyright laws.
March 10, 2010 7:05 AM Subscribe
Are adapted screenplays always comissioned by studios, or do screenwriters ever adapt novels on their own, hoping that they'll get the legal right to make their move down the road? Note: I am not an aspiring screenwriter.
I threw that note in there in case anyone thinks I'm itching to write a film version of Cryptonomicon or something, and wants to head me off at the pass before I make a fool of myself.
In this post-Oscar week, however, I can't seem to stop thinking about this question. How does the process of adapting a screenplay work? Is it always that a studio buys the rights to a book and then farms out the writing work? Or has a screenwriter ever made his/her own version of his/her favourite novel out of the pure love of the work, then made the full court press to have it produced?
I exempt from this question works that are basically in the public domain (i.e. anything by Homer or Shakespeare), or movies that are based on materials already "owned" by the producers (i.e. the British political comedy In The Loop).
I threw that note in there in case anyone thinks I'm itching to write a film version of Cryptonomicon or something, and wants to head me off at the pass before I make a fool of myself.
In this post-Oscar week, however, I can't seem to stop thinking about this question. How does the process of adapting a screenplay work? Is it always that a studio buys the rights to a book and then farms out the writing work? Or has a screenwriter ever made his/her own version of his/her favourite novel out of the pure love of the work, then made the full court press to have it produced?
I exempt from this question works that are basically in the public domain (i.e. anything by Homer or Shakespeare), or movies that are based on materials already "owned" by the producers (i.e. the British political comedy In The Loop).
You can write an adaptation of anything you like. Copyright doesn't prevent you from doing that. What copyright prevents you from doing is publishing something which infringes on the rights of another author.
Because publication is an obviously critical part of getting a movie made, there's an incentive for screenwriters--who are all trying to make a living, after all--to wait until someone ponies up the money before going to work, and there's an incentive for the people with the money to not pay a screenwriter until they know they've got the appropriate permissions.
But there's nothing to stop a screenwriter from writing his own adaptation, selling a studio on it, and then the studio selling the author on it. I just don't think it usually happens that way, because it represents a potentially significant investment of time for what could be a completely abortive project.
posted by valkyryn at 7:38 AM on March 10, 2010
Because publication is an obviously critical part of getting a movie made, there's an incentive for screenwriters--who are all trying to make a living, after all--to wait until someone ponies up the money before going to work, and there's an incentive for the people with the money to not pay a screenwriter until they know they've got the appropriate permissions.
But there's nothing to stop a screenwriter from writing his own adaptation, selling a studio on it, and then the studio selling the author on it. I just don't think it usually happens that way, because it represents a potentially significant investment of time for what could be a completely abortive project.
posted by valkyryn at 7:38 AM on March 10, 2010
To add a little to this. Options typically have a deadline. So the producer can have 4-5 years to make a movie of that particular book/story/media. If they aren't able to make the file then the rights can be optioned again to another party.
posted by Napierzaza at 8:04 AM on March 10, 2010
posted by Napierzaza at 8:04 AM on March 10, 2010
I don't think he did it out the blue hoping it would get sold, but John Varley adapted his short story "Air Raid" into the movie Millennium, and then re-adapted that back into the novel Millennium. He spent a few years doing movie stuff and IIRC didn't much like it.
Michael Crichton was also sometimes involved with adaptations of his work, and his later novels read to me as if they were intended more as a basis for adaptation into films than as actual novels.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 AM on March 10, 2010
Michael Crichton was also sometimes involved with adaptations of his work, and his later novels read to me as if they were intended more as a basis for adaptation into films than as actual novels.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 AM on March 10, 2010
While you can (and should) write whatever you feel compelled to write, adaptation or not, it certainly makes it easier to get what you write produced if it has already been optioned or you own the rights to the property. :)
I know several writers who have as an exercise attempted to adapt novels -- it can be a rather trying effort because the usual tools of a written story (soaking the reader in details they can imagine, less on the talky talky) can't easily be transformed into a visual story (which is primarily driven by human action and talky talky).
posted by cavalier at 9:04 AM on March 10, 2010
I know several writers who have as an exercise attempted to adapt novels -- it can be a rather trying effort because the usual tools of a written story (soaking the reader in details they can imagine, less on the talky talky) can't easily be transformed into a visual story (which is primarily driven by human action and talky talky).
posted by cavalier at 9:04 AM on March 10, 2010
Studios and small production companies do this. In fact they see books in galley before they're published and often snap up a film option rather inexpensively on a speculative basis in case the book hits - for smaller producers, this means they can show a studio a built-in audience.
And sometimes you hit the jackpot, like Temple Hill Entertainment, two friends and former roommates (Temple Hill is the street where they lived) who thought there might be some potential in a little novel about to be published called Twilight. More often, though, nothing comes of it.
Roland Emmerich really liked the non-fiction book that got turned into The Day After Tomorrow, so he bought the film rights, and then brought in a writer to work with him on the script while he was pitching it to studios as a concept. (General rule of thumb, studios don't buy scripts, they buy ideas and then produce a script.) In that case it, was more like he knew pretty much exactly what the movie would look and feel like, because it was more about big FX set pieces, and the writer was kind of hired help to get the story mechanics into place.
So yeah, there is a kind of institutionalized system in place at the studio level to make this happen. And there are people who love a book and struggle to get it made, but they tend to be producers or directors rather than writers. (Although everybody in Hollywood writes. Said producer will probably bring a writer or several in, but be heavily involved in the adaptation themselves.)
It's not usually a case of writers doing this on the fly because a) they don't have the power to get something made and b) they don't have the money to waste on options that aren't going to go anywhere.
posted by Naberius at 9:38 AM on March 10, 2010
And sometimes you hit the jackpot, like Temple Hill Entertainment, two friends and former roommates (Temple Hill is the street where they lived) who thought there might be some potential in a little novel about to be published called Twilight. More often, though, nothing comes of it.
Roland Emmerich really liked the non-fiction book that got turned into The Day After Tomorrow, so he bought the film rights, and then brought in a writer to work with him on the script while he was pitching it to studios as a concept. (General rule of thumb, studios don't buy scripts, they buy ideas and then produce a script.) In that case it, was more like he knew pretty much exactly what the movie would look and feel like, because it was more about big FX set pieces, and the writer was kind of hired help to get the story mechanics into place.
So yeah, there is a kind of institutionalized system in place at the studio level to make this happen. And there are people who love a book and struggle to get it made, but they tend to be producers or directors rather than writers. (Although everybody in Hollywood writes. Said producer will probably bring a writer or several in, but be heavily involved in the adaptation themselves.)
It's not usually a case of writers doing this on the fly because a) they don't have the power to get something made and b) they don't have the money to waste on options that aren't going to go anywhere.
posted by Naberius at 9:38 AM on March 10, 2010
Actually the Twilight book rights were originally owned or optioned by a studio (Paramount I believe, though I could be wrong about that) and they let the rights lapse because they didn't think much of it, so Temple Hill snapped it up. (I've worked with them, they're awesome guys.)
As a writer you can adapt anything you want for shits and giggles, but most even slightly-marketable book rights are already owned by someone with the same idea, so I'd recommend any writer find out if the rights are available before setting off to do a spec-adaptation. Seems like a colossal risk of time and energy, to me. Better to just adapt one of the many stories that are already in the public domain.
I've personally never heard of a spec writer taking a book (from a book store, already published etc, as opposed to say a friend's as-yet-unknown story or little heard of snippet in the newspaper) and selling the adaptation before the book rights were optioned. I think it's happened for true stories the writer is made aware of through his own connections or whatever, but not for books on the best seller list.
Usually book agents (and increasingly, journalists) are on the phone with hollywood agents months before anyone outside the industry has a chance to read the text, in hopes of setting up a sweet deal before public opinion colors the potential bestseller-list success of said project.
posted by egeanin at 10:44 AM on March 10, 2010
As a writer you can adapt anything you want for shits and giggles, but most even slightly-marketable book rights are already owned by someone with the same idea, so I'd recommend any writer find out if the rights are available before setting off to do a spec-adaptation. Seems like a colossal risk of time and energy, to me. Better to just adapt one of the many stories that are already in the public domain.
I've personally never heard of a spec writer taking a book (from a book store, already published etc, as opposed to say a friend's as-yet-unknown story or little heard of snippet in the newspaper) and selling the adaptation before the book rights were optioned. I think it's happened for true stories the writer is made aware of through his own connections or whatever, but not for books on the best seller list.
Usually book agents (and increasingly, journalists) are on the phone with hollywood agents months before anyone outside the industry has a chance to read the text, in hopes of setting up a sweet deal before public opinion colors the potential bestseller-list success of said project.
posted by egeanin at 10:44 AM on March 10, 2010
One more thing-- if you have thousands of extra dollars lying around and a lot of faith in your project, you can always option the rights yourself first, and then do an adaptation. Plenty of successful writers do just that, in order to have more control over the project. But you'd still need some connections in the industry to market it. And it's a pretty expensive risk to take as an artist.
posted by egeanin at 10:47 AM on March 10, 2010
posted by egeanin at 10:47 AM on March 10, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks for the answers, everyone. Insightful stuff. It's interesting to hear how the industry operates.
If you don't mind an extra question, what goes on in the case of someone like Alexander Payne, writer/director of Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways? Not knowing much about the man, it seems like these were projects that he would have actively pursued. That is, he saw books he liked and wanted to make movies out of them.
So is this a case, as Naberius implied, of a committed writer/director working hard to get a project off the ground? Would said person have trouble securing the rights from whatever studio owned them? Would they be easier to come by for someone who was already a big name in the industry?
posted by hiteleven at 11:03 AM on March 10, 2010
If you don't mind an extra question, what goes on in the case of someone like Alexander Payne, writer/director of Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways? Not knowing much about the man, it seems like these were projects that he would have actively pursued. That is, he saw books he liked and wanted to make movies out of them.
So is this a case, as Naberius implied, of a committed writer/director working hard to get a project off the ground? Would said person have trouble securing the rights from whatever studio owned them? Would they be easier to come by for someone who was already a big name in the industry?
posted by hiteleven at 11:03 AM on March 10, 2010
In cases like that, Naberius would have his agent/manager check into the rights for the particualr novel. What you hope for in those situations is a "free option:" in other words, you're given official permission to adapt the story at no charge, with the understanding that if the project moves past the script stage, a financial deal will be worked out.
These types of options for books that aren't major hits really aren't expensive to obtain, even if a free option isn't an option. Authors are horribly paid compared to screenwriters (in general), and any money offered is a good deal for them.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:53 AM on March 10, 2010
These types of options for books that aren't major hits really aren't expensive to obtain, even if a free option isn't an option. Authors are horribly paid compared to screenwriters (in general), and any money offered is a good deal for them.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:53 AM on March 10, 2010
I don’t think it’s correct that unauthorized creation of the derivative work of a screenplay is permissible as long as you don’t “publish” it. I am quite sure that is copyright infringement. But, if nobody finds out, it doesn’t matter. The effect is the same, but the legalities aren’t.
posted by joeclark at 8:16 PM on March 10, 2010
posted by joeclark at 8:16 PM on March 10, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
In many cases the book rights are optioned by a Hollywood "player"--this could be a producer, a powerful director, etc. From there a screenwriter is chosen, hired, and the screenplay developed.
But this isn't always the case. The movie Memento (great movie BTW) was originally a short story written by Christopher Nolen's younger brother that Christopher Nolen then adapted himself, and made and directed.
Also a lot of starting filmmakers, such as Frank Darabont, were able to commission rights to Stephen King short stories for $1 to then put together independent films from.
And these days movies have a LOT of roads to go down to be made. The Indies shown at Sundance, privately funded but then sold to studios, may be based on other original works and the authors of those original works may either have a stake in the film's profits or have been paid a marginal sum. Meanwhile the best-selling novelists (and those featured on Oprah) have studio heads writing them big checks and then hireing screenwriters to do it.
posted by arniec at 7:24 AM on March 10, 2010