SAHARA trial starts!

Adventure writer Clive Cussler stands to face the jury as they enter
Los Angeles Superior Court, Friday, Feb. 2, 2007, for a civil trial.


Trial Starts in 'Sahara' Flop Flap

BY GREG RISLING


ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


LOS ANGELES -- A production company that made the action film "Sahara" reneged on a deal to give best-selling author Clive Cussler creative control of the movie based on his book, his attorney said Friday.

Attorney Bert Fields told jurors at the outset of the trial of dueling lawsuits between Cussler and Crusader Entertainment that the agreement was breached when vital story lines were eliminated and Cussler's script suggestions were ignored.

Cussler and Crusader Entertainment, a company owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz, are each seeking millions of dollars in damages.

"It was supposed to be Mr. Cussler who decided what would be cut out," Fields said. "They made this movie even if he didn't approve of all these changes."

The 2005 film, starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz, was envisioned as the springboard for a lucrative franchise like the "Indiana Jones" or "James Bond" series, based on Cussler's character Dirk Pitt.

The movie grossed $68 million in the United States, but Fields said the production cost about $160 million.

Attorneys for Crusader Entertainment have portrayed Cussler as uncooperative and meddlesome, and claimed he misled the moviemakers by saying his books had sold 100 million copies. They claim he sold less than half that number.

Alan Rader, an attorney representing the company, said in his opening statement that Cussler was granted rights of approval that were replaced with a less authoritative consultation role when a director was hired.

"He doesn't get final say," Rader said. "Every single complaint Mr. Cussler has made about changes to the screenplay happened after the director was hired."

The trial, expected to last nine weeks, could provide an inside look at behind-the-scenes dealing in Hollywood.

On one side is Cussler, who has written 32 books. On the other is Anschutz, one of the richest men in the United States, who co-owns the Los Angeles Kings hockey team and owns Anschutz Entertainment Group, which operates Los Angeles' Staples Center. He also owns several Major League Soccer teams, including the Los Angeles Galaxy.

Both sides agree a deal was reached that gave Cussler certain consultation and approval rights for "Sahara."

Fields told jurors his client initially sought $40 million for the movie rights to some of his books, and a compromise was later reached that gave Cussler the ability to approve the screenplay for "Sahara" and consultation rights for a second movie that was never made.

Cussler's rights to the first film "stay intact without limit and just go on and on," Fields said.

Numerous screenwriters were brought in to polish the script. Some versions were approved by Cussler but Fields estimates about 50 "fundamental" changes were made that strayed from the book and doomed the film.

"They tore the heart out of the story," Fields said. "The picture died, lost all of this money because they gutted it."

Called the "Grandmaster of Adventure," Cussler, 75, has written numerous novels featuring Pitt. Cussler's book "Raise the Titanic!" was made for the big screen in 1980 but didn't do well at the box office.

link

Scroll through this topic for the latest updates and info. This topic has multiple pages.

Cussler case goes to trial

Crusader claims author tanked 'Sahara'

By JANET SHPRINTZ

Opening statements were heard Friday in the trial pitting author Clive Cussler against producer Philip Anschutz over the failure of the 2005 film "Sahara."
Attorney Alan Rader, who represents Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment, told an L.A. Superior Court jury that Cussler intentionally tanked the feature by rejecting scripts in bad faith, publicly disparaging the movie and fraudulently inducing Anschutz to enter into a $10 million-a-book deal by inflating the number of books he sold.

Bert Fields described his client Cussler as a bestselling author who had been burned once before by a filmed adaptation of his work and demanded, and got, extraordinary creative control over the script for the filming of his novel "Sahara."

Both sides agreed the film lost approximately $60 million.

As outlined by Fields, Cussler, the author of 32 books, including 19 action-adventures featuring "Sahara" hero Dirk Pitt, had seen his novel "Raise the Titanic" destroyed by a 1980 filmed version over which he had no creative control. He vowed never again to sell film rights until producer Howard Baldwin teamed up with Anschutz and urged him to sell the rights in anticipation of an "Indiana Jones"- style franchise.

After lengthy negotiations, Crusader agreed to pay Cussler $20 million for the rights to two books. As for script approval, says Fields, the two sides agreed that on the first film, Cussler would have unlimited approval and on subsequent films, his approval rights would end when production started.

Cussler approved an initial script written by Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer ("A Sound of Thunder") and revised by David S. Ward ("Sleepless in Seattle"), but he allegedly hated a subsequent revision by James V. Hart ("Hook") and undertook to revise the script himself. The early screenplays approved by Cussler, Rader said, had to be revised to attract stars.

Two years into development, Josh Friedman ("War of the Worlds") was brought in for a revision; Fields acknowledges that Cussler's reaction to the changes was that Friedman "should have his keyboard shoved up his anal canal."

Crusader claims the Friedman draft was rejected by Cussler amid anti-Semitic slurs and that racial animosity played a role in his dismissal of the idea of having Dirk Pitt's sidekick be played by a black actor.

On the issue of racial and religious slurs, Fields said that Cussler flatly denied making them and that they were the fabrication of his longtime publicist whom he fired.

In the end, Donnelly and Oppenheimer were brought back in for a final revision, and the screenplay was finally turned over to Breck Eisner to direct. Once Eisner was onboard, he ignored Cussler and gutted his story, Fields said, changing it from serious action-adventure into a slick jog through Africa.

Not happy with a consulting role once Eisner took over the movie, Cussler badmouthed the film, in breach of his contract, Rader contended.

Fields said that Cussler did not disparage the film to his fans until he was essentially pushed off the movie. He sued in 2004 before the film was even released.

Rader told the jury that it was just common sense that, under the contract, Cussler's approval rights changed once a director was picked and that disputes would be resolved in favor of the director.

As for the inflated book sales, Rader said it took until trial to get real numbers and that the significance of those numbers is critical.

Fields addressed the claim that Crusader had overpaid for the film rights because books sales were inflated by saying that number now given by Crusader -- under 50 million rather than 100 million -- does not include remaindered and used books.

Crusader thought it was paying top dollar for a top-tier property, only to discover the fan base was a fraction of the projected size, Rader said.

The many breaches of contract enumerated by Rader included that Cussler revealed his huge payday to columnist Liz Smith and that he refused to read screenplays and listened to casting suggestions in bad faith.

link

(Grr! that right mouse button!)

Well, it does say only 60 million on my paperback copy of Flood Tide. But still, there is not one house I have visited where there are not at least two or three Dirk Pitt novels on the shelf.

You mention Star Trek and maybe a third of the people you talk to know anything about it. You mention Dirk Pitt or Clive Cussler and just about everyone has heard the names!

They should call as defendants in this clown circus all of the disappointed Dirk Pitt fans who went to see this film only to see that all of the interesting subplots have been removed and the parts that remained had been seriously altered and damaged.

Seriously: About halfway through the flick, I did not remember any of the things happening in the book, it was all compleatly changed.

Cussler wanted to try to enforce integrity of his original story. The producers of the flop insisted on trying to change everything, including changing Giordino into a black man. Ridiculous, as on a personal lever the character is based on one of Clive's real life friends.

What is sad about this is that I had gotten the feeling that Matthew McConaughey is an actual fan and wanted to do Sahara justice. But on the other hand, he changed important aspects of Dirk Pitt.

The moovie flopped, because they would not keep the basic integrity of the story and refused to listen to Clive's own suggestions on how to fix it.

Now in the same year, Philip Anschutz made "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and had no trouble keeping that story basically exactly the same as the way it was written by Clive Staples Lewis (Another Clive)

Who do we write to and send emails to to give our support for our Clive?

This post has been edited by Qin Shang on Feb 3 2007, 07:32 PM

e.g. Carole Bartholomeaux [the %$#@&]

Clive Cussler
National Underwater and Marine Agency
P.O. Box 5059
Scottsdale, AZ 85258

So here we go, then. Cussler vs. Hollywood.

Well, I have to say that Clive looks ready for battle in the pic. I have a strong feeling that this case will be Intense! My biggest concern now is that the judge might be slightly biased toward the film company, in which case Clive has to fight an even harder battle. But I'm confident that with so many behind him, and so many against the film company, our fearless leader will come out on top.

Go get 'em, Clive. We're all behind you.

This post has been edited by Titanic Fanatic on Feb 4 2007, 01:06 AM

Sigh, I really want to wish Clive luck, but he's part of the reason the film didn't do so well.

This case has just really bummed me out to no end; it basically means no more DP movies. I sincerely wish this had been settled a long time ago, out of court.

Ok I'm an idiot....please explain to me WHY Clive is the reason the movie didn't do well?

I actually enjoyed this movie and saw it 3 times in the theater and bought the dvd and so did many of the members here so please explain it too me.....Would it have anything to do with the dearth of OTHER (and better) action adventure movies that came out at the same time?

I'm really getting fed up with (some) peoples negativity towards Clive when it was the MOVIE COMPANY that broke a signed contract

Ok I'm an idiot....please explain to me WHY Clive is the reason the movie didn't do well?

I actually enjoyed this movie and saw it 3 times in the theater and bought the dvd and so did many of the members here so please explain it too me.....Would it have anything to do with the dearth of OTHER (and better) action adventure movies that came out at the same time?

I'm really getting fed up with (some) peoples negativity towards Clive when it was the MOVIE COMPANY that broke a signed contract

I am not blaming Dr. Cussler, I am blaming both parties.

My comments against Dr. Cussler refer to his badmouthing the movie during the marketing phase.

It is truly a shame that the production company pushed Clive to the side when making Sahara, because they really flubbed the dub. I knew something was intensely wrong when I saw a brunette Dirk and a blond Al. I can't blame Clive from staying away from the motion picture industry because of what it did to Titanic and Sahara. It would be great if Clive started his own company and produced and directed his own books. Try that one on for size.

Keep those books coming.

Always a devoted fan.

Didn't sound or read like you were blaming both parties.

As for Clive badmouthing the movie....can't say I blame him there,the only resemblence to the book were the characters names and the Texas...I'll give you that he probably should have seen it first but you never know.....

There is a reason Aushutz(sp?) is a billionaire..he knows how to use people.....And he used Clive.........Clive naivley trusted someone to make a movie out of one of his children,and got screwed AGAIN.
Clive has integrity and wouldn't want his name attached to anything to do with Pitt unless it was worthy of that name.
Unlike Clancy who sells his books,takes the money and runs without a care if the finished product resembles his books or not.

I'd love to see more Pitt movies but not if they're going to be so far removed from the book as Sahara was...for crying out loud Rudi was such a pussy he couldn't even fire a flare gun.......and as for the statement that the movie wanted a BLACK Al????????????? I'd sue them too...........

The statement I found interesting was when they said that although Clive was happy with the initial script they had to change it to attract stars.... didn't Matthew Mc state at one time that he was a big fan of the books and that he had been waiting for something like seven years to play the part?? Doesn't sound like they'd need to change the script for him. As for Penelope Cruz - while she played the part of Eva alright she was totally the wrong look - Eva is described in the book as blonde hair with "dresden-blue eyes". Probably cast by the same idiot who wanted to cast a black guy for Al! And lets face it, M Mc & PC were the biggest stars in that movie, the rest while good actors are hardly A-list.
I also can't believe that Crusdaer is bleating about Clive overestimating how many books he had sold - how hard would it have been for them to do the research themselves to find out how many books he's sold! Somebody at Crusader should be sacked for that oversight!
I hope that Clive wins this - it will hopefully send a message to Hollywood to stop making shoody book adaption/movies. Although admittedly there have been some good ones out recently.
On the other hand if Clive wins no other production company will touch him or his books again, if he loses he will never sell another book for a movie again. Either way I think the Dirk Pitt fans who want to see more movies are going to be the losers in this case.

This just bugs me! the movie company takes an exceptional book, destroys the plots and then blames the author. Man I pray Clive comes out on top in this!

It would be good for hollywood to pay attention to the creators of a story, before they dimantal it and turn it into a movie.



This post has been edited by BOOZER on Feb 4 2007, 12:20 PM