Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - StageLover 10:41 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Generally speaking, when rights are sold for a particular medium, the seller has no rights to the material in that medium (hence the term, "sold"). The most known example is Harry Potter. JK Rowling had no actual power over the films or their content; she simply got lucky that the producer and screenwriter were fans and respected her input. So ALW likely had no power in what was in the film. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Rowling not a good example | |
| Posted by: DavidEsq 03:33 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Rowling actually had fairly unprecedented rights over the films including approval of script and director. So while she may not have had final shot for shot approval of the film, the control she did have gave her significant power over the film (including demanding an all British cast). Basically - rights holders get whatever rights they contract for. While there are some "standard" terms - those regularly get adjusted based on the relative bargaining power of the parties. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***Generally speaking, when rights are sold for a particular medium, the seller has no rights to the material in that medium (hence the term, "sold").*** Unless, as I wrote above, the seller of the rights makes certain stipulations regarding the sale, such as the stipulation that a particular director must be hired, as was apparently the case with MAMMA MIA! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Six Degrees of Separation | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 11:56 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| My memory is that John Guare would only sell the film rights to Six Degrees of Separation if it was guaranteed that Stockard Channing would play Ouisa. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Six Degrees of Separation | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 02:59 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: Six Degrees of Separation - AlanScott 11:56 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "...film is a different medium." Nice use of Six Degrees, Alan Scott, to talk about Cats. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Maybe they'll make a movie of "Starlight Express" (nm) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:45 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Six Degrees of Separation - IvyLeagueDropout 02:59 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| they could all be on roller skates | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: fosse76 02:35 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Movie studios and production companies RARELY allow the original rights holders any concessions. They want full control. So "generally speaking" is almost as good as saying "always." And no, at least as far as the first 4 films, JK Rowling had absolutely no real authority. By the time the first film was made, the series was massively popular, but was only on the third book. They deferred to her quite a bit, but were under no contractual obligation. Her only stipulations were that each book have a separate movie and the cast be British. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Last Edit: JereNYC 01:39 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 01:36 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 02:35 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| But what else could Warner Bros have done at a point where they were embarking on making a franchise based on a projected 7 book series of which only 3 books had been written/published? They either had to have involved Rowling in the process or they risked their films wildly diverging from the books and setting up all the fan sturm und drang that comes with that. Given the twists and turns of Rowling's narrative, there's no way the film makers could have anticipated where she was going with the story and we'd likely have ended up with an entirely different Harry Potter story. And what's the point of that? It would have turned Harry Potter into a mess of GAME OF THRONES proportions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 01:20 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| It's incredible to me that he would have no say. Not that he is the be all end all. I am not sure if Harry Potter is the best example. You could be right, it could have just been a lucky matter of respect and fandom. What I read--and following the logic I don't think it can be false--is that the movie makers HAD to involve Rowling becase all of the books were not written/published at the time the movies started being made. She had to approve changes and cuts because she was the only person who knew how everything impacted the final outcome, and what could be adjusted and what could not, in that context. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.023803 seconds.