Contra Zack Snyder

Just like this “300”sequel that we talked about. I said to them, here’s the thing, this is the way I would do it. The way I would do it is if Frank drew a graphic novel, it came out in the marketplace and people said, “That’s pretty cool.” And I read it and said, “You know what, Frank, that’s pretty cool. Maybe we’ll make this into a movie.” That is the only version – the studio wants it to be, sit with Frank, come up with an idea, write a screenplay, maybe he’ll do a graphic novel based on the screenplay. I’m like, “Yeah, I want nothing to do with that.” I have no interest in that. It would be like me going to Cormac McCarthy and going, “I have an idea for a movie: You write a book and I’ll write a movie, and you can release it. You’ll win a Pulitzer, I’ll win an Oscar. It’ll be awesome.” The attitude toward comic books, they show their hand a little bit. They would never say that about a real novelist, but they would about a comic book.

This is actually, if memory serves, how both 2001 and The Godfather were developed. In fact, in The Kid Stays In The Picture, they show an old reel of Bob Evans bragging about working with several authors to make sure their books were more cinematic-adaptation friendly prior to their publication.

Comments

[Joshua James]

2001 was developed from Clarke's short story with Kubrick, but it wasn't (according to the Kubrick bio I have now) developed via traditional studio development ... how the studio worked with Kubrick is they supplied him money and got out of his way, he didn't take notes on it, he made the story is own ... it was truly co-authored by Kubrick and Clarke ... point being, it didn't go through the traditional development process ... Except for SPARTACUS (developed by Douglas through his company) Kubrick never worked that way, from what I've read.

The Godfather, on the other hand, wasn't developed as a property ... Puzo sold the rights to Evans before it was published, but according to both Evans and Puzo, Evans bought the rights mainly as a favor for Puzo (who had gambling debts, he told Evans he owed eleven large and if he didn't come up with it, they'd break his arms ... Evans paid him twelve or thirteen thousand for the rights) because nobody thought gangster movies made money ...

Puzo wrote the book to be as commercial as he could (making it as purple, sexy, as possible) but even he didn't think it would be a possible movie ... no one had done it ... however, when released, the book was a huge hit for a long time, and Paramount nearly wanted to forget about it (the book was considered very scandalous for its sex scenes) and the only reason they finally made it was because it stayed on the bestseller lists so long, they would have looked stupid if they hadn't.

Even then, they set the budget at four million(ridiculously low, even for then) but couldn't get any director to touch it ... no one wanted to really make the movie and so they got Coppola, who was young enough they figured he'd do what they wanted.

That proved to be wrong, Coppola was famously stubborn and fought with Evans constantly ... Evans wanted to change the film from the book (set it present, in the seventies, and cast Jack Nickolson, Ryan O'Neal and Ernest Borgnine as The Godfather) ... Coppola fought for a period setting, fought for casting Brando and Pacino, and adapted it faithfully from the book.

Evans and Coppola differ on that last point, but Coppola made it a point in his contract for the sequel that Evans not be allowed on set.

Point being, had the studio had its way, it would have been nothing like the book as we know it.

A lot of this is covered in EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS, but there are other sources as well ... it's a grand story, the making of THE GODFATHER ...

Sorry for the long post ... I'm a bit of a nut for lore like this, heheheh.

[Ian W. Hill]

2001, yes exactly, Kubrick hired Clarke that way to develop the novel/screenplay at the same time in exactly the way Snyder describes, but I don't think that was true of THE GODFATHER, which is more in the genre, I believe, as several novels by William Peter Blatty and William Goldman -- write the screenplay or treatment and try to sell it, and when it doesn't, adapt it into a novel and when it becomes a hit in that form, you can sell the screenplay.

But your point is correct -- there's nothing necessarily wrong with doing it this way.

[Nick Sparks]

Cool. I think it's been the trend since most of the movies are adapted from actual novels. Though some novels are not that famous, the promotional branding of it to movie adaptation most likely affect the popularity of the book/novel. Hence, unison is achved. BTW, there are lots of downloading site where i downloaded various films (graphic ones, too). If you happen to own an iPhone, this Ipod Download Movies site is great. :)