In the beginning of the trial concerning the film version of Clive Cussler's book "Sahara," Cussler's attorney alleged that the production company that made the film reneged on the deal that gave Cussler creative control of the film.
Cussler's attorney Bert Fields began his opening arguments saying that the agreement was broken when important parts of the story line were eliminated from the film and Cussler's input ignored.
Crusader Entertainment, through their attorney, said that while Cussler did have rights of approval in the beginning, once a director was hired, those were rescinded and a lesser role of consultation was given him.
"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."
While a large amount of screenwriters were hired to put the script in shape, and a number of them approved by Cussler, Fields said that approximately 50 changes were made that basically destroyed the film.
I can attest to the fact that the difference between the bood and movie were so great that these allegations are true. Of course whether that means there was a law broken is something quite different.
But when I read the book, it has some key elements in it that had to be part of the movie if it were to be successful; they weren't even mentioned.
When I saw the movie I remember how I couldn't believe how badly they represented the story and how much they missed out on creating a compelling story that could have done really well. If you've read the book, think of not having Abraham Lincoln even represented in the story, and how interesting that would have been to see.
No matter what happens in the trial, there was a great opportunity to create a film that appealed to a lot of people that was missed. With the nearlay $160 million put into the film, there can be no excuses.
Comment Preview