# Poll: If you had written a book,



## ingolmo

Would you sell movie rights for your book?
Or wouldn't you?

I wouldn't, personally. I believe that the reader has a right to visualize characters and things the way he or she wants to, and that their image shouldn't be destroyed by the movie. I am extremely against the Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Eragon, and Bartemius Trilogy movies.


----------



## HLGStrider

OK. . . have movies been made for any of those but the Harry Potter books? I mean, they haven't even put out the second Eragon book yet, so I don't think a movie is yet in the works.

Off topic, but it does make me curious why you didn't mention the Lord of the Rings in your list. Are they exempt from your rule?

Anyway, I'd do it. Several of my favorite books have been made into movies, and while I always do my best to read a book before I watch a movie, I find that the experience of having a movie with the book only ruins it because if you watch the movie first you get to know surprise endings and things. For instance, I have yet to find my Lord of the Rings images corrupted beyond repair. I like MY version better than Peter Jacksons, but only in a few scenes does PJ's vision in print itself over mine.

I also think a movie can offer a very unique experience of the same story. Music, for instance. 

I may be biased. A friend once told me my novel was "great" but it would "make an even better movie." I've even wondered if maybe I was missing my niche and should try writing screen or stage plays, but I like the novels better. . .they're "funner."


----------



## Hammersmith

I dream of transforming my books to film one day. As I write the film runs through my head. That one's a no-brainer for me


----------



## ingolmo

I know no Artemis Fowl, Eragon, or Bartemius Trilogy movies have been made so far, but the film rights have already been sold, and the cast and crew and everything else is being dedcided.

As to why I didn't mention the Lord of the Rings movies, I have two reasons:
1- The LotR movies were made really well. They were almost the same as to how I had imagined the characters, and nothing was changed, though some things were left out. 
2- If it wasn't was the movies, I wouldn't have read the books, and thus, wouldn't be a member of TTF. 

Anyway, I'm under the feeling that movie adaptions of good books are unnecessary visualizations of books already very good made for people who are too dim-witted and lazy to read the original great books. (Don't tell my mom that. She hasn't read neither the Harry Potter nor LotR books.) 

Books are made to be read, not to be converted into movies.


----------



## Hammersmith

By the same token, you would then be against reading while listening to music inspired by the book? Or do you consider some forms of art to be more valid than others? Perhaps books should not have illustrations, as these are unnecessary visualizations for people who are too dim-witted and lazy to read the original great books?

I understand your point, but I disagree with it totally. Movies are an art form to be respected and enjoyed. They can never replace books, but good movies do not seek to replace their inspirational material; only exist alongside as a tributary or as further depth.


----------



## Zale

Why did Tolkien sell the film rights to LotR? Because of a huge tax bill.

I believe that about sums it up.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

ingolmo said:


> Would you sell movie rights for your book?



You bet your life I would! And you can be sure I'd have a top-notch _contract lawyer_ involved.

Barley


----------



## HLGStrider

I should have added that condition in my post as well. If they ask me for the rignts, I'll in turn ask to be involved in the script writing, ask to have some editorial powers, and ask for a role as an extra.  

Apparently the novelist of the book the movie _Sahara_ is based on is suing (I've only heard this second hand, so I won't swear by it) because he didn't care for the rendition. I would want to be involved enough that I couldn't complain after the fact. 

Now, I read the Harry Potter books (three of them) after I saw the first movie. The plot sounded so hackneyed to me and there was so much popularity hype over the dang things that I really couldn't care one way or another. It actually took seeing the movie to realize they were somewhat interesting. 

Of course, movies can have the exact opposite effect. When I was a Lil'One the Hobbit cartoon frightened me as did the Willy Wonka movie, so I delayed reading those books for a long time.


----------



## Alatar

Artemis Fowl, and Bartemius Trilogy movies.
Those books are great, i am looking foward to seeing them, but as mirimax has the rights for the Bartemius Trilogy movies, the same guys who wanted LotR to be one movie, i am not holding out much.
I would sell the rights, as in would love to see others visions of it.But i would keep some powers. I am agenst Jrr Tolkein olny having a "based on the book by..." mention.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

I would sell the rights. But only if the contract stated that I wrote the script for the movie as well, or atleast worked on it very closely with the writer.


----------



## Arat Macar

ingolmo said:


> As to why I didn't mention the Lord of the Rings movies, I have two reasons:
> 1- The LotR movies were made really well. They were almost the same as to how I had imagined the characters, and nothing was changed, though some things were left out.
> 
> Anyway, I'm under the feeling that movie adaptions of good books are unnecessary visualizations of books already very good made for people who are too dim-witted and lazy to read the original great books.



First, nothing was changed? What the...? Second, do not be too hasty re made for people who are too dim-witted and lazy. I agree there are people too dim-witted or lazy to read great books but do not go too far. I love some movies based on great books and I know many smart and energetic people who pay good money to see films and plays.

I would sell the rights with controll


----------



## Hobbit-GalRosie

Hammersmith said:


> I dream of transforming my books to film one day. As I write the film runs through my head. That one's a no-brainer for me





Hammersmith said:


> By the same token, you would then be against reading while listening to music inspired by the book? Or do you consider some forms of art to be more valid than others? Perhaps books should not have illustrations, as these are unnecessary visualizations for people who are too dim-witted and lazy to read the original great books?
> 
> I understand your point, but I disagree with it totally. Movies are an art form to be respected and enjoyed. They can never replace books, but good movies do not seek to replace their inspirational material; only exist alongside as a tributary or as further depth.



I agree and disagree with you so much! In all honesty I have often felt that Illustrations _do_ rather cheapen some books, though they beautifully enrich others. It all depends. The best ones are often by the author, or someone close to him/her. Like Tolkien's illustrations of the Hobbit. Not great art really, but they fit it so well. I have only recently noticed a book by one Pyle called The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, which I intend to read at the first possible moment, which likely won't be for another month or two, dang it all! Great looking stuff, and any book which has the word "quoth" in it is good enough for me, lol. I wonder how it is I missed reading that earlier in my life, oh well, back on topic.

I voted that I would never ever ever do it. For the reason that I think _*I*_ am the only one who could make movies of my books; some of them are very cinematic in nature, as I have always seen films in my head when I read, and I can't help allowing for it in my writing. For that very reason it would inevitably come out wrong if someone else tried to apply their vision to my words. I'm not trying to say that I am in some way superior to those who enjoy making films, far from it, I'd bet I have a lot more flaws than those sorts of people, but the fact is they would inject their own message into my works. Anyone who touched my work would inevitably feel that it could and should be improved but would only destroy it by trying to do so. I've found that no one else sees things at all like I do, and the fact is most of my "books" (I hesitate to use the word to describe my small, dissociated ramblings) are the sort that could very easily be ruined entirely on the misinterpretation of one relatively small point. If ever I have the money that it could be at all reasonable I intend to make the films myself, so there would be no selling involved. Short of that there would be no films based on my books until they became public domain, or some jerky lawyer does something stupid to my estate after my death. The problem is I'd have to take all sorts of classes on drama and film-making and directing before I could do what I want to, so it'd be quite a project. Oh well. I can dream.


----------



## Arat Macar

Hobbit-GalRosie said:


> I have only recently noticed a book by one Pyle called The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, which I intend to read at the first possible moment, which likely won't be for another month or two, dang it all! Great looking stuff, and any book which has the word "quoth" in it is good enough for me, lol. I wonder how it is I missed reading that earlier in my life.



My grandparents had an ancient copy of Howard Pyle's MAoRH and I read it as a child. It is fantastic. I have some prints of the etchings that illustrate the book and I became quite the Robin Hood fan and collector. Forget two months, read it immediatly!!


----------



## Hammersmith

@Hobbit Gal...it's great to know that you write the same way, and I understand completely about others applying incorrect ideals to your works. However, I beg you not to be so harsh to yourself. You are far too modest, to the point of being self effacing. Be proud that you are a writer! You are the sugar-sprinkled crust that tops the pie of those syrup-smothered lesser mortals who put pen to paper only to scrawl out shopping lists or sign cheques. Be proud, I say!


----------



## ingolmo

Hammersmith said:


> By the same token, you would then be against reading while listening to music inspired by the book? Or do you consider some forms of art to be more valid than others? Perhaps books should not have illustrations, as these are unnecessary visualizations for people who are too dim-witted and lazy to read the original great books?


No, I'm not against music inspired by the book, because music of a book does not influence the reader's thoughts on the book as much as a movie does. But I am against illustrations for a book, but only to a certain extent. I do think that young children's stories should have illustrations, because they, at their age, do need the images to guide them. But illustrations are not needed for books like Lord of the Rings, because by the time the reader is reading Lord of the Rings, he or she should be experienced enough or old enough to read descriptions and understand them well enough to form images in the mind. If the reader cannot do that much while reading descriptive books like the Lord of the Rings, he or she shouldn't read it. That brings me to another point. I do not mind illustrations in children's books because they aren't descriptive enough, and so, some images are needed to guide the reader. Imagine this without illustrations in a children's book: 'In a land far, far away, there lived a king and a queen.' It would be ridiculous. But in books such as Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, things are described well enough that the reader wouldn't and shouldn't need images to guide him or her. Which brings me to the original point. Why do movies need to be made on books like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter? They are described well enough, that graphical representations would not be needed. That is why I say, that movies are made for people who do not have the grasping ability and patience to read the books, as the only-movie-watchers cannot form images by reading the books. 
And to Durin's Bane: If you voted in favor of not selling movie rights, then why didn't you post an argument. I'm kind of getting out-numbered here.


----------



## Zale

Maybe they make films out of books so that the section of the general public who enjoy films rather than reading books can also get enjoyment from the plot, characters etc. present.

Or maybe it's because all the book's fans will go to see the film, & make the makers lots of money.


----------



## HLGStrider

I think a lot of your reasoning is faulty, Ing. 

For instance, you assume only those who can't imagine the books go to the movies. Well, think about it. How many movies do you see a year? I know I'm on the low end of the general public, and I have been in the theaters three times this year (_Because of Winn-Dixie, Hitch, _and _Revenge of the Sith_.). Now, I think, only one of these movies is based off a book (though there are novelizations of _Sith_), but I imagine the majority of people who go to movies don't check to see if there is a book first. It's more like, "What's playing? Oh, that sounds interesting. Let's go." 

Now me, the whole reason I went to see Winn-Dixie is the book (I like Kate DiCamillo). However, perhaps a mother takes the child to Winn-Dixie, sees "Oh, this is based off a book" and goes to check out the book. I think this happens more often then you'd think, especially in children's books. 

Now, occasionally a movie production will slaughter a book (Don't get me started on _The Black Cauldron_, I didn't speak to Disney for years), but generally the movie is enough to get people to come in for a bite.

I also think it's strange to assume the movie will somehow strip your own opinions from your mind and replace them with movie images. I have only had this happen once to me, with the cartoon Hobbit, actually. I was young and impressionable and Gollum looked like a frog. . .it took me years to escape that image. 

People aren't blank pages. They can pick and choose images they store. They can pick and choose what images they like. I'd say the weak minded one isn't the one who "needs" the movie but the one who can't help having his/her mind altered by screen pictures.


----------



## ingolmo

This thread is about your book, and your film-rights, not other movies. So I think I have already made my opinion clear. 

And to Zale: You said that the books readers would probably want to watch the film, and thus the makers would make a lot of money. But that would only happen if the book was famous and popular. If the book was unheard of, the movie would be a flop. That is why the authors of popular books sell movie rights, because they'll make a lot of money. Look at Harry Potter and Rowling, LotR and Tolkien (though Cristopher), Artemis Fowl and Colfer, Bartemius Trilogy and Jonathan Stroud, and Eragon and Christopher Paolini.
But not all authors are like that. Look at the bestseller, The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. He resufed billions of dollars just for the reason I have been trying to prove.

And Elgee, are so lazy that you can't type seven letters: I-N-G-O-L-M-O? Not that I don't like the short form.   

I am fighting a losing battle here.


----------



## HLGStrider

One extra special Elgee forum rule is that EVERYONE deserves a nickname. Hence Elgee which I had to give myself to prevent my nickname from being various forms of HGLStrider.

You say it is about our books, but you seem to be making some general statements about movies based on books and movie goers. 

Besides, after awhile you die and your copyright expires so you might as well sell when you can have a say in it. I don't see Alexander Dumas complaining about the god-awful versions of his books that are out there.


----------



## Corvis

ingolmo said:


> I know no Artemis Fowl, Eragon, or Bartemius Trilogy movies have been made so far, but the film rights have already been sold, and the cast and crew and everything else is being dedcided.


 
I hear the Eragon movie is supposed to be a TV movie. 

But on the question if I would sell movie rights, absolutely! I love movies and having the honor of making one of my books into a movie would be incredible, (it would probably also help your fan basis and make the books more popular, which would I would always welcome ).


----------



## Hammersmith

HLGStrider said:


> I don't see Alexander Dumas complaining about the god-awful versions of his books that are out there.


You thought the movie version of The Count Of Monte Cristo was bad?


----------



## HLGStrider

I actually haven't seen that one. . .but almost all versions of the Three Musketeers stink, the one version of "The Man in the Iron Mask" I saw was nothing nothing nothing like the book, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Hammersmith

Ah, well I could understand pretty much everything committed to film with a Musketeer in sniffing distance being dire (with the possible exception of "Dogtanian") and Leonardo DiCaprio can take his collective filmography for a long walk off a short cliff, but The Count Of Monte Cristo was a brilliant film with the now-famous Jim Caviezel starring and Richard Harris proving once again to be one of the greatest actors ever.


----------



## ingolmo

You know my argument, 
and I haven't seen the Count of Monte Cristo and the Three Musketeers, I've only read the _books_.


----------



## HLGStrider

Ironically, _The Man in the Iron Mask _isn't what I would consider a great book. It's a so-so book. The movie was also so-so. 


You should see at least one version of the Musketeers, the one with Gene Kelly. Nothing like the books, but it is absolutely hillarious. Gene Kelly is a dancer and the sword fights were all correographed perfectly. It is wonderful to watch.

I think films have an advantage, also, of showing us another person's vision of a story. 

A lot of my problems with the Lord of the Rings movies come down simply to "That is not how I imagined it." . .Obviously, it was how PJ imagined it, however, and in some places it isn't a matter of interpretation or changes. It is a matter of PJ saw something as looking one way and I saw it as looking another.

As someone who had always wished she could hook up a colored printer to her head so she could show people the images of things she reads or writes, I do find the prospect of directing a movie that shows these images very tempting. This is especially true with the way effects work nowadays. Scenes can come straight from the head with very little time wasted on trying to make reality look like fantasy. We can go straight to fantasy without worrying about trick lights and plastic models.


----------



## ingolmo

Aw maan, this is annoying, can't anyone support me?! Nom and Durin's Bane both voted in my favour and both didn't post.


----------



## Hobbit-GalRosie

Ingolmo (or Ing, lol) I agree with you on some levels but not others. I have found rather to my surprise that I have increasingly preferred books that have no illustrations and that they have a distressing tendency to spoil books if not done carefully within the same spirit. In all honesty I don't much care for Alan Lee's illustrations of LotR, even though I think he's a great artist. I can't help wishing sometimes that there would be _no_ movies based on books, but there are always those that truly shine, and though it's rare they can even be an improvement (like all the lurid sex that got left out of The Horse Whisperer in the transition...yuck). Really though, I guess I'm the type that will never like movies because it's impossible for them to have the same kind of depth as a book, so I might not be an impartial judge on this--an issue that, it has just occurred to me, is probably impossible to be impartial on, it's so subjective. But I can't help feeling, as you, that in many ways films only serve to cheapen their source material, turning it into simple-minded, cute entertainment. If you can't enjoy making the pictures in your head then why in heaven's name would you want to see someone else's? Still, a great many films that were based on books have managed to be as good as movies possibly can be, so I think sometimes having a well-written source helps make better movies, even when they depart pretty far from the original, so it's useful if only as it improves the quality of films in general by making those involved in the making think on a different plane than usual, so I'm all for it just for that, though it goes without saying that any book at all is generally superior to even the best of movies.

In case anyone's wondering, I started writing this post way back on the 15, and got interupted, haven't had a chance to get back on until now. So I guess this is fair warning I'm not gonna be around TTF much anymore.

And to Arat Macar, it just isn't possible! I had at least 5 other books I _really_ needed to finish first, and it's very frustrating. I'm a bit closer now than I was then, but still a good way off.



Hammersmith said:


> @Hobbit Gal...it's great to know that you write the same way, and I understand completely about others applying incorrect ideals to your works. However, I beg you not to be so harsh to yourself. You are far too modest, to the point of being self effacing. Be proud that you are a writer! You are the sugar-sprinkled crust that tops the pie of those syrup-smothered lesser mortals who put pen to paper only to scrawl out shopping lists or sign cheques. Be proud, I say!



LOL! That's wonderful. You know, usually when someone else tries to say I'm too hard on myself my heart goes "WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?! YOU'VE NO IDEA WHAT IT'S LIKE!!!" and then my brain has to intervene and be the voice of reason saying "This is an extremely nice person who is trying to help you, and really it's true anyway." However, in the end it doesn't help me be less harsh on myself. Now, when I am a sugar-sprinkled crust I can be delighted with the cleverness and ridiculousness of the phrase and laugh at myself and it actually _does_ help.

Very well then! I shall be proud! I shall be a shining light of writerly goodness! I shall stand tall, having confidence in myself and my opinions, and I shall not back down!

And now at last it comes. You will give me pride freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Brandywine River! Fair as the Sun and the Soil and the Fire upon the Hearth! Dreadful as Strangers from Beyond! Stronger than the foundations of the good tilled earth. ALL SHALL LOVE ME AND DESPAIR!!!!!!!!

Or not. Too proud, a little too proud.

LOL!!!


----------



## ingolmo

All I can say is best of luck with your books.


----------



## kerrie_mcrobert

I agree with Ingolmo, the Lord of the Rings is a brilliant book. The film is superb, the fact that they cut bits dosen't other me, as the ooks are pretty lenghty and to have every single word on the screen, would not only make a long film, but expensive. I am sure it still would of been a super film, but unlike me there are people out there who would end either walking out of the cinema or witching of the telly because they were bored. Short attention span. Who knows one day PJ may do an extended version. If he does I would buy it, because this is one of those rare films that I don't mind waching forever, especially when it has been made so well. I will also be getting the Hobbit so I can read it again just to remind myself as far as I am concerned is where it all started for me. Then whenn I find them I will read all the other books Tolkien has writtten just so I can find out what has happened before Bilbo, and what happened after Frodo left the shire for what I assume the last time. Thank you Mr Griffiths for introducing me to this world. Without it I don't know how I could of gone on. Speak soon ugly duckling


----------



## e.Blackstar

Whether or not I would sell the movie rights for my book(s) would totally depend on who the director was, and the company's proposition, and various other factors.  I might, but I don't know


----------



## Kelonus

I agree with e.Blackstar. By the way I self published three books. Interested and want to support here is the link. You may have to copy and paste it at the bar where you would type sites to go. Two books are fantasty related one is a poetry book. At least buy one. There are samples you could check too. I hope I put good enough samples. Here is the link thank you, http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=102958


----------



## yhwh1st

Would you sell movie rights for your book?
Or wouldn't you?

I would not. I actually hope to write books for a living. I might, instead, write a screen play for the book and sell that, though.


----------



## yhwh1st

Kelonus said:


> I agree with e.Blackstar. By the way I self published three books. Interested and want to support here is the link. You may have to copy and paste it at the bar where you would type sites to go. Two books are fantasty related one is a poetry book. At least buy one. There are samples you could check too. I hope I put good enough samples. Here is the link thank you, http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=102958


 
Hmmm. Kelonus, I'm looking at your book Diverath: The Companions of the Stones, looks very interesting. I'm thinking about buying it but won't have the extra cash for a little while. I'm going to bookmark your site and go back later.

Edit: I think it's cool that you've published your own books. Question: How much did it cost for you to copyright one?


----------



## Kelonus

Ok, I would appreciate alot. If you do buy it I hope you enjoy it! Well the site has the copyright license set unless you have your own, but I had it done buy the site.


----------



## HLGStrider

Copyrighting anything is technically free. If you just write on the bottom of a paper "copyright (c) 2005 your name" you have legally copyrighted it. 

Registering a copyright is more complicated, but legally, if you wrote it, you own it.


----------



## Hammersmith

HLGStrider said:


> Copyrighting anything is technically free. If you just write on the bottom of a paper "copyright (c) 2005 your name" you have legally copyrighted it.
> 
> Registering a copyright is more complicated, but legally, if you wrote it, you own it.


I don't know too much about US law, but in England to prove that you copyrighted something before anybody else, you mail it to yourself registered post and leave it unopened and sealed - ensure the post office places whatever label is involved over the envelope's seal. Logically this should be the same in US law, as a federal institution has sealed and dated the documents.


----------



## Kelonus

I've done the seal envelope send to yourself, just incase, but I do the (c)copyright as well.


----------



## Eledhwen

Elgee said:


> I like MY version better than Peter Jacksons, but only in a few scenes does PJ's vision in print itself over mine.


I would guess that this happens in the bits where his imagination painted a grander or more exciting picture. I hope it's not where he changed the plot!

I would probably _licence_ the film rights for my book rather than sell them (as happens now with LotR/The Hobbit). A sale allows a re-sale; and though you might approve the first buyer's vision, you will have no control over later interpretations. J K Rowling was involved in the filming of her books and approved the changes (eg the talking heads). Would PJ have made so many changes if Tolkien was there, likely to denounce them? Or would he have invited Tolkien's advice? The latter, certainly, as the disapproval of the author is not good box office.


----------



## HLGStrider

I have only heard this second hand, but the author of the series the movie _Sahara_ was based off of (I think Clive Kessler, but I haven't actually read those books) was said to be suing the studio that produced the movie for straying too far from the books. (I actually haven't seen the movie either. . .)
This should be avoidable as long as you are living, but I am guessing he just sold the rights and left it at that. 
Though I will never understand WHY Lloyd Alexander allowed Disney to make the Black Caldron the way they did.

Anyways, movies from books can be done extremely well when the producer/director has a vision to do them in the same theme. I am a preacher for this book, but _Because of Winn-Dixie_ is such a case. The book and the movie never seriously diverge. Watching the movie is an experience that almost mirrors reading the book (and because it is a short book it is an experience that takes about the same amount of time.). I love that book. . .and movie!


----------



## yhwh1st

HLGStrider said:


> Anyways, movies from books can be done extremely well when the producer/director has a vision to do them in the same theme. I am a preacher for this book, but _Because of Winn-Dixie_ is such a case. The book and the movie never seriously diverge. Watching the movie is an experience that almost mirrors reading the book (and because it is a short book it is an experience that takes about the same amount of time.). I love that book. . .and movie!


 
The movie _Gettysburg_ is much like that too. It is based on the book The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. Excellent book, but the movie is almost exactly the same. As for the copyright, I have heard about mailing it to yourself, but I was wondering about the legal copyright. I'm going to be writing a book soon and am curious as to how much the copyright will cost. Oh! And if anyone has any tips for me I'd welcome them.


----------



## HLGStrider

It doesn't cost anything to "copyright" something. 

_One of the first words to learn regarding your rights as a writer is copyright. When you hold the copyright for a piece of writing, it means that you own your writing. A copyright is indicated by the (c) symbol. You can copyright an original piece of writing simply by putting this notice on the front page (some writers put it on every page):_
_Copyright (c) [year] by [your name]._
_Copyright laws vary from country to country. In the United States, written works are copyrighted for the lifetime of the author plus 50 yars after his or her death, unless the author sells the copyright._
From _The Young Person's Guide to Becoming a Writer_ by Janet E. Grant.

This is totally legal. It costs you nothing, and you have effectively copyrighted the book.


----------



## Hammersmith

HLGStrider said:


> It doesn't cost anything to "copyright" something.
> 
> _One of the first words to learn regarding your rights as a writer is copyright. When you hold the copyright for a piece of writing, it means that you own your writing. A copyright is indicated by the (c) symbol. You can copyright an original piece of writing simply by putting this notice on the front page (some writers put it on every page):_
> _Copyright (c) [year] by [your name]._
> _Copyright laws vary from country to country. In the United States, written works are copyrighted for the lifetime of the author plus 50 yars after his or her death, unless the author sells the copyright._
> From _The Young Person's Guide to Becoming a Writer_ by Janet E. Grant.
> 
> This is totally legal. It costs you nothing, and you have effectively copyrighted the book.


 
That's true, but the envelope thing is like getting a government witness to testify on your behalf, should your copyright ever be challenged.


----------



## yhwh1st

Thanks for the info. guys! I'll probably use both methods, just to be safe.


----------



## Hammersmith

On the topic of copyrighting, I found this webpage interesting. It's from a favourite site that deals with urban legends both true and false, and is rather well sourced.

*Clicky!*

The other link on that page ("Ten Big Myths About Copyright Explained") is also very interesting!


----------



## Eledhwen

yhwh1st said:


> I might, instead, write a screen play for the book and sell that, though.


When you sell the rights to a screen play, you lose all editorial control on what they do with it. They can add scenes that you find ethically offensive and there would be nothing you could do about it - and your name might be emblazoned in cinemascope to link you with the end result. 

However, if you publish a book and _then_ sell the screen rights, the world and his mate will know, and you could prove, that the screen story was not the same as yours if they mucked about with it too much.


----------



## Firawyn

I would see rights, but I'd want to be on set and in on the prosess of the filming and the script writing. Like with the Narnia movies. Lewis' step-son is supervising the whole thing! That's what I'd do.


----------



## Majimaune

youve read eragon yay someone else whos read it

I am extremely against the Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Eragon, and Bartemius Trilogy movies.[/quote]


----------



## Hammersmith

Majimaune said:


> I am extremely against the Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Eragon, and Bartemius Trilogy movies.


You ain't getting _paid _for them


----------



## ingolmo

Smitty, there are still some _good_ people on Earth who think there are things worth more than money. We would refuse the offers even if we got them.


----------



## Hammersmith

ingolmo said:


> Smitty, there are still some _good_ people on Earth who think there are things worth more than money. We would refuse the offers even if we got them.


That's not my point. If you, dear sir, had written a book and sold the film rights after judicious consideration and a sensible weighing of pros and cons, would it be for _me _to say that I was extremely against it?


----------



## ingolmo

Hammersmith said:


> ... would it be for _me _to say that I was extremely against it?



Yes, I believe it would, because to say that _I_ am extremely against it would be my opinion, and not the authors, and as the author has already sold the rights to it and there's nothing _I_ can do about it, there's no harm with me criticizing the decisions.

Another thing is, that I have pointed out in the beginning of the thread, is that I don't mind the movie versions of books as long as they are good. But some of the movie adaptions of books are completely horrible, and most of you have agreed with that. Most people who have read the Harry Potter books and seen the movies admit that the movies weren't at all good. But JK Rowling plays along and says the movies were really good, because she's getting money for it. This, I believe, is completely wrong.


----------



## Confusticated

Looks like I voted No on this a long time ago. Well I change my vote now, there's no question about it that I would sell the movie rights to a book I wrote.

One condition I would like to have is that I have a say in who writes the screenplay and a few other things about the film. Secondly, I could really use the money so I would do it. And last of all... anything I would write would have been playing in my mind as a movie and not spoken in words...so I would think my story would be itching to be made visual to be seen by people. Additionally I would probably have a lot of illustrations in my book... so I would hope that whoever made the film would be inspired by this for the look - but if not then that is fine too. 

And yes, any reader does have the right to imagine a book how he wants but so does he have the right to refuse to see a movie adaption.

In the end a movie can only make your work more well known, and will probably bring new readers in, ultimately what you're wrote will be more appreciated.


----------



## MAVONDURI

I would, but only if I had retained the film rights, not my publisher. I love the filmmaking process and would like to see it done right. So basically a studio would have to prove that they wanted to make a quality adaptation before I sign anything.


----------



## Sulimo

I would, but like many others have said I would want to be involved in the script, and producing. There is a funny film about this called Gentlemen Broncos where a 15 year old kid writes a book. Whose friends ruin by making a cheap B movie out of it. There is also a pretentious hack science fiction writer who steals his ideas as well. 

However, there were several stories I was introduced to by first seeing them in film. Such as The Neverending Story and The Shawshank Redemption. If it had not been for the Shawshank Redemption I never would have read any Stephen King, and now I am quite a big fan of his work. 

I think cinema can be a great median for showing others some of the great stories, and thus encourage people to read more. It also gets a least the gist of many amazing stories out there for people who will never read them. I saw both the Rankin Bass movies of The Hobbit and The Return of the King before ever reading the novels, and the LOTR has become among my favorite stories. 

I just think they need to keep Peter Jackson far far away from Tolkien's work.


----------



## Maiden_of Harad

Hammersmith said:


> I dream of transforming my books to film one day. As I write the film runs through my head. That one's a no-brainer for me


I am just like that!
That said, I would want controls over the movie. Some character, for instance, have such a fixed look in my brain that it would be devastating to me to see them portrayed by actors that did not look the part. Some times I even think that I'd suggest filming locations, but that might be a bit too controlling.
But, every time I write a part of me goes into those stories, so I would have a hard time seeing another person "interpreting" it their own way with no respect for the original tale.


----------

