I suppose it depends upon the specific details of the deal. Surely the writer could allow himself or herself the out of restricting it to an adaptation of a specific book. Did not S.S. Van Dine have The Bishop Murder Case with Basil Rathbonde made by a completely different studio than then one that made the William Powell Philo Vance films? They still called the detective "Philo Vance" in the film version of The Bishop Murder Case.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Allan Guthrie" <allan@...> wrote:
> The point, tho, is not about the success or failure of series adaptations.
> If an author grants exclusive screen rights to a character in a deal for one
> movie, the screen rights to that character are held by the producer and
> nobody else can make a movie of any of his other books featuring that
> character. Westlake was just protecting himself and making sure his other
> Parker books could be filmed. Which worked out pretty well for him. Tony
> Hillerman once signed a movie option that prohibited him from using his own
> characters in any further books -- not movies, but books.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "docsavage80" <docsavage80@...>
> By the way, the idea that Westlake denied the use of the name Parker due to
> people refusing to sign on for a comprehensive series of adaptations
> receives verification in the above link to The Austin Chronicle.
> However, Westlake evidently did not realize that almost all attempts to
> produce planned out R-rated adventure films or hard-boiled films have
> flopped, with Shaft as something of an exception. Remember when Kathleen
> Turner bought the rights to all those Sara Paretsky novels? We only ended up
> with one V.I. Warshawksi film. Since R-rated film series tend not to produce
> ancillary merchandise, few people tend to plan them out. Meanwhile, Harry
> Potter has all its entries turned into PG-13 or PG films.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 31 Aug 2010 EDT