Attempts to turn adult adventure or thriller literature into film franchises have not

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

studio pressure is the main one....a lot of fanboys really don't understand that directing a big studio picture means you serve many masters...the studios, marketing, so on

it certainly explains the cluster fuck that is world war z...

[Vibranium]

One For The Money is getting TORN APART....I'm guessing Heigl knew that and is why she's basically begging to be back on Greys Anatomy so she can get a steady paycheck again

and I like that book series too.....shame

[Chiasm]

The Elisabeth Salander adaptation still has a while to go. Rooney Mara has an Oscar nomination.

They have recently begun pre-production on the 2nd movie as the first movie has done quite well overall. There is an oft repeated falsity going around that Girl With the Dragon Tattoo isn't doing well at the box office and nothing could be further from the truth.

It cost 90 million to make and has now grossed $185 million and its still in the fairly early stages of release worldwide having only come out in a some countries two weeks ago.

And depending on how the Oscars go since the film is up for best picture, Fincher is up for best director, and Rooney Mara is up for best actress, it might get a bump over the next month. It could top $225 million which would be a tremendous gross for such a hard R film.

[Vibranium]

They have recently begun pre-production on the 2nd movie as the first movie has done quite well overall. There is an oft repeated falsity going around that Girl With the Dragon Tattoo isn't doing well at the box office and nothing could be further from the truth.

It cost 90 million to make and has now grossed $185 million and its still in the fairly early stages of release worldwide having only come out in a some countries two weeks ago.

And depending on how the Oscars go since the film is up for best picture, Fincher is up for best director, and Rooney Mara is up for best actress, it might get a bump over the next month. It could top $225 million which would be a tremendous gross for such a hard R film.

I like the films and books....but it got that Best Picture nod as a mercy f***

the Artist is winning everything....this is the "unappreciated film" year....much like the year The English Patient won

[Simbob4000]

They have recently begun pre-production on the 2nd movie as the first movie has done quite well overall. There is an oft repeated falsity going around that Girl With the Dragon Tattoo isn't doing well at the box office and nothing could be further from the truth.

It cost 90 million to make and has now grossed $185 million and its still in the fairly early stages of release worldwide having only come out in a some countries two weeks ago.

And depending on how the Oscars go since the film is up for best picture, Fincher is up for best director, and Rooney Mara is up for best actress, it might get a bump over the next month. It could top $225 million which would be a tremendous gross for such a hard R film.

I like the films and books....but it got that Best Picture nod as a mercy f***

the Artist is winning everything....this is the "unappreciated film" year....much like the year The English Patient won

More like the year The Hurt Locker won...a lot of people went to see The English Patient, it made $231,976,425.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo isn't up for Best Picture, and Fincher isn't up for directing.

Best Picture

• The Artist – Thomas Langmann
• The Descendants – Jim Burke, Jim Taylor and Alexander Payne
• Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close – Scott Rudin
• The Help – Brunson Green, Chris Columbus and Michael Barnathan
• Hugo – Graham King and Martin Scorsese
• Midnight in Paris – Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum
• Moneyball – Michael De Luca, Rachel Horowitz, and Brad Pitt
• The Tree of Life – Dede Gardner, Sarah Green, Grant Hill and Bill Pohlad
• War Horse – Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy

Best Director

• Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris
• Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist
• Terrence Malick – The Tree of Life
• Alexander Payne – The Descendants
• Martin Scorsese – Hugo

[StoneGold]

Regarding Ellroy, LA Confidential reportedly disappointed at the box office, despite its critical acclaim and that it helped bolster Russell Crowe's emergence as a respected performer.

$126.2 million in 1997.


It's not like this is impossible to look up.

[Chiasm]

More like the year The Hurt Locker won...a lot of people went to see The English Patient, it made $231,976,425.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo isn't up for Best Picture, and Fincher isn't up for directing.

Best Picture

• The Artist – Thomas Langmann
• The Descendants – Jim Burke, Jim Taylor and Alexander Payne
• Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close – Scott Rudin
• The Help – Brunson Green, Chris Columbus and Michael Barnathan
• Hugo – Graham King and Martin Scorsese
• Midnight in Paris – Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum
• Moneyball – Michael De Luca, Rachel Horowitz, and Brad Pitt
• The Tree of Life – Dede Gardner, Sarah Green, Grant Hill and Bill Pohlad
• War Horse – Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy

Best Director

• Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris
• Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist
• Terrence Malick – The Tree of Life
• Alexander Payne – The Descendants
• Martin Scorsese – Hugo

Thats weird. I read a list a few days ago on EW.com that had it in those two categories but you are correct with the official list right from the Oscar site.

[Enda8011]

$126.2 million in 1997.


It's not like this is impossible to look up.

That refers to worldwide gross. Admittedly, on a moderate budget, that sounds alright, although factoring in ancillary expenses like lab fees, advertising, and shipping for the individual prints (to paraprhase Scott Ashlin), as well as marketing costs, that grows less impressive. Also, they did not have extensive toyline tie-ins.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0255278/

In any event, a cursory look at James Ellroy's imd entry shows that even if you combined all films based on his novels into one franchise, they would not give much competition to Pirates of the Carribean (a theme park based franchise), Lord of the Rings (from a children's novel the Hobbitt), Star Wars (Flash Gordon serials derived, etc.). Black Dahlia did not come close to L.A. Confidential.

Rampart (written by)



2009 Sunfax Territory (short) (novel)



2008 Street Kings (screenplay / story)



2006 The Black Dahlia (novel)



2003 L.A. Confidential (TV movie) (novel)



2003 L.A. Sheriff's Homicide (TV movie)



2002 Dark Blue (story)



2002 Stay Clean (short) (novel "Killer on the Road")



1998 Brown's Requiem (novel "Brown's Requiem")



1997 L.A. Confidential (novel "L.A. Confidential")



1993 Fallen Angels (TV series)

– Since I Don't Have You (1993) (story)



1988 Cop (novel "Blood on the Moon")

This just reminded me about that very odd franchise that is Die Hard. Each movie is based on a book, it's just that they're based on (I think) totally unrelated and unconnected books. The plot for Die Hard with a Vengeance would have been a Lethal Weapon movie had it been rejected.

Die Hard's sloppy history reflects various other franchises:

First Blood/Rambo: one source novel, three original stories (intended as a single entry, not a series)

Death Wish: one novel, four sequels (author's sequel ignored)

Shaft appeared in roughly six novels, but only the first two novels adapted them.

Movie Bond is older than 40, almost 50 now, so I think he's disqualified according to the OP.

Yes, thank you, I wanted to chart those who had managed to break through instead of just carrying forward. Plus, remember how childish those films grew in the 70's and 80's, and even as late as 2002.

Fallacy here being that the only sign of success are sequels....................

Because whole messes of novels from Grisham, Chrichton, Ellroy, Leonard, Tolkein, Clancy, Flemming, the Bourne series, Thomas Harris' Lecter books, The Puzo, Benchley...


And Flemming does work, because they rebooted everything for Casino Royale. First time doing that as a serious EON film too.

It's a stupid argument. Here's a list of films that didn't get a sequel based on books. Obviously, that means that books turned into movies don't work.

"And Flemming does work, because they rebooted everything for Casino Royale. First time doing that as a serious EON film too".

--------------Considering how silly and childish the 1970's and 1980's films grew, that they did it more soberly than the Woody Allen version comes as a surprise.

The same production company, so I consider that just a carrying forward of momentum of a previous adaptation. This stands in contrast to the recent Conan film (2011 with Jason Mamoa) which came from a different production company than the 1980's films.

I blame the filmmakers more often than some other people do. People seem to blame the property to protect themselves.

Stephen King film adaptations generally have moderate budgets, as usual for horror films. However, how many of them have grossed $100 million domestically?

I will have to check the box office returns on Grisham adaptations. How long have the TV shows based on his books tended to last?

Puzo adaptations outside of the Godfather have done so-so. Remember the Sicilian with Christopher Lambert? Come to think of it, even the 1990's rerelease of the Godfather did moderate business compared to the 1997 Star Wars rerelease-which tends to support my position, since Star Wars derives from Flash Gordon serials.

Peter Benchley-as in Jaws? The Jaws series presents a legendary example of the degeneration that occurs with sequels to stories that do not leave much room for further stories or varations. Remember Jaws: the Revenge?

How many Elmore Leonard adaptations have grossed $100 million domestically? Also, the Karen Sisquo TV show that spun off of Out of Sight only lasted a few episodes.

Tolkein started his work with the Hobbitt, which received reviews as a children's book.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/29/sta...agemostpopular

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07...s/index_01.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothyp...-harry-potter/

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/29/sta...ranchises.html


Incidentally, part of why I composed this thread, why I thought in terms of franchises (emphasis added):

"Now more than ever Hollywood studios need franchises--films that can generate multiple sequels, TV shows and lots and lots of merchandise. Franchises also make the job of marketing movies much easier, because audiences already know the characters and, if the franchise is successful, are emotionally invested in what happens to them."

Minor update:

Whether Gone Baby Gone or Shooter will end up as stillborn franchises remains unclear at this point.

Adult thriller franchises are a poor vehicle for generating large-scale sales of toys, costumes, decorative bed sheets, [etc.]

http://books.google.com/books?ei=s34...q=Mystic+River

Bill Mesce wrote this in “Overkill: The Rise and Fall of Thriller. Google Books has a preview online.

Stonegold, an update on

Grisham: The Firm TV show just ended

Elmore Leonard: the domestic gross of Get Shorty came to just 72 million
Out of Sight just grossed domestically 37.3 million dollars on a 48 milion dollar budget

On page 210 of Bill Mesce's book, he listed various adult thrillers. The only one to gross over $100 million? The Road to Perdition.

The Road to Perdition adapted a comic book.*

*By Max Allan Collins, who of course predicted in 1987 that the then upcoming Batman film would turn out an embarrassment if it did not follow the TV show approach of Adam West (by which I mean the Dozier show, not Super Powers: The Galactic Guardians).

[Vibranium]

Die Hard 1 and 2 are based on novels....4 is based on an article "Farewell To Arms", basically talking about cyber terrorism and cyber security

[Simbob4000]

Why do you keep bumping this thread? Just let it die.

[Alex6166]

[QUOTE=StoneGold;14292524]Fallacy here being that the only sign of success are sequels. Also, that because you can make a list, that makes something true.

Because whole messes of novels from Grisham, Chrichton, Ellroy, Leonard, Tolkein, Clancy, Flemming, QUOTE]

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...riday-at-mi-6/

Reminds of this quote from the New York Times.......


Novels Haunted By Actors' Faces
Martin Arnold. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: May 20, 1999. pg. E.3
Abstract (Summary)

Lecter, in all his evilness, has become almost a cult figure, and to his fans the idea of anyone but Mr. Hopkins playing him is unthinkable if not laughable. Such actor-character identification is not uncommon. To many James Bond movie addicts there was only Sean Connery. Nonetheless, all the post-Connery Bond movies succeeded, probably because Bond, unlike Lecter and Renko and Smiley is a cartoon character.

(Of course, the author may have made a mistake. I have similarly seen people refer to Zorro as a "comic book character", when Zorro started in prose.)

I remember Flight of the Intruder was made fun of because it's effects looked like bad models with explosions.

Now we have digitally created effects that look even more fake.

Stonegold, an update on

Grisham: The Firm TV show just ended

Elmore Leonard: the domestic gross of Get Shorty came to just 72 million
Out of Sight just grossed domestically 37.3 million dollars on a 48 milion dollar budget

On page 210 of Bill Mesce's book, he listed various adult thrillers. The only one to gross over $100 million? The Road to Perdition.

The Road to Perdition adapted a comic book.*

*By Max Allan Collins, who of course predicted in 1987 that the then upcoming Batman film would turn out an embarrassment if it did not follow the TV show approach of Adam West (by which I mean the Dozier show, not Super Powers: The Galactic Guardians).

Updating with further information from Mesce's book:

Mesce provided info on Get Shorty, Heat, Devil in a Blue Dress, LA Confidential, Out of Sight, Talented Mr. Ripley, Insomnia, Three Kings, and Road to Perdition. He noted that these films show the problem with adult thriller films. Namely, even modestly budget large studio films have budgets about $40 million (the budgets ranged from $30 to $80 million for these films) but the highest grossing of those films, in terms of domestic box office, came out at $101 million.; five of them had domestic grosses of about $60 to $72 million in range

Mesce notes that most adult thrillers have a domestic box office gross of less than $90 million, which simply does not suffice to cover marketing costs, studio/exhibitor split, and profit participation. He also notes that adult thrillers tend to earn at a slower rate.

As an illustrative example, Mesce noted that Master and Commander had a bigger budget than Pirates of the Carribean, but the latter film did three times the box office of the former, both domestically and in other countries.

Mesce noted that a disappointment such as the 2003 Hulk had wordwide box office figures twice that of Mystic River, while the combined worldwide gross of the combined figures for About Schmidt, Adaptation, The Hours and Punch-Drunk Love amounted to less than that of The Hulk, but the combined budgets of these films came to $100 million.

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.c...attoo-hit.html

This post discusses The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo. This author has noted that he hoped that The Lincoln Lawyer would launch a film franchise, but in fact a TV series may follow, but not announced theatrical sequels.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/13/news...ated/index.htm

I had considered including Dune, but that film received a PG-13, and traditionally space adventure novels had a reputation as children's literature. John Carter may fall into the same situation.

And? It doesn't matter if anyone complained about the toys, parents were complaining about that kind of stuff back when there was tons of it. The fact is you said they don't make toys "based on crude comedians such as Mike Myers in live action" (Austin Powers); only they did, and you could buy those toys right along with all the other kids toys, parents complaining didn't do any.

As for the Conan thing, why would anyone want to buy the licensing rights to make kids toys for a R rated movie no one went to see? The R rated movies that get toys are things like Robocop, Aliens 2, Terminator, and Rambo.

I posted the story to show that they used to make Austin Powers toys, parents complained, and one does not see Austin Powers merchandise in Wal-Mart, etc. now about ten years after the last Austin Powers film came out. I have to wonder if another Austin Powers film comes out if it will have much of a toyline push. (Incidentally, the Austin Powers films never received R-ratings, but the lewd content caused protests.)

Those R-rated examples you noted mostly came out during the 1980's. The last Rambo film in 2008 did not have much of a toy line push. Also, some of the franchises you named transitioned to the PG-13 rating.

I will also note

But not Lord of the Rings. Let's consider that right now and for the past decade, the Peter Jackson movies are the most successful adaptation of Tolkien's work, but that it started with LOTR, not the Hobbit. The LOTR books were not listed as children's lit, and Jackson went with the trilogy first, not the Hobbit. So in a sense, we have to consider that Jackson's taking a route that's inverse to Tolkien.
.

The Lord of the Rings still derives from the Hobbitt. So, this goes to Max Allan Collins comment about attempting to make adult versions of properties derived from children's literature.

One reason I started this thread has to do with Max Allan Collins once observing that he felt it odd that most of the people at DC felt uncomfortable wit his approach.

In Amazing Heroes#119

"[On [presumably] the Christopher Reeve Superman films] The Superman movies have all, as far as I�m concerned fallen to a degree into the Batman TV show approach-maybe not quite as broad�..And I think they did that because because there�s no other way you can play it. It just doesn�t work. I mean, look at that costume".

More from Amazing Heroes#119: �one of the basic problems that Denny had with my Batman approach is that I bring a lot of humor to it��And again I don�t see how any intelligent writer can approach a story about people in long underwear and capes without either removing their brain or putting their tongue in their cheek to a degree��.

Collins pointed out that these properties derive from children's literature, and it astounded him that people overlooked this aspect. I would guess that Collins and Mesce would treat stories about elves as children's literature.

Movie Bond is older than 40, almost 50 now, so I think he's disqualified according to the OP.

One must note how childish those films grew as time went on. Triumph of Supdity they had this write-up of Condorman as a digression from Monster Squad, which showed that a parody failure occurred:

http://supidity.informe.com/dec-insp...uad-dt503.html



I get that it�s supposed to be parodying James Bond movies, but if truth be told, it�s not all that far off from the average crappy Roger Moore Bond outing (sure, there�s the goofy superhero costume and flying contraption � but is that any more tacky than Moonraker?)

[Vibranium]

I remember Flight of the Intruder was made fun of because it's effects looked like bad models with explosions.

Now we have digitally created effects that look even more fake.

that's debatable....of course ideally you would do everything practical, but that costs $$$ and you cut a nice chunk out of production costs if you go digital

studios like to save money


the people who hate CGI will always hate it and say it looks fake

[Simbob4000]

that's debatable....of course ideally you would do everything practical, but that costs $$$ and you cut a nice chunk out of production costs if you go digital

studios like to save money


the people who hate CGI will always hate it and say it looks fake

CGI, for the most part anyways does look fake. I didn't really realize how much people don't notice how fake, or off, it can look until I took a 3D animation class and one of the little test was: which one of these isn't real?

[thwhtGuardian]

CGI, for the most part anyways does look fake. I didn't really realize how much people don't notice how fake, or off, it can look until I took a 3D animation class and one of the little test was: which one of these isn't real?

It's really no more fake than traditional effects though, it all requires the audience to buy into it.

[Vibranium]

It's really no more fake than traditional effects though, it all requires the audience to buy into it.

good way to look at it

to be fair, the CGI on those Syfy original movies is pretty bad, but I guess that is kind of the point