Posted by Dean McMillan on March 26, 1999 at 14:04:17:
Now that I see how the land lays, I'm "this close" to chucking it all, but--as I said--I'm half serious. So permit me another try and I promise to make use of the ridiculous-ness of the situation.
Dave Rose wrote:
1. >My cynicism is prompted, in part, by my respect for Jack Vance's writing. It seems to me that, for a variety of reasons, any motion picture adaptation of Vance's work is bound to be less than satisfactory.
If this was intended to excuse you, Dave, it should not suffice, any more than David Pierce's cheerful sneering should let HIM off the hook. :) Your words are nothing, if not evidence the Vanceon oeuvre will be in capable hands--where budgeting, logistics, and film adaptation are concerned.
2. >If...you are asking a public corporation (whose board bears a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders) for many tens of millions of dollars for production and marketing, you must be able to show that you have taken all of the relevant revenue maximization factors into account.
I'm not so sure. Though my impression is, you would know whereof you speak. Isn't it all pretty much one heckkuva crapshoot (if the opinions of Towne or Altman are any indication)? My guess is the corporation's board you speak of can be quietly noncommittal, so long as management sustains profits.
Michael Eisner's judgments are backed up by performance. This is widely known. His "win streak" goes back decades. It can be argued he maximizes revenue in the form of a mathematical expectation, and (by now) is surely unafraid of the downside risks to a given film. Nor will he ever be forced to "bet it all," as did WALT (God rest his soul) on more than one occasion.
3. >"Would you be willing to tamper with Vance's work to reflect the exigencies of the marketplace?--"
Yes I would. If to "tamper" meant a kind of damage control infinitely preferable to the type of butchery we should expect of routine filmmaking, which would otherwise be inevitable (and if I thought the author would see the necessity).
4. >"--For example, like Apollon Zamp, toss in a lot of extraneous stunts, sight gags, and action sequences, so that foreign viewers, especially those from Lesser Developed Countries, "get" the film and go see it."
The need for "extraneous" stunts, sight gags, and action sequences would not be great: Vance books already reflect (in scene report) an inoffensive and judicious use of this type of *stage business*. To my mind, this aspect is part of his writing's enduring charm.
5. >"Are you the guy who's going to ask Michael Eisner for a nine-figure sum...?"
Am I the guy? No, that would be you. [...Or another here owning an equally obvious business acumen. And I freely admit: the Sysyphean (sp) task of funding this enterprise must be the bailiwick of somebody else. (Though I don't believe the price of a commercially successful film need run anywhere NEAR the figures you've cited.)] No, I'M the guy whose erstwhile classmates are now film industry captains, though I couldn't say whether this--or my being a Cal Arts film school allumnus--constitutes an entree into the marble corridors of Disney, as I would hope. Be that as it may.
Mike's web site can be the means to a peer review process by which Vance fans can assess our individual talents and competencies. A starting point, perhaps necessitating a proper Vance Society which could meet fortnightly, in a chat room (why not?) To be organized as the collective sees fit--say, Robert's Rules Of Parliamentary Procedure? ...With you, Dave, as Chairperson. For I hardly see myself some messianic Moses come to part the seas.
I'm not a film director; I'm a draftsman (and a conventional one at that). A Vance reader, not unlike yourselves. Leadership is quite beyond me.
I'd be far more comfortable in production sound, or conforming the negative. But if it falls to me to park cars, be Morale Officer, or wash feet. ...So be it.
A satisfactory Vance film is THAT important to me.