Adventure writer Clive Cussler stands to face the jury as they enter
Los Angeles Superior Court, Friday, Feb. 2, 2007, for a civil trial.


Trial Starts in 'Sahara' Flop Flap

BY GREG RISLING


ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


LOS ANGELES -- A production company that made the action film "Sahara" reneged on a deal to give best-selling author Clive Cussler creative control of the movie based on his book, his attorney said Friday.

Attorney Bert Fields told jurors at the outset of the trial of dueling lawsuits between Cussler and Crusader Entertainment that the agreement was breached when vital story lines were eliminated and Cussler's script suggestions were ignored.

Cussler and Crusader Entertainment, a company owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz, are each seeking millions of dollars in damages.

"It was supposed to be Mr. Cussler who decided what would be cut out," Fields said. "They made this movie even if he didn't approve of all these changes."

The 2005 film, starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz, was envisioned as the springboard for a lucrative franchise like the "Indiana Jones" or "James Bond" series, based on Cussler's character Dirk Pitt.

The movie grossed $68 million in the United States, but Fields said the production cost about $160 million.

Attorneys for Crusader Entertainment have portrayed Cussler as uncooperative and meddlesome, and claimed he misled the moviemakers by saying his books had sold 100 million copies. They claim he sold less than half that number.

Alan Rader, an attorney representing the company, said in his opening statement that Cussler was granted rights of approval that were replaced with a less authoritative consultation role when a director was hired.

"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."

The trial, expected to last nine weeks, could provide an inside look at behind-the-scenes dealing in Hollywood.

On one side is Cussler, who has written 32 books. On the other is Anschutz, one of the richest men in the United States, who co-owns the Los Angeles Kings hockey team and owns Anschutz Entertainment Group, which operates Los Angeles' Staples Center. He also owns several Major League Soccer teams, including the Los Angeles Galaxy.

Both sides agree a deal was reached that gave Cussler certain consultation and approval rights for "Sahara."

Fields told jurors his client initially sought $40 million for the movie rights to some of his books, and a compromise was later reached that gave Cussler the ability to approve the screenplay for "Sahara" and consultation rights for a second movie that was never made.

Cussler's rights to the first film "stay intact without limit and just go on and on," Fields said.

Numerous screenwriters were brought in to polish the script. Some versions were approved by Cussler but Fields estimates about 50 "fundamental" changes were made that strayed from the book and doomed the film.

"They tore the heart out of the story," Fields said. "The picture died, lost all of this money because they gutted it."

Called the "Grandmaster of Adventure," Cussler, 75, has written numerous novels featuring Pitt. Cussler's book "Raise the Titanic!" was made for the big screen in 1980 but didn't do well at the box office.

link

Scroll through this topic for the latest updates and info. This topic has multiple pages.

Cussler case goes to trial

Crusader claims author tanked 'Sahara'

By JANET SHPRINTZ

Opening statements were heard Friday in the trial pitting author Clive Cussler against producer Philip Anschutz over the failure of the 2005 film "Sahara."
Attorney Alan Rader, who represents Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment, told an L.A. Superior Court jury that Cussler intentionally tanked the feature by rejecting scripts in bad faith, publicly disparaging the movie and fraudulently inducing Anschutz to enter into a $10 million-a-book deal by inflating the number of books he sold.

Bert Fields described his client Cussler as a bestselling author who had been burned once before by a filmed adaptation of his work and demanded, and got, extraordinary creative control over the script for the filming of his novel "Sahara."

Both sides agreed the film lost approximately $60 million.

As outlined by Fields, Cussler, the author of 32 books, including 19 action-adventures featuring "Sahara" hero Dirk Pitt, had seen his novel "Raise the Titanic" destroyed by a 1980 filmed version over which he had no creative control. He vowed never again to sell film rights until producer Howard Baldwin teamed up with Anschutz and urged him to sell the rights in anticipation of an "Indiana Jones"- style franchise.

After lengthy negotiations, Crusader agreed to pay Cussler $20 million for the rights to two books. As for script approval, says Fields, the two sides agreed that on the first film, Cussler would have unlimited approval and on subsequent films, his approval rights would end when production started.

Cussler approved an initial script written by Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer ("A Sound of Thunder") and revised by David S. Ward ("Sleepless in Seattle"), but he allegedly hated a subsequent revision by James V. Hart ("Hook") and undertook to revise the script himself. The early screenplays approved by Cussler, Rader said, had to be revised to attract stars.

Two years into development, Josh Friedman ("War of the Worlds") was brought in for a revision; Fields acknowledges that Cussler's reaction to the changes was that Friedman "should have his keyboard shoved up his anal canal."

Crusader claims the Friedman draft was rejected by Cussler amid anti-Semitic slurs and that racial animosity played a role in his dismissal of the idea of having Dirk Pitt's sidekick be played by a black actor.

On the issue of racial and religious slurs, Fields said that Cussler flatly denied making them and that they were the fabrication of his longtime publicist whom he fired.

In the end, Donnelly and Oppenheimer were brought back in for a final revision, and the screenplay was finally turned over to Breck Eisner to direct. Once Eisner was onboard, he ignored Cussler and gutted his story, Fields said, changing it from serious action-adventure into a slick jog through Africa.

Not happy with a consulting role once Eisner took over the movie, Cussler badmouthed the film, in breach of his contract, Rader contended.

Fields said that Cussler did not disparage the film to his fans until he was essentially pushed off the movie. He sued in 2004 before the film was even released.

Rader told the jury that it was just common sense that, under the contract, Cussler's approval rights changed once a director was picked and that disputes would be resolved in favor of the director.

As for the inflated book sales, Rader said it took until trial to get real numbers and that the significance of those numbers is critical.

Fields addressed the claim that Crusader had overpaid for the film rights because books sales were inflated by saying that number now given by Crusader -- under 50 million rather than 100 million -- does not include remaindered and used books.

Crusader thought it was paying top dollar for a top-tier property, only to discover the fan base was a fraction of the projected size, Rader said.

The many breaches of contract enumerated by Rader included that Cussler revealed his huge payday to columnist Liz Smith and that he refused to read screenplays and listened to casting suggestions in bad faith.

link

(Grr! that right mouse button!)

Well, it does say only 60 million on my paperback copy of Flood Tide. But still, there is not one house I have visited where there are not at least two or three Dirk Pitt novels on the shelf.

You mention Star Trek and maybe a third of the people you talk to know anything about it. You mention Dirk Pitt or Clive Cussler and just about everyone has heard the names!

They should call as defendants in this clown circus all of the disappointed Dirk Pitt fans who went to see this film only to see that all of the interesting subplots have been removed and the parts that remained had been seriously altered and damaged.

Seriously: About halfway through the flick, I did not remember any of the things happening in the book, it was all compleatly changed.

Cussler wanted to try to enforce integrity of his original story. The producers of the flop insisted on trying to change everything, including changing Giordino into a black man. Ridiculous, as on a personal lever the character is based on one of Clive's real life friends.

What is sad about this is that I had gotten the feeling that Matthew McConaughey is an actual fan and wanted to do Sahara justice. But on the other hand, he changed important aspects of Dirk Pitt.

The moovie flopped, because they would not keep the basic integrity of the story and refused to listen to Clive's own suggestions on how to fix it.

Now in the same year, Philip Anschutz made "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and had no trouble keeping that story basically exactly the same as the way it was written by Clive Staples Lewis (Another Clive)

Who do we write to and send emails to to give our support for our Clive?

e.g. Carole Bartholomeaux [the %$#@&]

Clive Cussler
National Underwater and Marine Agency
P.O. Box 5059
Scottsdale, AZ 85258

So here we go, then. Cussler vs. Hollywood.

Well, I have to say that Clive looks ready for battle in the pic. I have a strong feeling that this case will be Intense! My biggest concern now is that the judge might be slightly biased toward the film company, in which case Clive has to fight an even harder battle. But I'm confident that with so many behind him, and so many against the film company, our fearless leader will come out on top.

Go get 'em, Clive. We're all behind you. :)

Sigh, I really want to wish Clive luck, but he's part of the reason the film didn't do so well.

This case has just really bummed me out to no end; it basically means no more DP movies. I sincerely wish this had been settled a long time ago, out of court.

Ok I'm an idiot....please explain to me WHY Clive is the reason the movie didn't do well?

I actually enjoyed this movie and saw it 3 times in the theater and bought the dvd and so did many of the members here so please explain it too me.....Would it have anything to do with the dearth of OTHER (and better) action adventure movies that came out at the same time?

I'm really getting fed up with (some) peoples negativity towards Clive when it was the MOVIE COMPANY that broke a signed contract

I am not blaming Dr. Cussler, I am blaming both parties.

My comments against Dr. Cussler refer to his badmouthing the movie during the marketing phase.

It is truly a shame that the production company pushed Clive to the side when making Sahara, because they really flubbed the dub. I knew something was intensely wrong when I saw a brunette Dirk and a blond Al. I can't blame Clive from staying away from the motion picture industry because of what it did to Titanic and Sahara. It would be great if Clive started his own company and produced and directed his own books. Try that one on for size.

Keep those books coming.

Always a devoted fan.

Didn't sound or read like you were blaming both parties.

As for Clive badmouthing the movie....can't say I blame him there,the only resemblence to the book were the characters names and the Texas...I'll give you that he probably should have seen it first but you never know.....

There is a reason Aushutz(sp?) is a billionaire..he knows how to use people.....And he used Clive.........Clive naivley trusted someone to make a movie out of one of his children,and got screwed AGAIN.
Clive has integrity and wouldn't want his name attached to anything to do with Pitt unless it was worthy of that name.
Unlike Clancy who sells his books,takes the money and runs without a care if the finished product resembles his books or not.

I'd love to see more Pitt movies but not if they're going to be so far removed from the book as Sahara was...for crying out loud Rudi was such a pussy he couldn't even fire a flare gun.......and as for the statement that the movie wanted a BLACK Al????????????? I'd sue them too...........

The statement I found interesting was when they said that although Clive was happy with the initial script they had to change it to attract stars.... didn't Matthew Mc state at one time that he was a big fan of the books and that he had been waiting for something like seven years to play the part?? Doesn't sound like they'd need to change the script for him. As for Penelope Cruz - while she played the part of Eva alright she was totally the wrong look - Eva is described in the book as blonde hair with "dresden-blue eyes". Probably cast by the same idiot who wanted to cast a black guy for Al! And lets face it, M Mc & PC were the biggest stars in that movie, the rest while good actors are hardly A-list.
I also can't believe that Crusdaer is bleating about Clive overestimating how many books he had sold - how hard would it have been for them to do the research themselves to find out how many books he's sold! Somebody at Crusader should be sacked for that oversight!
I hope that Clive wins this - it will hopefully send a message to Hollywood to stop making shoody book adaption/movies. Although admittedly there have been some good ones out recently.
On the other hand if Clive wins no other production company will touch him or his books again, if he loses he will never sell another book for a movie again. Either way I think the Dirk Pitt fans who want to see more movies are going to be the losers in this case.

This just bugs me! the movie company takes an exceptional book, destroys the plots and then blames the author. Man I pray Clive comes out on top in this!

It would be good for hollywood to pay attention to the creators of a story, before they dimantal it and turn it into a movie.

beer:

Here is a shot of Clive and Anschutz:



Trial set in legal dustup over 'Sahara'

Link to the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2...01-sahara_x.htm

I thought it was pretty wild seeing Clive in a suit. Definitely not his norm. :)

I have read the current posted replies with regard to this this topic and am pleased to add my support for Clive and his battle. I will add that I enjoyed the film and like most of you saw it more than once and bought the DVD when it was released.

It was a pleasuable action film but not a great one and I very much more enjoyed the book which has a superb story line and works so much better than the film.

I personally feel that had the book been followed much more closely by the film, then a much better film would have been made and the start of a great series for all concerned.
I understand about the cost constraints of making a movie and the need to ensure a return, but as most of the important aspects were covered in the film but in the wrong order and with the wrong leading items i.e The Texas was a side plot in the book but the film made it the main plot and the red tide was the main plot in the book but a side one in the film, im sorry but in these days of global warming and ecological disasters had the plots of the film reflected that of the book then a much better film would have been made that would have pleased all and returned a better investment.
I wish Clive all the best and hope he is able to prove his case and show all his detractors wrong, he wrote a best selling book how could they think he did not know what he was talking about!

True, that's the one amusing bit of this whole fiasco.

It is a shame that we will probably not get to see other Pitt novels made into films.
I have been reading the books since the 2nd book hit the shelves when I discovered it by accident and have been hooked ever since.
I had much lower expectations than most people when I heard that another book was going to be made into a movie. I am almost to the point where I won't go see a movie if I have read the book knowing that it is not possible to take a 500 page book with multiple sub plots and include it all in a movie that makes sense and fits into the 2 hour window Hollywood wants most films to last. The best you can hope for is that they do the book justice.

There are some very big egos involved here.

Author Cussler 'damaged by movie'

The career of best-selling novelist Clive Cussler was almost destroyed by the failure of the film adaptation of his book Sahara, a court has been told.
Mr Cussler is suing production company Crusader Entertainment, claiming their story changes ruined the 2005 movie.

His lawyer Bert Fields told Los Angeles Superior Court that Mr Cussler was now unable to get film deals.

Crusader Entertainment is counter-suing the author, claiming he misled them about how many books he had sold.

It was hoped that Sahara would be the start of a film franchise involving the character Dirk Pitt, played by Matthew McConaughey, who features in 19 of Mr Cussler's 32 novels.

Story 'gutted'

But the movie, which also starred Penelope Cruz, lost up to $70m (£35.7m), Mr Fields said.

He said Crusader Entertainment removed certain plotlines and ignored the author's suggested improvements, breaking an agreement to give Mr Cussler creative control of the adaptation.

"This was not the dramatic, gripping story Clive Cussler told," Mr Fields told the court. "As a result, the audience just didn't care.

"They tore the heart out of the story. The picture died, lost all of this money because they gutted it."

'No final say'

An opening statement by Crusader Entertainment's lawyers said Mr Cussler's rights of approval changed to a lesser consultation role once a director was hired.

"He [Mr Cussler] doesn't get final say," the company's lawyer Alan Rader said.

"Every single complaint Mr Cussler has made about changes to the screenplay happened after the director was hired."

Crusader Entertainment claim Mr Cussler misled the film-makers by saying he had sold 100 million books. They say he has sold less than half that amount.

The company is owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz, who also owns the largest US cinema chain, Regal, London's Millennium Dome and the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer franchise.

link

This article is interesting because it explores discrepencies in book sales declarations.


February 5, 2007

Billionaire claims novelist duped him

By Glenn F. Bunting and Josh Getlin

Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — Attorneys for Philip Anschutz allege that author Clive Cussler duped the Denver industrialist into paying $10 million for film rights to the adventure novel "Sahara" by flagrantly inflating his book sales to more than 100 million copies.

"Cussler and his agent had gotten away with these numbers for years," said Alan Rader, Anschutz's lawyer. "It was a lie, and it doomed the movie."

The claim is "ridiculous," Cussler said Thursday outside a courtroom at Los Angeles County Superior Court. "They wanted the book. They solicited us."

The allegations surfaced at the start of a civil trial that seeks to settle a dispute over who is responsible for Anschutz's company losing $105 million on "Sahara," the 2005 movie starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz.

The trial, which includes claims of sabotage, fraud, profligate spending and racism, is expected to provide a rare behind-the-scenes look at the world of moviemaking.

Among people on the witness list are Anschutz, the secretive 67-year-old multibillionaire; former Paramount Pictures chairwoman Sherry Lansing; director Breck Eisner, the son of the former Walt Disney Co. chairman; McConaughey, who also served as executive producer; and Cussler, the 75-year-old author.

Cussler initially sued Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment in 2004, charging that producers reneged on a contract that gave the author extraordinary approval rights over the screenplay. Anschutz countersued, alleging that Cussler deliberately torpedoed the film through his repeated attempts to write his own scripts, all of which were rejected by the producers. Both sides are seeking millions of dollars in damages.

In court papers, Anschutz's attorneys claim that Cussler "perpetrated a massive fraud" to secure an "unprecedented" contractual agreement in 2000.

"The essence of Cussler's fraud was simple: He lied about how many books he had sold to induce Crusader to enter the agreement," the papers state.

In addition to their effect on the trial, the allegations might raise broader questions about the authenticity of publishing-industry sales figures.

Although they declined to comment on the specifics of the Cussler case, New York publishing experts said Thursday that the industry had a long history of inflating book sales and hyping an author's success. But these practices have declined, they added, with the emergence of Nielsen BookScan in 2001.

The New York company, which tracks book sales, compiles information from Barnes & Noble, Borders and other chain bookstores across the nation; stores including Costco, Target, Kmart and Starbucks; and a sampling of independent retailers. The data do not include sales of books before 2001.

"Hyping sales figures is not productive for the book industry, and, in the end, it hurts everyone," said James Atlas, a writer and founder of Atlas Books. "It's harder to get away with this kind of thing now. The information Nielsen BookScan provides may be unwelcome to some, but it's necessary."

Cussler's first book, "The Mediterranean Caper," was published in 1973. He wrote 19 of his 32 titles before 2001.

Even with the Nielsen data, there are disparities between what the company reports and what publishers say they have sold. An article in the current Publishers Weekly, for example, noted that although HarperCollins said it had sold 20,000 copies of Vikram Seth's latest novel, "Two Lives," Nielsen BookScan reported 6,000 copies sold.

Cussler said reported sales of his books were generated by his publisher. "They don't come from me," he said. "I don't have the foggiest idea."

Cussler's New York literary agent, Peter Lampack, could not be reached for comment. Representatives of two of Cussler's publishers — Simon & Schuster and Putnam — declined to comment on the litigation.

The Web site of Simon & Schuster Inc. says Cussler "is acclaimed worldwide as the Grandmaster of Adventure, a title richly deserved given that there are nearly 100 million copies of his best-selling Dirk Pitt novels in print."

Putnam Adult, Cussler's current publisher, has reported on its Web site that the author sold "more than 125 million books," including 19 consecutive titles on The New York Times fiction best-sellers list.

In a sworn declaration submitted Nov. 29, Cussler stated that "over 100 million copies (of his Pitt novels) have been sold."

Those figures place Cussler in the same stratosphere as authors Michael Crichton, James Patterson and Anne Rice.

But according to Anschutz's lawyers, a review of more than 14,000 pages of royalty reports and accounting records found that the number of Cussler novels sold was closer to 35 million.

The records were produced under court order by Cussler's agent.

(Begin optional trim)

The audit, performed by Los Angeles litigation consulting company Freeman & Mills Inc., was arranged by Anschutz's lawyers. The review took more than 350 hours and cost about $75,000, court records show.

Cussler's attorney, Bertram Fields, called the claim "hogwash." He said in an interview that although the precise number was "not computable," he would demonstrate during the trial that Cussler has sold more than 100 million books in his lifetime.

The estimate cited by Anschutz's attorneys does not rely on sales records of all of Cussler's books, Fields said.

"They are pulling these numbers out of thin air," Fields said. "They made up this claim because they have no answers to Mr. Cussler's lawsuit."

(End optional trim)

Anschutz said in a deposition that he was a fan of Cussler's Pitt novels and saw an opportunity to create a hit franchise similar to the "Indiana Jones" series. He said the author assured him of a built-in audience of more than 100 million potential moviegoers.

Cussler has denied giving Anschutz any assurances.

Fields said if he had, the potential moviegoers would exceed 100 million by far. "You are talking about 32 books in 40 languages in several versions — trade, softcover, hardcover, mass market paperback, book clubs, books on tape — in 100 countries."

Bunting reported from Los Angeles and Getlin from New York. Los Angeles Times researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this report.

link

Please just tell me when this whole mess is over. It really makes my head (and my heartstrings) hurt.

How the hell can you ignore a contract once a director is brought in? What's the point of giving someone creative control if a director can come in and do whatever he darn well pleases? Isn't that as ridiculous as it sounds?

yike:

How dumb do the movie moguls think we are? Since when is a movie based on how many book an author has sold? Whether an author has sold 1000 or 100,000 or 10 million isn't going to determine how many people plunk their money down to see a movie. If the studio, or production company changes the rules after production has started then they have breached the original contract. I can not believe that a man who is a billionaire and has probably put together many deals for many millions of dollars would base a multi million decision on how many books Dr. Cussler has sold during his career. If he now claims that he trusted Dr. Cusslers purported statements about book sales wouldn't due diligence require that he get independent verificiation of those numbers before he even signed the contract to make the movie. This whole thing is rotten at the core and no wonder Dr. Cussler has withheld making his great books into mediocre movies.

"Almost destroyed?" Although Sahara was a mediocre movie at best (I still enjoyed it tremendously), I haven't read anywhere that people have stopped reading Cussler because of it. In fact, the opposite is true. I've read quite a few posts here of people who got hooked on Pitt, et al, because of the movie. For me, the movie was a great Cussler-event for me between waiting for books. I watched in the theater, bought the DVD and watched it numerous times. I've gone back and started rereading his books again after seeing the movie. Don't get me wrong. I side with Dr. Cussler on this one (assuming I have all the facts), but, for me personally, I'd rather have a few more Sahara's than nothing. But, I'm afraid nothing is what I'm going to get after this lawsuits over. Oh well.

"Peter Lampack, Cussler's book agent for 38 years, is the first witness to take the stand"

'Sahara' a learning curve for Anschutz, agent says

By Glenn F. Bunting, Times Staff Writer

2:54 PM PST, February 5, 2007

A New York literary agent testified this morning that Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz arranged a set of private, tag-team negotiations that led to the multibillionaire awarding author Clive Cussler extraordinary approval rights over the movie "Sahara."

Peter Lampack, Cussler's book agent for 38 years, is the first witness to take the stand in a legal battle between Anschutz and Cussler over who is to blame for "Sahara" becoming a financial flop.

Lampack told the jury the meeting in June 2000 at a private boardroom inside Anschutz's Denver office tower was set up by the industrialist's partner, Howard Baldwin.

"Howard said that Phil wanted to meet us," Lampack recalled. "[Anschutz] was just putting his toes into the entertainment field. This was sort of a learning curve for him."

Anschutz, 67, had earned a fortune in oil and gas, railroads, telecommunications and real estate. He has since become a force in Hollywood by controlling Regal Entertainment Group, the nation's largest chain of movie theaters, and Anschutz Film Group, a production company whose biggest hit, "The Chronicles of Narnia," has earned more than $1 billion in revenue.

The Denver meeting began with pleasantries and light conversation, the agent testified. Anschutz, who chaired the session, then tried to low-ball Cussler, according to Lampack, by making an offer beneath the $30 million the best-selling author was seeking for the film rights to his popular Dirk Pitt adventure series.

When Lampack refused, Anschutz and Baldwin escorted Cussler to a nearby office building to show off the billionaire's extensive Western art collection.

"It became apparent to me that Philip Anschutz and Howard Baldwin taking Cussler out of the room was simply a ploy," Lampack testified before being cut off by attorney Bertram Fields, who represents Cussler.

Lampack said he was left alone with about a half-dozen Anschutz attorneys and business executives to hammer out an agreement.

"The conversations quickly broke down," Lampack recalled. An entertainment lawyer for Anschutz, William Immerman, had "tried to dilute the absolute, unconditional approvals" demanded by Cussler, Lampack said.

"We were not going to enter into any deal without those absolute approvals," Lampack testified. "As far as I was concerned, that negotiation was finished. I explained, probably for the one thousandth time, why I couldn't agree to that."

Cussler had vowed never again to allow Hollywood to make a movie out of one of his Pitt books after his "Raise the Titanic" became a box-office disaster in 1980, Lampack told the jury.

With Anschutz and Baldwin pursuing the Pitt franchise, which consists of 19 books, Cussler had insisted on retaining complete control over any future screenplays. Such approvals are rarely granted to authors who know little about the collaborative process involved in making movies.

Anschutz and Baldwin returned with Cussler to the boardroom after touring the art museum for about 90 minutes, Lampack said. Baldwin then inquired about how talks were progressing.

"I said, 'This negotiation is over,' " Lampack recalled. "[Baldwin] literally turned white. I thought he was going to fall over."

Anschutz stepped in and urged all sides to keep talking, Lampack said. After hours of negotiations, Anschutz and Cussler struck a compromise: Anschutz's film company would pay $10 million per book for the rights to two Cussler novels. The author would get "sole and absolute discretion" over the first picture and consulting approval rights over subsequent films.

The meeting ended with Anschutz and Cussler shaking hands.

"Mr. Anschutz made a reference to the fact that he intended this series to be as successful, if not more so, than the James Bond series," Lampack testified.

"Sahara," starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz, was released in spring 2005. To date, Anschutz's company has lost about $105 million on the project.

link

and so it goes...

Yeah, I, and many others, now read the books because of that film. If that's the main defense on Clive's part, I'm sorry to say I find that weak, and flimsy.

Lawyer to the stars Fields eclipsed by none

By Matthew Belloni

Feb 6, 2007



Bert Fields bills clients $900 an hour for his work.

Visitors to the drab downtown Los Angeles courtroom of Judge John Shook this week will be forgiven for becoming a tad starstruck. Sure, the case of Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment pits a well-known author, Clive Cussler, against billionaire "Sahara" producer Philip Anschutz with $100 million in damages potentially at stake.

But in a trial whose witness list includes actor Matthew McConaughey and former Paramount Pictures chief Sherry Lansing, the biggest name in the room might still be the plaintiff's 77-year old attorney. Bert Fields is the Clint Eastwood of entertainment lawyers, a multihyphenate, seen-it-all figure who is seemingly becoming more productive after a half-century of practicing law.

The rules of the profession don't seem to apply to Fields. Nearly all entertainment lawyers choose to specialize in dealmaking or litigation; Fields does both. Most litigators avoid conflicts of interest by representing either talent or studios; Fields straddles both worlds, having represented A-listers like Tom Cruise and nearly every major studio except the Walt Disney Co., which he famously coaxed into a $250 million settlement with its former studio chief Jeffrey Katzenberg. It's no secret among attorneys that most name-partner rainmakers delegate the bulk of their work, but Fields' partners at the Greenberg Glusker firm in Century City insist he's still first in the office each morning, personally drafting most documents with his name on them. Despite daily sojourns home to Malibu for lunch and a quick nap, he again finished the year as the firm's top biller in both hours and revenue (he charges $900 an hour).

Despite being one of the few of entertainment lawyers who actually tries cases, colleagues say this is Fields' first jury trial in nearly five years. He last saw action in 2002 representing Brillstein-Grey Entertainment against producer Bo Zenga over profits from "Scary Movie," one of several cases that got Fields and his firm embroiled in the Anthony Pellicano wiretapping scandal. Fields has been under investigation since 2003, but the U.S. Attorney's office has stayed mum on its plans for him, and most insiders now believe Fields will not suffer the same fate as indicted attorney Terry Christensen. Still, the scandal has taken its toll on Fields' firm, which has seen such high-profile partners as Howard Weitzman and Dale Kinsella depart.

But during opening statements in the Cussler trial last week, Fields' only sign of fatigue was a slightly cracked voice, which didn't prevent him from ripping into opposing counsel Alan Rader's arguments before Rader even made them.


"I love it," Fields says of the courtroom stage. "It's drama, and you get a chance to be a director, a producer and an actor. And you have a captive audience."

The Cussler matter concerns allegations that Crusader, which produced "Sahara," denied Cussler promised creative control and that Cussler lied about the number of books he sold to get a better movie deal, costing Crusader millions. The high stakes are a far cry from the issues in Fields' first trial in 1955. "My client was accused of groping a vice squad officer in a downtown skid row movie," he recalls. "He was acquitted."

Fields often boasts that he has never lost a case, which lawyers know is misleading because most matters settle, and not always on favorable terms. In fact, Fields has spent the past few months arguing in the press rather than the courtroom, threatening litigation first against Sumner Redstone after Redstone cited Cruise's behavior as a reason for Paramount ending the actor's lucrative production deal and then against News Corp. after publisher Judith Regan was fired by the company's HarperCollins unit. Neither of those cases has resulted in litigation, which only makes the Cussler case more special -- a chance to see one of Hollywood's pure legal animals in his natural habitat.

link

Great article. Sounds like Clive is in good and very capable hands with Mr. Fields! I sure wish I could be in the courtroom watching it all unfold.

What a soap opera. Seems to me that there should be a piece of paper somewhere with both parties signatures affixed to the bottom. This paper is called a contract and it stipulates what each party agrees to. If either party fails to honor the contract then they are liable for breach of contract. I can't believe they plan to make this last 9 weeks.

I agree. I thought the movie was a decent adaptation of the book - at least given the type of constraints that go into transitioning from book to movie.

I wish it had done well at the box office. It just didn't. And this makes the whole thing even worse, if you ask me.

*sigh*

I would have thought Dr. Cussler had learned from the Titanic flop. Authors should have control of their material when made into a movie. I can see where producers/directors may cut some parts out, a complete book would make a six hour movie. But casting and story-line should be overseen by the author. Many people have said that MM was good as Dirk, but he doesn't look anything like the Dirk I've read about, and like many on this site, I've read them all. And don't even start with AL, he's a barrel chested Italian in the books.

THANK YOU! Amen brother.

Welcome beverly!

Clive did think he learned from RTT, that's why he had a contract granting him creative control over the actors and script. Unfortunately, after he dissapproved of about 5 or 7 rewritten scripts, the film studio decided to cut him out of the picture (despite the contract) and made a film he didn't approve of. That's kind of a nutshell description of 4 years of backstabbing and stupid hollywood crap.

Glad you're here, post often!

Good luck to Clive. I think it'll be a long hard slog and I really hope he can come out on top.
I myself thought Sahara wasn't that bad but it could have been so good!
Al Giordino black??? Hadn't heard about that one!
Who knows. Maybe in another 20 years or so we'll be seeing Dirk Pitt on the big screen again.

The attorneys said they never intended, for example, to disclose to the jury that Cussler believed the moon landing was a government hoax or that he was intolerant of his fans, calling one loyal reader "a loathsome toad."

Cussler aims to avoid being cast as a 'bad guy'

The novelist's lawyers say slur allegations are being used to divert attention in the case.

By Glenn F. Bunting, Times Staff Writer

February 9, 2007

As novelist Clive Cussler takes the witness stand today in a Hollywood breach-of-contract trial, his lawyers say they want to prevent the author from being portrayed as "an unstable, racist crackpot," a "befuddled alcoholic" and an "overall bad guy."

Entertainment lawyer Bertram Fields said that attorneys for Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz were trying to use such allegations, all of which are denied by Cussler, to divert the jury's attention from the facts.

"For weeks, you are going to hear personal stuff about Mr. Cussler," Fields warned jurors during opening arguments last week. "Hold your ears. You'll hear them claim that he was difficult and cantankerous and grumpy and even rude."

Anschutz's attorneys conceded that they would fully explore Cussler's conduct — particularly accusations that he made racist and anti-Semitic slurs — to demonstrate that the 75-year-old author acted unreasonably during development of the movie "Sahara." But they said they had no plans to exploit additional evidence that could prove damaging to Cussler's reputation.

The attorneys said they never intended, for example, to disclose to the jury that Cussler believed the moon landing was a government hoax or that he was intolerant of his fans, calling one loyal reader "a loathsome toad."

"The idea that we are trying to get away with something is nonsense," said Alan Rader, Anschutz's attorney from O'Melveny & Myers. "Cussler breached a contract by acting in bad faith. That is our focus."

Cussler initially sued Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment for allegedly reneging on a written agreement that gave him extraordinary approval rights over the adaptation of "Sahara," one in a series of his bestselling Dirk Pitt adventure novels. Anschutz countersued, claiming that Cussler deliberately undermined the adventure film, which has lost about $105 million.

Each side has spent three years and millions of dollars preparing for the trial, which is expected to last about two months.

When he initiated litigation in January 2004, Cussler said in an interview, he had no idea that he would be subjected to an assault on his character.

"I was hurt because it's not true," he said of allegations that he used racial and religious epithets and engaged in "erratic" behavior. "I think you can figure out why they are doing it."

The allegations are contained in sworn depositions taken from dozens of witnesses, including producers, directors and screenwriters. They include testimony that Cussler tossed over his shoulder a script he called "a piece of crap," engaged in a telephone "screaming match" for 2 1/2 hours with actor Matthew McConaughey and launched a "tirade" against actor Tom Cruise for failing to meet with him to discuss playing Pitt.

Cussler's attorneys filed nearly two dozen motions seeking to preclude unflattering information about Cussler from the trial. "The only purpose for introducing such evidence would be to publicly embarrass Mr. Cussler," they wrote.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John P. Shook rejected many of the motions, ruling that much of the material was relevant to the case and should be heard by the jury. On the allegation that Cussler exercised his approval rights based on racial prejudice and anti-Semitism, Shook wrote that jurors were entitled to hear "whether or not Cussler's decisions were affected by bigotry."

But the judge ordered that other evidence was inadmissible, including allegations that Cussler abused alcohol after the death of his wife and his views on the moon landing.

Shook also barred testimony about a "doodle" made by Cussler depicting Anschutz's partner, Crusader executive Howard Baldwin, kissing the derriere of then-Paramount Pictures Chairwoman Sherry Lansing. Cussler sent the drawing to his agent to show Baldwin "brown-nosing" the head of Paramount. It was drawn on a copy of a June 17, 2002, news release announcing that Paramount had signed a three-year motion picture deal to distribute Crusader films.

"It's a joke," Cussler testified during a deposition. "I don't know what else to say."

Perhaps the most damaging testimony came from Carole Bartholomeaux, Cussler's former public relations consultant of 18 years. She said Cussler made disparaging remarks about blacks, Jews and women during the screenwriting process. At least four other witnesses also stated that Cussler used racial and anti-Semitic slurs.

The jury of eight women and four men includes four African Americans.

Bartholomeaux also testified that Cussler began drinking excessively after his wife of 47 years died of cancer in January 2003. In court papers, Cussler's lawyers said that Anschutz's attorneys hoped "this so-called evidence will cause the jurors to view Mr. Cussler as an out-of-control or befuddled alcoholic and overall 'bad guy' once it is time for them to decide the issues."

Anschutz's lawyers said they had no intention of raising Cussler's use of alcohol.

Bartholomeaux is depicted by Cussler's lawyers in court documents as a "vengeful" former publicist who allegedly was fired "for financial improprieties." They wrote that Bartholomeaux was exacting revenge by providing Anschutz's lawyers with "tall tales" and "pernicious ammunition to hurt and embarrass Mr. Cussler."

Bartholomeaux, who is expected to testify in the trial, has declined to comment on the case.

During opening arguments, Fields sought to paint a sympathetic picture of Cussler.

"Mr. Cussler is 75 years old. Very recently, he had open heart surgery," Fields told the jury. "He is far from a professional witness…. He also uses colorful phrases. He is a character. He says what he means and he means what he says."

link

This sounds like typical legal ________(you fill in the blank). Either the contract was broken or it wasn't. Period. Whether Cussler made racial remarks or not is irrelevant. Whether he drew inappriopriate pictures or not is irrelevant (I would like to add that picture to my Cussler collection though - imagine what that would be worth). Clearly the lawyers are trying to bias the jury against Cussler. From what I understand it's not Cusslers character that's on trial here. Did he drink excessively? Maybe, but if my wife died, I'd be a devestated, as I'm sure he was. Either way, it doesn't matter in the context of the case. It's times like these that I can't stand our judicial system (should I even write that statement, since someone may use it against me in a court case someday? hmm).

hi everyone, i must confess to being an avid raise the titanic fan despite most people including dr cussler hating the film but as yet ive not seen sahara because having seen the adverts for it at the time of release i found myself wondering what connection apart from names it had with the book, ok adverts dont ever do films justice but the adverts i saw made dirk out to be a ruthless treasure hunter and thats all he was intersted in. im sure i will watch the film one day but i stand on my ground and say it wont ever be in a cinema and i wont ever buy it on dvd or rent it, ill only watch it if its on telly or someone buys me a copy.

i stand by dr cussler totaly and say the production company were in the wrong and that is my belief.

as for how many of dr cussler's books are in print it wouldnt surprise me if by now the total is somewhere near 80 or 90 million, ok ive got several copies of some of his books but i reckon ive got about 50 and thats not all of his titles there are still a couple ive yet to buy but will do soon.

if only film companies would learn to stick as close as they can to the original story things like this would never happen!

ben

Cussler Testimony Heard in 'Sahara' Suit

By ROBERT JABLON Saturday, February 10, 2007


Best-selling author Clive Cussler stands to face the jury as they enter Los Angeles Superior Court


LOS ANGELES - Best-selling author Clive Cussler said he sued the makers of the film version of his book "Sahara" because they hadn't listened to him and made his agent mad.

"They were going ahead and producing it without my approval," Cussler said in a 2005 deposition played Friday for jurors as trial continued in his Superior Court lawsuit.

Cussler said his New York literary agent and longtime friend, Peter Lampack, called a lawyer because the producer was offering no incentives for Cussler to approve the script.

At issue on Friday was a contract deadline that said "principal photography" on the movie had to start by Nov. 6, 2003 or Crusader would lose film rights to about 17 other Cussler books.

Crusader attorney Marvin Putnam asked Lampack questions about why Cussler refused repeated requests by Crusader President and CEO Howard Baldwin to extend the filming deadline.

A $3-million scene, featuring Cussler's daughter, Dayna, eventually was shot by the deadline but Lampack testified that he didn't believe that constituted "principal photography" because it didn't include a lead actor and the scene wasn't part of the main story. The scene didn't make it into the movie.

link

Box Office Mojo:



I want more Dirk Pitt movies with Matthew in it, and I don't care how it has to happen, just make it happen! LOL!

I LOVED the movie and I'm watching it again right now!

Agreed, the movie was amazing. I wish that Bristol Bay and Cussler could settle things peacefully, but that's so unlikely I'm never going to get my wish. Ever.

This all sounds sadly reminiscent of the court case that Ian Fleming went through for the authorship of Thunderball in the sixties which probably led to his premature demise before Bond became really huge.

I hope the producers of the film have seen Casino Royale which is well on its way to taking $600m at the box office where they kept the essence of Fleming's novel.

I liked Sahara but I feel they could have done better. I'd like to see Clive win as long as he can get through all the legal games of character assassination but his health should come first.

I can see that the lawyers will try and wear him down.