I posted the following under the other topic on the trial starting, but figure starting a new one for the verdict would be better so everyone sees it.


Everyone's a Winner in Sahara Scrap
Tue May 15, 3:26 PM

Clive Cussler didn't strike gold in his lawsuit over the ill-fated big-screen adaptation of Sahara, but he didn't exactly come up with a plateful of sand, either.

After eight days of deliberation, a Los Angeles jury ordered the author to pay Crusader Entertainment $5 million in the production company's breach-of-contract lawsuit against Cussler, who Crusade claimed overstated his book sales to secure a huge payday for the movie rights to two of his adventure novels featuring the character Dirk Pitt.

The jurors ruled that Cussler breached "an implied covenant of good faith" by badmouthing the film before it hit theaters, which Crusader accused him of doing because the writer was peeved that he didn't get more of a say in the final screenplay.

But although the jury obviously believed that Cussler was in the wrong, the panel didn't exactly think that Crusader was in the right, either, ordering the Denver-based outfit to cut a check to Cussler for $8.5 million, saying the company owes him for a second book it bought the rights to that never made it to celluloid.

Cussler Sinking "Sahara"?
"Amityville" House Haunts Box Office
"Sahara" Too Hot for "Fever Pitch"
E! Online Cussler got the ball rolling on the dueling lawsuits in January 2004, suing Crusader (which is now known as Bristol Bay Productions) for $40 million in damages for supposedly making the film without consulting him.

Crusader countersued in April 2004, saying the author was trying to sabotage Sahara because his offer to pen the script himself was refused, and that Cussler did in fact approve an early version of the script, but then refused to cooperate with the rest of the creative process. Cussler, meanwhile, claimed that his contract gave him the final say on any screenplay based on his work.

In its complaint, Crusader estimated that Cussler's disparaging words could have wound up costing the production $40 million and endangering plans for a franchise—an optimistic guess, so it turned out, because the movie has reportedly lost about $105 million to date.

Sahara, directed by Breck Eisner and costarring then real-life couple Mathew McConaughey and Penélope Cruz, opened Apr. 8, 2005, and promptly fizzled, grossing only $68.7 million domestically.

Cussler and Crusader have been battling it out in court since January, culminating with the 75-year-old Cussler spending seven days on the stand and learning that he wasn't quite as successful as he thought.

An audit of 26,000 pages of royalty statements and sales reports conducted by Los Angeles litigation consultants Freeman & Mills Inc. revealed that, between 1973 and June 2000, Cussler had sold no more than 42 million books, rather than the 100 million-plus he had attested to in 2005 in a sworn statement saying that the figure had been "firmly established."

Crusader, which is owned by Denver billionaire and Qwest Communications cofounder Philip Anschutz, alleged that Cussler and his literary agent Peter Lampack had inflated their numbers while trying to wrangle a $20 million deal for Sahara and another book.

Anschutz stated in a deposition that both Cussler and Lampack touted the books' sales during negotiations, with producer Stuart Benjamin and his former attorney William Immerman also testifying to that effect.

Cussler's attorney, Bertram Fields, called the claim "utter hogwash," arguing that the subject never came up.

"He was either lying or he has a poor memory," Cussler said when asked about Anschutz's statement. The novelist also claimed at times to be confused or having a hard time remembering what his associates told him about his sales, saying that he had been told to use the term "books in print" instead of "copies sold," but that he must have forgotten to do so.

It's hard to say if he was that befuddled, but some of Cussler's testimony did earn a dose of skepticism from the judge.

"Mr. Cussler is smart like a fox," Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John P. Shook said Apr. 20, according to a transcript from a closed-door meeting between the jurist and each side's attorneys. "He has got an iron-trap mind. He knows what is going on here."

Here's another article from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cuss...=la-home-center

Clive looks pretty happy in this pic as he's congratulated by a juror...

A Hollywood Reporter article clarifys some of the findings and indicates additional damages may be awarded depending on a future bench-trial on the claim. Here is the link:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...fb5525442b16f1f

It's finally over.

What I don't understand is how the jury couldn't see that the movie company renigged on giving Cussler the control that they told him he would have.

Pretty much what I had expected.

Blessed be. Glad it's over. I'm looking forward to another book coming to life on screen.

I'm just glad to see CC has come out of it smiling and with a win of sorts.

beer:

I wish. After getting "burned" twice (the ill-fated Raise The Titanic and what turned out to be a pain-in-the-ass Sahara), I highly doubt that Dr. Cussler will be up for making yet another movie.

A boy can dream though... right?

I don't see why Crusader should pay Cussler 8.5 million for a movie(s) we had hoped for but never was made. They lost 105 million and Cussler got off easy with only 5 million. I think he damaged the sales more.
The hopes of so many fans ruined. Many thought Sahara was a great movie, and wanted more with Mathew as Dirk Pitt. Eventually they would have learned how to promote them together and get them out to making money. I was looking forward to the whole Dirk Pitt series before Mathew got too old for the part. I'm sure many fans felt the same. Mr. Cussler ruined that possibility, showing a selfish, unreasonable side that we didn't know was there. It is a shame.

I like the movie too. Although not entirely faithfull to the book, I thought it was faithfull to the spirit of the novels as a whole. They should have left in the plane crash and let Clive and his donkey wave as Dirk and Al flew by on the plane/airsail. Probably 30 seconds of additional film and Clive would've been happy and another film might be out by now. I think Inca Gold was gonna be the next one. It's too bad.

I still think Viggo Mortensen is the quintessential Dirk Pitt.

Clive looks so handsome in his picture! I hope everyone is happy and we can get moving with more Dirk Pitt movies. Does anyone know if a second film will be made? hat:

Ha! Very doubtful. Wasn't there a line in one of the articles where Clive or his attorney said "I got what I wanted: I got my movie rights back"?

I think the biggest bummer about the whole thing is that they could have spent about $100 million less and made just as good of a movie. Book adaptations aside, we'd probably be way more likely to see another Pitt film in the future if they hadn't wasted so much cash. Even if Clive had sold a billion books and promoted the film instead of bashing it, I don't think they would have made back the money the lost in production.

I'll always hope for another movie, but I don't see one in the near future.

I see that Clive seems happy as he has his movie rights back again so things have probably turned out for the best.

However I can't help feeling that Crusader got away with more than they should have here.

Surely any film company worth its salt would check book sales before making a film based on one? To say that they relied solely on statements by Clive Cussler is not credible IMO.

And so what if he bad mouthed the movie? Was he meant to stand by and say nothing? What if we had ended up with Micky Mouse playing the part and the novel set in space? On this basis Clive would just have to put up with it.

Gerry Anderson had almost this problem with the Thunderbirds film. Though he had nothing to do with its production, he knew he would get the blame when it failed. It did fail, spectacularly, but most people realize now that's because the producers didn't listen to Anderson.

Perhaps Crusader should have paid more attention to Cussler also.

Sorry, but I think its wrong that Clive Cussler had to just put up or shut up with this production. Land of the free? Free speech?

Only if the accountants say so!

All IMHO

It's hard to understand what the jury saw, but we were only getting bits and pieces. Obviously, from the CC fans perspective, Clive got hosed on his script approval rights.

I doubt any more movies will be made given the outcome, but maybe Clive will surprise us with an independent effort (with his own screenplay) just to prove that Eisner and his team were bozo's.

I now folks are still pushing for a different book, but I think Night Probe makes the most sense
-- Most of it is in Canada, which is a good place to shoot (inexpensive and film-friendly). Some in San Diego

-- If you can get Sean Connery to play Brian Shaw (the only logical candidate), you get star appeal

-- If you replace Steve Zahn and the Bozo that played Rudi, you get the fans back

-- You could get Jeri Ryan to play Heidi for some decent sex appeal

On the downside
-- You might not be able to get MM (is he contractually obligated?) and we get back into "Who's Dirk Pitt?" again.

Vigo Mortensen? Not bad, but too short (5'11"). He also doesn't have MM's "twang" (which was a bit annoying...)

How about David Krumholtz from "Numb3rs" to play Rudi? He's short and plays intelligent and resourceful. Is he "owlish?"

Post deleted and put on A Petition to Clive

I am disappointed that the Dirk Pitt franchise did not work out. I had hoped for many more.

For those who curse Dr. Cussler for preventing this I would offer that he wants to have fans see the true Dirk Pitt novel, not an adaptation that sucks the life out of the novel for expediency, be it financial or time limits for movies. He is being loyal to his fans by insisting that the movie be true to the novel.

As to the accusations that he misrepresented his book sales I say hogwash. It didn’t credit library loans. It didn’t credit used purchases. I am now upgrading my library by purchasing hard cover editions. They are no longer in print so I am buying used. I originally bought paperback so Dr. Cussler was paid his royalty. One of the used books I purchased was a library book, which still had the circulation card in the back. It was filled with lends. Therefore, there are many more readers than purchasers. On that basis I don’t think his figures were inflated. He just didn’t get royalties from each reader, and I haven’t heard him complain.

As to the award to Crusader indicating it was based on his bad mouthing the film anyone who has read The Sea Hunters realizes that Dr. Cussler does not suffer fools well or silently. I cannot fault him on that. He may now regret his statements, but they were true. No one is going to accuse him of being two faced as opposed to the female producer who kept e-mailing him that his script revisions were great and then e-mailing the production company that he was an idiot.

On economic grounds Dr. Cussler may have taken a hit. On moral grounds he is on the high ground valuing his fans more than money. He didn’t sell us out.

As to the question of how the jury missed the fact that Crusader violated the unprecedented contractual provisions that Dr. Cussler had approval of the lead actors and script approval I have no idea. They may have been snowed with extraneous verbiage that made that part unimportant to them. I do think that this trial will go down in history as a turning point in how Hollywood deals with authors. Dr. Cussler has established that an author has a say in how his work is presented on screen. No one has done that before.

Isn’t is exciting to witness history in the making?

Very true!

Hollywood hopefully will have more respect in the future when adapting the works of others to the big screen. I have no doubt that Sahara would have been a profitable venture if Cussler was onside throughout the production. The real threat of court action and loss of money might be at the forefront of decisions of whether Hollywood will ignore the artist or not from this point on.

I agree, it may well be an historic moment!

Thank you Dirk Pitt for your support.

At the risk of “going on” I realized that my previous message assumed everyone understood the American court system. Hopefully readers of this forum have little experience with it so let me expand on that.

We are guaranteed a jury of our peers. This comes from English common law, which meant that titled persons were excluded. An American jury is composed of common men/women, who do not necessarily have any knowledge of the inner working of a production company nor the way an author works. All that needs to be explained to them.

The tricky bits are the rules of evidence. Not everything may be presented to the jury. Each lawyer has the right to request that certain items of evidence be excluded; be they things or testimony. Therefore the jury does not hear the whole story, just the parts allowed by the rules of evidence. Each lawyer will try to exclude evidence that harms his or her case. They will try to include evidence that bolsters their case. The fairness is that each lawyer has an equal opportunity to exclude/include evidence. The basis of this is that the trial needs to stay focused on the issues at hand and not be diverted into other areas. The problem is that sometimes these other areas show a propensity to do what the defendant is accused of.

Simple illustration: A serial killer is on trial for one murder. His prior murders may not be brought up, unless he takes the stand in his defense. Then they can be brought up because they speak to his character. It is known as impeaching the witness. Do you think the head of Crusader did not take the stand fearing impeachment?

You can watch any number of TV shows that illustrate these rules of evidence. They are entertaining, but when the author you love is involved it becomes upsetting.

Did Dr. Cussler receive a fair trial? Yes, under the rules of evidence. Did he prevail? I think so. Did he demonstrate that he valued his readers? Without a question. Did he personally get attacked? Yes. Did he risk those attacks because he valued his readers? Yes. Do I respect him for that? Yes.

As a parting shot I want to say that I switched to Dr. Cussler’s novels from reading Alistair MacLean because MacLean began to “mail in” his later novels. Dr. Cussler has never “mailed in” a novel. He continues to create new and exciting reading. We, as fans, should appreciate that.

The topic title is way off "Everyone's a Winner"

The only winners here were the attorneys, with the millions they charged in fees to accomplish what should have been a 15 minute meeting between the two sides.

:lol: at 1tara.

well all i can say is glad to hear it is resolved.
both parties can now get to sleep at night and although no one "won" i guess the two come out wiser.

let just hope clive doesn't feel too burnt not to make another one! bring on inca gold!! beer: