Biopics about King on The Black List

[Rrty]

I saw that there were two screenplays about Stephen King on The Black List this year. One was about his family life before he was a writer (I think called something like The Kings of Maine), and the other was about him directing Maximum Overdrive (the latter might not be a biopic per se, just merely a fictional film about him directing it).

Question for Moderator: it appears this would be the case, because there are a lot of biopics on the list (as one article mentions), but presumably it is legal to write about a public person before obtaining rights, purely at the speculative stage of script submission, would that be correct? What if someone wrote a spec script about Stephen King teaming up with a reanimated H.P. Lovecraft to stop the apocalypse...can someone actually do that without the risk of receiving a letter from Mr. King's lead lawyer? Just curious on this, as I find the biopic trend interesting.

 

[misery chastain loves co.]

There was this......(not a biopic! )

 

[Moderator]

I saw that there were two screenplays about Stephen King on The Black List this year. One was about his family life before he was a writer (I think called something like The Kings of Maine), and the other was about him directing Maximum Overdrive (the latter might not be a biopic per se, just merely a fictional film about him directing it).

Question for Moderator: it appears this would be the case, because there are a lot of biopics on the list (as one article mentions), but presumably it is legal to write about a public person before obtaining rights, purely at the speculative stage of script submission, would that be correct? What if someone wrote a spec script about Stephen King teaming up with a reanimated H.P. Lovecraft to stop the apocalypse...can someone actually do that without the risk of receiving a letter from Mr. King's lead lawyer? Just curious on this, as I find the biopic trend interesting.

They can do it without permission but how they portray any real person will determine whether they hear from the lawyers. If there is any sort of defamation, chances are that will trigger a response. It doesn't mean it will automatically be successful but it is grounds for a protest. Sometimes public opinion will be enough to stop a project from going forward. I'm thinking of the recent attempt by James Patterson to publish "his" book, The Murder of Stephen King. Stephen did not have his lawyers contact Patterson but once it got out about the book, the backlash from fans was enough to convince Mr. Patterson it was not a good idea and he voluntarily pulled the book.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

They can do it without permission but how they portray any real person will determine whether they hear from the lawyers. If there is any sort of defamation, chances are that will trigger a response. It doesn't mean it will automatically be successful but it is grounds for a protest. Sometimes public opinion will be enough to stop a project from going forward. I'm thinking of the recent attempt by James Patterson to publish "his" book, The Murder of Stephen King. Stephen did not have his lawyers contact Patterson but once it got out about the book, the backlash from fans was enough to convince Mr. Patterson it was not a good idea and he voluntarily pulled the book.

So Mr. King isn't the Blue Mouse?

 

[Moderator]

So Mr. King isn't the Blue Mouse?

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the reference.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the reference. View attachment 18726

He's even shilling it right now on MSNBC for people to buy at Christmas.

 

[Moderator]

He's even shilling it right now on MSNBC for people to buy at Christmas.

Ahhh...no wonder I didn't get it. Haven't ever read any James Patterson ideas and in spite of what you might assume, I don't watch MSNBC.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Ahhh...no wonder I didn't get it. Haven't ever read any James Patterson ideas and in spite of what you might assume, I don't watch MSNBC.

Fox News gal, eh?

Spoiler

 

[Moderator]

Fox News gal, eh?

Spoiler

If Steve had his way, I'd have to be for at least six months.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

If Steve had his way, I'd have to be for at least six months.

This is a story that need some 'splainin.

 

[Moderator]

This is a story that need some 'splainin.

Was going to try to pick out just the section of this in which he says that if he had his way all people who only listen to FOX and similar ideological news would have to watch MSNBC and other similar news outlets and vice versa for at least six months during his talk at UMaine but can't remember just when during the program that he made the comment.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Was going to try to pick out just the section of this in which he says that if he had his way all people who only listen to FOX and similar ideological news would have to watch MSNBC and other similar news outlets and vice versa for at least six months during his talk at UMaine but can't remember just when during the program that he made the comment.

Thank you. It now makes sense. But I have been doing what he suggests for a long time now, and from personal experience I think it doesn’t achieve what he is trying to get across. I have a conservative slant, and watching MSNBC only reinforces it more. I believe watching news outlets that are on the extremes, politically, only tends to toughen one’s ingrained political ideals. But I do appreciate what he is trying to convey.

 

[Moderator]

Thank you. It now makes sense. But I have been doing what he suggest for a long time now, and from personal experience I think it doesn’t achieve what he is trying to get across. I have a conservative slant, and watching MSNBC only reinforces it more. I believe watching news outlets that are on the extremes, politically, only tends to toughen one’s ingrained political ideals. But I do appreciate what he is trying to convey.

I'd have to agree with you on this one (It's the end of the world!!) as the same thing happens to me when I listen to FOX and then do any fact-checking of what they say. I believe that that's the piece that really would be of more use--make people fact check the information they're given.

 

[misery chastain loves co.]

I actually liked his answer to that question(you should have seen everyone's faces when she asked that). You two make a good point though and there needs to be fact checking done on BOTH sides which is why I thought his answer was good. I am not a very political person. This particular year I paid more attention than normal and did check on both sides and voted for whom I agreed with more. I'm definitely NOT derailing this thread into politics. End of discussion

 

[DiO'Bolic]

I actually liked his answer to that question(you should have seen everyone's faces when she asked that). You two make a good point though and there needs to be fact checking done on BOTH sides which is why I thought his answer was good. I am not a very political person. This particular year I paid more attention than normal and did check on both sides and voted for whom I agreed with more. I'm definitely NOT derailing this thread into politics. End of discussion

Who did you vote for?

 

[misery chastain loves co.]

Who did you vote for?

You hate me don't you?

 

[DiO'Bolic]

You hate me don't you?

No... But I'm guessing others might if you told.

 

[AnnaMarie]

They can do it without permission but how they portray any real person will determine whether they hear from the lawyers. If there is any sort of defamation, chances are that will trigger a response. It doesn't mean it will automatically be successful but it is grounds for a protest. Sometimes public opinion will be enough to stop a project from going forward. I'm thinking of the recent attempt by James Patterson to publish "his" book, The Murder of Stephen King. Stephen did not have his lawyers contact Patterson but once it got out about the book, the backlash from fans was enough to convince Mr. Patterson it was not a good idea and he voluntarily pulled the book.

I'm glad to hear that.

 

[GNTLGNT]

...Bio-pic?.....well Jeezum Crow!....here's one.....