1. New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hot Topics is closed from 4 PM - 8:30 AM ET.
    Dismiss Notice

Question about the movie

Discussion in 'IT (Part One)' started by Rrty, Aug 11, 2017.

  1. Rrty

    Rrty Well-Known Member

    Maybe Bev Vincent might know this...

    I just read an article that said Stephen King had no involvement with the upcoming It film. I was curious if this was accurate -- seems like it might be, as it has quotes from King -- and if this means that this is a property for which King holds no rights and will not receive any compensation/profit participation. Thank you.

    (After writing the above, I noticed that the quote came from a Variety article -- I originally read about this in an article that used the Variety piece as a source -- which was an interview with King, so it is indeed a direct quote, except with no details. Here is the link: Stephen King on ‘Mr. Mercedes,’ ‘It’ Movie, What Scares Him | Variety)

    GNTLGNT The idiot is IN

  3. Bev Vincent

    Bev Vincent Well-Known Member

    King has two levels of involvement with adaptations, as a rule: All in or all out. In the former, he will executive produce, consult on casting, script, maybe even cameo. In the latter, he does nothing -- examples include films like Shawshank, Dolores Claiborne, Children of Corn 432, Gerald's Game, and many others. He lets the filmmakers exercise their creative visions without his input or oversight.
  4. Rrty

    Rrty Well-Known Member

    Bev, thanks for reminding me about that, I forgot about his approach to the content-rights sales in that way. But I would assume he is receiving money for the Netflix projects, as an example, even though he does not actually work on them? I think I read an interview with King years ago -- might have been Fangoria, for some reason that periodical is in my mind -- that for the film Stand By Me, he said something along the lines of he still receives checks from that, "big ones" (whether he still receives checks, I couldn't say, this was at the time; it also assumes I am remembering that correctly). At the very least, differentiating from profit participation, I assume he at least is mandated to receive guild residuals? (Not that I understand that process too much.)

    (Actually, after writing the above, I did a search and came up with a Google books result from a George Beahm tome that seems to confirm the Stand By Me thing -- he said at the time he still received big royalty checks, which I assume means profit participation, not residuals. I think I had that Beahm book at one time, I cannot find it unfortunately.)
  5. Bev Vincent

    Bev Vincent Well-Known Member

    Each contract will be different, especially pertaining to sequels and remakes. King will always be compensated for the original sale of adaptation rights to his work, but the particulars will vary. What happens with sequels and remakes? I have no idea.
  6. Dana Jean

    Dana Jean Dirty Pirate Hooker Moderator

    Just out of curiosity, why do you focus on what he makes so much? I can go back through your posts and many of them are always about his earnings. Not jumping on you here, just sincerely curious.

    He made a product. We buy the product. He has a lot of money because we all choose to do that. I'm sure he has invested well. His money is making money. Good for him. The American Dream.

    GNTLGNT The idiot is IN

    .....he is the ultimate bean counter......
  8. Rrty

    Rrty Well-Known Member

    Fair question, and I understand the curiosity, I do not take offense to it (and ultimate bean counter, believe me, I laughed with good humor!).

    You've got to forgive me...I am a person who invests in stocks and has written, mostly as a hobby, financial articles (I've even touched on King once, but in another context). The focus is on Hollywood and its business models. I'm always curious about how money flows in Hollywood (or even how venture capital flows in Silicon Valley and beyond). For instance, if Wall Street knew the compensation structures for content, it could more easily value the equities backing the studios. Is Lions Gate undervalued/overvalued, as an example? That's hard to know, because how exactly are the movies they produce risk-mitigated (and Lions Gate is very big on that; their distribution architecture is downright Byzantine). I bring up Lions Gate purposely -- it distributed Cell with a simultaneous theatrical/VOD methodology.

    King himself has talked about money before. He mentioned, as an example, the whole paperback rights deal for Carrie (remember the have-to-buy-Tabby-a-present thing upon the news?). He also revealed what he paid in taxes a couple years back (during a political argument), I think on the state level of where he lived. He even once mentioned -- although he was upset because a reporter asked him about money; nevertheless, for some reason, he ended up saying this) -- some details about how he may be do in any given year financially. Here is a link:

    What Is Stephen King Trying To Prove? - The New York Times

    Scroll to the paragraph that begins " But it is, many times over. Responding to an e-mail query about his finances, he wrote:"...

    He even mentioned there what he got for The Green Mile. And we all know about the dollar-options stuff (see, when I read years ago that King only took a dollar for Christine, or one of the books, as an advance and that it was supposed to be for tax reasons, I become curious and wonder if it was for some other reason as well -- did taking a dollar create other opportunities with the publisher/etc. It's just my nature. I think he even once casually confirmed what he received for advances on books during the period when he switched to what I call the Bag of Bones model.

    Now, I'm going to say what King said in that Times article -- you may not believe me when I tell you this, but for some reason, don't ask me why, I like to know he is making money off these various projects and isn't giving too much away. I know, strange, but what can I say. I used to think King wasn't as generous as he may have claimed to be in interviews, but I actually nowadays believe that to be true -- I don't think he takes as much money as he could. If I were him I would have my agents concoct all kinds of schemes to increase my net worth (I know, I know, but -- the James Patterson model utterly fascinates me; so does the R.L. Stine model, because although there has never been confirmation of this, I think some observers have wondered if he uses ghostwriters; for the record, I am not stating that, Stine has not stated that, but there have been literally maybe two blog posts that claim this -- one author though, Tom Perrotta I believe, did say he wrote one of Stine's non-Goosebumps books). If King increased his cash flow, he actually could do more charitable endeavors, so that's one thing to consider.

    I honestly wouldn't have started this thread except I happened to read that article and it made me think of King's comments about his Doubleday days and how they took a lot of rights, including movie rights (I think), etc. I know Bev has a lot of knowledge on this count, so considering the unique access to him on this very unique board, I thought I would ask. However, I note that he liked your post but did not like mine, so perhaps I will refrain from asking these money questions.

    Finally, I will point out that, like Bev at one point, I have been trying to get a writing career going and have in fact made a little (very, very little, but actually notable from one angle) progress that actually makes me need to study up a bit on Hollywood deal-making, and not as a theoretical construct but as something now relevant for me. Because of all this, that is why I tend to ask about money and deals -- in summation, interest/fascination for an opaque subject plus some small bit of access.

    Forgive all the writing...again, I will try to refrain! But please do check out that Times link and read that relevant paragraph. And please know I do not mind you asking the question. (One last thing: in this new age of Netflix, and now Disney, streaming, all of that as a backdrop makes me more inclined to fascination with all of this and who exactly is going to get the money -- the streaming businesses, talent, agents, VC's; it boggles the mind, but in a good way.)

    GNTLGNT The idiot is IN

    ....I knew you'd take the good natured jibe in stride....
  10. Dana Jean

    Dana Jean Dirty Pirate Hooker Moderator

    Okay, your interest does make a little more sense to me now.

    I did read that article and it was written in 2000. So, I'm not sure if he continues to be that open about his finances.

    I understand the general questions about the business, but when it focuses so much on his finances, it just seems like something that is none of our business. Just the drummer I march to I guess.
  11. kingricefan

    kingricefan All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.

    :lol: Those darn Corn sequels are sure getting up there, aren't they?
  12. recitador

    recitador Speed Reader

    Not knocking the curiousity, but, personally, i don't see why it matters that much. We have the books from king, but the movies will always be a separate thing, and won't particularly affect the existence of the novels or what they mean to people. I happen to think this adaptation will rock though.
  13. Hall Monitor

    Hall Monitor All bars serve the Beam.

    When I saw the article referenced by the OP, it was one of those screaming headlines that wanted to get my attention, and definitely wanted to make me believe that the movie was made against SK's vision and/or wishes. I think the most important thing here is that Mr. King doesn't have to be involved with the production to endorse it, and just because he wasn't directly involved doesn't mean it won't be a true adaptation or good movie. I've got really high hopes for this one!
    GNTLGNT, Rrty and kingricefan like this.

Share This Page

Sleeping Beauties Book Tour