Tom Clancy: Sellout, or did he just lose creative control?

Commercial | Self

[MississippiMan]

By this point, Clancy could get some creative control if he wanted it. Maybe it doesn't matter to him. Grisham gets vast control over the movies of his books now, including the right to approve or disapprove of both directors and main actors.

MM

[brbethke]

That's still sage advice. Cash the check and don't look back. Above all, don't read the screenplay they send you. That's what put Barry Longyear (Enemy Mine) in the I.C.U. with a massive coronary.

[NittanyLion]

I've been wondering this myself. Always thought Clancy was of conservative bent...not so sure now.

Clancy transcript from O'Reilly Factor:

Clancy: I think so. The political left, they deal in symbols rather than reality. The general difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals like pretty pictures and conservatives like to build bridges that people can drive across. And conservatives are indeed conservative because if the bridge falls down then people die, whereas the liberals figure, we can always build a nice memorial and make people forget it ever happened and was our fault. They're very good at making people forget it was their fault. Allright? The CIA was gutted by people on the political left who don't like Intelligence operations... and as a result of that, as an indirect result of that, we lost 5,000 citizens last week.

Safe to say, he's a conservative.

[estrogen]

Give me a Nelson DeMille novel any day.

[Lee'sGhost]

Yeah, that's it. Prick boy af-LACK is the guy. I couldn't remember his name. Thanks.

[Lee'sGhost]

I've written a novel, and if it ever gets published I'll "sell out" to Hollywood in minute. Here's the way I figure it: If the only people I can sell the movie rights to are liberals then so be it -- as long as I get the big bucks I don't care. The richer I am the more at liberty I'll be and the more ability I'll have to promote conservatism. (Of course, that would not apply to a novel specifically with a conservative message, but this is just standard historical fiction I'm talking about.) And if I ever do get published you can bet I'll be right here asking FReepers to buy it!

[Lee'sGhost]

Hmmm. Kind of supports my post #46.

[MarkWar]

>"Clear and Present Danger" was pathetic in turning everyone into a bad guy.

Rather than pathetic, I'd call the movie version of CaPD despicable. This movie -- shrill anti-American propaganda from a dozen different angles -- made me re-consider my whole opinion of Clancy.

I can understand selling out for money. I probably would if I ever had a skill anybody was interested in buying...

But I can't understand selling out to the enemy for money or for anything else. Clancy postures as a patriot. His books sell to people who think of themselves as conservatives. But Clancy didn't just sell out, he turned his popular novels over to radicals to exploit the works conservative standing buy mis-representing almost everything American as bad and in-human and everything third world as decent and human and good...

I like special effects, and I like to see them used in contemporary settings. But I won't being going to see The Sum of All Fears.

Heck, I'll probably go see Jason X again -- the very deep and well developed science fiction background in the movie, behind the silly slasher content, makes for a very interesting -- and to my mind, thought-provoking -- juxtaposition...

Mark W.

[Travis McGee]

If the movie credits only say "based on a novel by Joe Blow", you can't be held responsible for their butchery.

That's why, as you say, you should not read the screenplay.

What counts is the number of zeros on the check.

[brbethke]

So how's your novel coming along?