Slog
News & ArtsFriday, August 5, 2011
Books / Film / Nerd Local Comics Artist Scores Movie Deal
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM
- Click to enlarge.
Turns out, someone else is excited about the story, too: Superhero Hype says Warner Brothers is planning on making Nonplayer into a movie:
Warner Bros. has purchased the rights to Nate Simpson's Image comic book series Nonplayer, Variety reports...David Heyman, best known for producing the Harry Potter films, is attached to produce alongside Roy Lee (The Ring, The Departed) with the project being eyed as a potential studio tentpole.
Movie deals are a blessing and a curse in the comics world. They're great because they provide much-needed revenue for cartoonists, who are ordinarily not privy to outlandish things like "salaries" and "health insurance." But a lot of great cartoonists—two examples that have broken my heart in the past are Rob Schrab and Aaron Augenblick—hear the Hollywood call and then never really return to the drawing board in a meaningful way. We've lost a lot of great comics that way.
So! Congratulations to Simpson, and get back to work on Nonplayer # 2 right now, please.
1
Another local artist, Royden Lepp, has Fox acquiring rights to his work. http://www.badhaven.com/news/fox-to-adap…
2
Does "project... eyed as a potential studio tentpole" have some special secret meaning in the studio world? Wouldn't everything that becomes a "project" move to that exalted plane because it was presumed capable of making some money, i.e. keeping the tent from collapsing and smothering the circus within?
3
@2:
In Hollywood parlance, a "tentpole" is simply an extremely popular film (or television series) that creates financial stability for the studio/network, particularly one that can be turned into a "franchise", that is, one around which multiple revenue-streams can be built. For example, the "Harry Potter" film series is considered a "tentpole" for Warner Bros., which has produced all of the films, and which also presumably owns most of the subsidiary rights for spin-off material based on the films. Furthermore, a tentpole, as the term implies, is a project/franchise that is SO successful it in turn supports other projects created by the studio, both logistically and financially.
It should also be noted that pretty much ANY material purchased by a studio for development (and purchasing the rights to a work is really only the first step in a long, and often fruitless endeavor) is ALWAYS considered a "tentpole" by the studio, IF they think they can expand it into a multi-film deal with concurrent subsidiary spin-offs.
In Hollywood parlance, a "tentpole" is simply an extremely popular film (or television series) that creates financial stability for the studio/network, particularly one that can be turned into a "franchise", that is, one around which multiple revenue-streams can be built. For example, the "Harry Potter" film series is considered a "tentpole" for Warner Bros., which has produced all of the films, and which also presumably owns most of the subsidiary rights for spin-off material based on the films. Furthermore, a tentpole, as the term implies, is a project/franchise that is SO successful it in turn supports other projects created by the studio, both logistically and financially.
It should also be noted that pretty much ANY material purchased by a studio for development (and purchasing the rights to a work is really only the first step in a long, and often fruitless endeavor) is ALWAYS considered a "tentpole" by the studio, IF they think they can expand it into a multi-film deal with concurrent subsidiary spin-offs.
4
Thanks, Chris. I guess I had subconsciously dismissed in my mind the notion that any place as jaded, competitive, and lawyered-up as Hollywood would allow funds from one successful franchise to support the toddlerhood of another, beyond the tiniest kernel of seed money. Failures are worth something as write-offs, correct?
I'm wondering also if, when a studio buys development rights to a very young concept like this one, they also gain control and approval over future comic-book storylines, so the originator can't move in a direction the studio perceives as reducing the franchise appeal.
I'm wondering also if, when a studio buys development rights to a very young concept like this one, they also gain control and approval over future comic-book storylines, so the originator can't move in a direction the studio perceives as reducing the franchise appeal.
5
@4:
Well of course, for every super-profitable franchise blockbuster there are dozens of crappy films that tank at the box office, and yet the studios always manage to earn pretty healthy profits for the shareholders at the end of the year. So, yes, in that sense the franchise films do support those other loser films.
In response to your follow-up question, it's not out of the realm of possibility, as say, when Disney buys Pixar and then subsequently farms out publication rights for "Toy Story" comics or what-not, although that's probably not the best example of what you're asking.
However, in this instance, without knowing any of the particulars of the deal between Simpson and Warner, I would posit the answer to your question is most likely "no". Image, the company that puts out "Non-Player", is noted for promoting creator-control over the works it publishes, and I would imagine that to be the case with this as well. So, it would be rather unlikely that Simpson, who most likely already fully owns the title, would give up his overall creative copyright to Warner as part of a film development deal, although there may be specific subsidiary or spin-off rights (e.g. television, video games, Happy Meal toys, etc., etc.) that he's granted to Warner, but I seriously doubt any of these would have any direct impact on his ability to continue to do whatever he wishes with the original source material, i.e., the comics themselves.
That being said, however, there's a flip-side to this, which anyone who's been following the recent spate of comics-to-movies deals would surely note, namely, that most film development deals grant the studio a great deal of leeway in terms of how THEY interpret the characters, world & storyline. Sometimes they'll hire the creator to be involved in the creative process, usually as a writer, but even that can be problematic (just ask Alan Moore, who's probably fought to have his name removed from more film projects than he's allowed it to be included on). And sometimes the resulting film will remain fairly faithful to the source; sometimes, not so much.
More...
Well of course, for every super-profitable franchise blockbuster there are dozens of crappy films that tank at the box office, and yet the studios always manage to earn pretty healthy profits for the shareholders at the end of the year. So, yes, in that sense the franchise films do support those other loser films.
In response to your follow-up question, it's not out of the realm of possibility, as say, when Disney buys Pixar and then subsequently farms out publication rights for "Toy Story" comics or what-not, although that's probably not the best example of what you're asking.
However, in this instance, without knowing any of the particulars of the deal between Simpson and Warner, I would posit the answer to your question is most likely "no". Image, the company that puts out "Non-Player", is noted for promoting creator-control over the works it publishes, and I would imagine that to be the case with this as well. So, it would be rather unlikely that Simpson, who most likely already fully owns the title, would give up his overall creative copyright to Warner as part of a film development deal, although there may be specific subsidiary or spin-off rights (e.g. television, video games, Happy Meal toys, etc., etc.) that he's granted to Warner, but I seriously doubt any of these would have any direct impact on his ability to continue to do whatever he wishes with the original source material, i.e., the comics themselves.
That being said, however, there's a flip-side to this, which anyone who's been following the recent spate of comics-to-movies deals would surely note, namely, that most film development deals grant the studio a great deal of leeway in terms of how THEY interpret the characters, world & storyline. Sometimes they'll hire the creator to be involved in the creative process, usually as a writer, but even that can be problematic (just ask Alan Moore, who's probably fought to have his name removed from more film projects than he's allowed it to be included on). And sometimes the resulting film will remain fairly faithful to the source; sometimes, not so much.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (6) RSS