How Much Money Would A Movie Producer Make If They Are Basing It On A Book

How many movies have been made based on Stephen King's "It"?

It has been adapted twice for filmed audio-visual media.The first adaptation of Stephen King’s 1986 doorstop of a novel was a 1990 adaptation made as a two-part ABC miniseries for television. Among the cast members: Tim Reid, Harry Anderson, Annette O’Toole, John Ritter, and Richard Thomas. The miniseries also featured Tim Curry as the evil Pennywise the Clown.Adapted for television by director Tommy Lee Wallace and Lawrence D. Cohen (who also adapted King’s Carrie for director Brian De Palma in 1976), It was an okay but watered down take on the scary novel about a group of friends who must face off against a monstrous entity known as “It” twice. Once as kids in 1960, then again as adults in 1990. (Like 11,22.63, the TV version of It avoids the year 1958, which is where parts of 11/22/63 and It are both set.)The miniseries did well in the Nielsen ratings when it aired in 1990, but it fell short of fans’ expectations. It wasn’t terrible, mind you. The scenes where the kids were featured were pretty good. And the 1990 parts didn’t suck…until the climax of the miniseries, anyway. The effects were mediocre, and the ending was less impressive than the book’s.This year (2017), director Andy Muschietti helmed a motion picture version of It. This version is the first of two films in a duology and is closer to the themes in King’s novel than the mini was. It changes things up a bit by changing the Losers’ Club childhood years to the 1980s rather than sticking the late Fifties era of the novel, but since it’s a feature film, it can delve a bit more into the scary parts of King’s It while making the tale a bit more contemporary.I saw the miniseries when it first aired.Haven’t seen the first half of the duology but I’ve heard it’s excellent. I have the Blu-ray on pre-order at Amazon.

Do you need permission to make a movie about someone?

No. Which is by no means enough of an answer. You can make a movie about anyone, living or dead, and it can be filled with praise or with blame, and you can name names. If what you make is slanderous (meaning you have said untrue things about the person in question), you will be sued. And should be. If you have said TRUE things about the person in question, you probably will be sued anyway because that person will want to protect his or her reputation so you’d better have evidence and a good lawyer and expect to spend several years living a very interesting life in the worst sense of that word.There is also another sticky wicket here. If you want to make a movie about a living or recently dead public figure, you will be running up against that person’s right of publicity, which is a law that states that if you use their name or character or personality in your film, you must get permission (or you’ll be sued, even if you slavishly praise the person) and you must be willing to pay the person a commission or a fee for the use of their personae. (This is the reason for romans a clef which are thinly disguised fiction pieces that pretty nearly everybody can figure out but which are far enough away from the real person that there’s nothing to sue.If you want to make a movie about your next door neighbor, who is not a public figure, you then run up against the right of privacy, which also can result in a lawsuit. Each of us has a certain right not to have our privacy as a human being and as a citizen invaded by somebody making a movie about us unless we give permission.So, yes, the easiest way around this is to fictionalize the villain or the hero to a point where there’s no legal way to sue, to choose somebody from far enough back in history that their relatives won’t sue you for defamation of character or invasion of privacy, or get permission.By the way, in this country (but not in all countries), an absolute defense against the accusation of slander or libel is if what you say about the person is objectively true, not just your opinion. But there are a lot of shades of gray.I hope this didn’t confuse you too greatly. Short answer, get permission or disguise the person enough to not get into trouble. And don’t put a public figure at the center of your story even if you are praising him or her.

Why are DC Extended Universe movies not as good as the Marvel Cinematic Universe ones?

If you’re a fan, there’s probably nothing wrong with these movies. They’re making a shit-ton of money and you have some of the best actors playing some of the most popular heroes we know.However, I am basing this answer as objectively as I can. According to me, Marvel’s Phase 1 had two good movies: Iron Man and The Avengers. The rest of them were absolute crap. But they managed to do one important thing, they built character. This was possible due to writing that injected every single character with a trope that people could easily associate with. And as Kevin Feige is a passionate guy he saw to it that this individual themes were carried over throughout all the films. That’s why by Phase 2 the MCU was effortless with the characters, the writing was solid and they were experimenting various genres. They weren’t strictly action-packed superhero movies. Winter Soldier played out like a spy-thriller flick. Ant-Man was a heist film. And this experimentation made them objectively good while staying comic-book accurate to their character.When we come to the DCEU, it wasn’t built to emulate what we know from the comics. It was built on the basis of Snyder’s vision of DC—which wasn’t exactly comic-book accurate or drew a common thread between the characters everyone knew and the characters on-screen. While Marvel built their universe from the ground up, the DCEU constantly contradicted with the history of their universe—thereby making the writing process more and more complicated. As Snyder is a visual-heavy director, he never focused on the dialogues and that didn’t create relatable characters. As Marvel kept the tone light with their jokes (which I don’t particularly like) they managed to prevent the audience from questioning the realism of their movies. However, as Snyder aimed to be realistic, he took on the challenge of being questioned about how realistic he was being—and he failed.So it boils down to this: Marvel has better writing, that created better characters. This allows fans and non-fans to understand what they’re seeing even if they haven’t read a single comic. On the other hand, DCEU doesn’t have good writing and expects fans and non-fans to know the characters and be well-versed in comic-book history before they enter the theater.