Novelist and Producer Point Fingers in Court; Whose Fault Was "Sahara?"
Accusations are flying between author Clive Cussler and producer Philip Anschutz over who's to blame for the 2005 adventure stinker, "Sahara," which cost an estimated $130 million to produce and brought in under $70 million at the box office.
The debate is two-sided; Cussler claims his career was damaged by the poor performance of the Matthew McConaughey pic, while Anschutz says it was Cussler's script revisions and public badmouthing of the film that made for low profits. The two are currently in court (Cussler sued Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment production company) over the film, which brings up interesting food for thought: whose fault is it when a movie tanks hard?
"Sahara," released by Paramount, is based on one of Cussler's popular nineteen-book group of novels involving the fictional adventurer Dirk Pitt. By all accounts the film adaptation held hopes of becoming the first in an "Indiana Jones" style movie series, though that possibility quickly became unlikely when the film opened in April 2005 as a critical and box office failure. Critics gave the film (directed by Breck Eisner, son of Disney's Michael Eisner) a disappointing 38 percent Tomatometer.

"Sahara": What $60 million in the hole looks like
According to court testimony, Cussler claims that despite being granted initial creative control, filmmakers ravaged the script with revisions that omitted important plotlines. He also says that his influence on the production dwindled after director Eisner came on board, negating his right to final say.
Crusader Entertainment, which is counter-suing Cussler, argues that final say was not part of the deal after the hire of the director. They also claim that Cussler inflated the sales numbers of his book by half (instead of 100 million, only 50 million) leading the company to believe that the character and story was much more popular than it really was.
As for the script, it appears that while Cussler approved a screenplay by Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer (who co-adapted "A Sound of Thunder"), he had trouble settling for revisions by James V. Hart ("Contact," "Tomb Raider 2") and Josh Friedman ("Chain Reaction," "War of the Worlds"): "Cussler's reaction to the changes was that Friedman 'should have his keyboard shoved up his anal canal.'"
Furthermore, Cussler claims that director Eisner subsequently had his own way with the script, "changing it from a serious action-adventure into a slick jog through Africa."
Cussler's only other novel-to-screen adaptation is 1980's "Raise the Titanic!," another Dirk Pitt story that bombed with critics and audiences alike.
The debate is two-sided; Cussler claims his career was damaged by the poor performance of the Matthew McConaughey pic, while Anschutz says it was Cussler's script revisions and public badmouthing of the film that made for low profits. The two are currently in court (Cussler sued Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment production company) over the film, which brings up interesting food for thought: whose fault is it when a movie tanks hard?
"Sahara," released by Paramount, is based on one of Cussler's popular nineteen-book group of novels involving the fictional adventurer Dirk Pitt. By all accounts the film adaptation held hopes of becoming the first in an "Indiana Jones" style movie series, though that possibility quickly became unlikely when the film opened in April 2005 as a critical and box office failure. Critics gave the film (directed by Breck Eisner, son of Disney's Michael Eisner) a disappointing 38 percent Tomatometer.

"Sahara": What $60 million in the hole looks like
According to court testimony, Cussler claims that despite being granted initial creative control, filmmakers ravaged the script with revisions that omitted important plotlines. He also says that his influence on the production dwindled after director Eisner came on board, negating his right to final say.
Crusader Entertainment, which is counter-suing Cussler, argues that final say was not part of the deal after the hire of the director. They also claim that Cussler inflated the sales numbers of his book by half (instead of 100 million, only 50 million) leading the company to believe that the character and story was much more popular than it really was.
As for the script, it appears that while Cussler approved a screenplay by Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer (who co-adapted "A Sound of Thunder"), he had trouble settling for revisions by James V. Hart ("Contact," "Tomb Raider 2") and Josh Friedman ("Chain Reaction," "War of the Worlds"): "Cussler's reaction to the changes was that Friedman 'should have his keyboard shoved up his anal canal.'"
Furthermore, Cussler claims that director Eisner subsequently had his own way with the script, "changing it from a serious action-adventure into a slick jog through Africa."
Cussler's only other novel-to-screen adaptation is 1980's "Raise the Titanic!," another Dirk Pitt story that bombed with critics and audiences alike.
Related Items
| Celeb: | Matthew McConaughey |
| James V. Hart | |
| Joshua Oppenheimer | |
| Josh Friedman | |
| Breck Eisner | |
| Thomas Dean Donnelly | |
| Movie: | Raise the Titanic |
| Sahara |
|
lonechicken writes: on Feb 05 2007 11:39 AM How about not releasing an expensive movie in April? Not that spring movies can't be huge hits. But aren't the odds better if a movie budgetted to be a blockbuster, regardless of reviews, be better served to be released in May through early August or November through December? (Reply to this) |
|
lrm8 writes: on Feb 05 2007 11:58 AM i completely agree. i remember watching this movie the day before i took my MCATs. i was looking for something to take my mind off of the big test i had the day after and Sahara succeeded in doing that because it made me think about how idiotic hollywood was to release a big budget crappy action movie in the beginning of april... i cant remember a single funny line or a memorable action shot or anything really from the movie. all i remember is some big shiny stuff at the end and some chemical company in africa. who to blame? the screenwriters, director, and company that greenlighted this project. sometimes hollywood is so dumb it is mindboggling. (Reply to this) |
|
kenny356 writes: on Feb 05 2007 02:39 PM My problem is it is so different from the book that it isn't funny. The Giorodino character isn't the comedic sidekick, he is the muscle. And they left out the entire Abe Lincoln plotline. (Reply to this) |
|
GreenBastard writes: on Feb 05 2007 04:10 PM Yep I agree, the book is so different it's not even close. The movie was a joke and it missed about 80% of what was in the book and how do you go from a short ball of Italian mussle (Gorodino) to Steve Zahn. Obviously they were trying to make it funny but failed. I was excited when the movie came out because the book was so huge but they shat all over the book with this gay-ass movie. I hope Clive Cussler sues the ass off these complete tools! It's the second time it's happened to the poor Bastard! (Reply to this) |
|
WileyMan writes: on Feb 05 2007 07:31 PM I actually liked this movie and thought the changes from the book made a lot of sense. Clive Cussler's books are fun to read but are pretty implausable. I felt the filmmakers' found a nice balance of adventure and comedy. Clive needs to stop whining and go back to writing another one of his enteraining but average adventure books. Leave the filmmaking to the filmmakers. (Reply to this) |
|
MC. writes: on Feb 06 2007 12:20 AM The poor choice of lead actor gave it no hope from the outset. (Reply to this) |
|
ArmyofJuan writes: on Feb 06 2007 01:06 AM In reply to this comment (#854832) Of corse the stuff in his books are implausable! They're fictional books! They are ment to excite the reader with new impossible odds! It's really not that hard to replicate it onto film. (Reply to this) |
|
fizzypulp writes: on Feb 06 2007 01:47 AM hell...the movie wasnt that bad! (Reply to this) |
|
karle writes: on Feb 06 2007 07:15 AM In reply to this comment (#854832) I loved this movie. I know it didn't follow the book exactly, but that's to be expected. This was one of the few Dirk Pitt novels I hadn't read yet. When I saw the movie coming out, I deliberately didn't read the book in advance. So, when I saw it I didn't see it for what was cut out but for what it was. It looked and felt like your typical Dirk Pitt story, which is what I enjoyed. Afterwards I read the book and found all the major changes and basically got two good stories out of it. (Reply to this) |
|
Curt writes: on Feb 06 2007 07:16 AM [b]Not that bad?[/b] Ummmmm...yeah it was. I suppose it depends upon the metrics applied. Compared to the likes of Indiana Jones, it was lousy. Terrible dialogue. Terrible plot. Terrible bore. Bad casting. (Nothing against any of the cast members, but they were fish outta water...) I'm glad I waited to rent this one. (Reply to this) |
|
Bigbrother writes: on Feb 06 2007 08:09 AM In reply to this comment (#854837) Compared to Indiana Jones every movie is lousy. Never having read the books I'm not prone to picking apart the changes, but I thought this was a fun summer movie and the cast was enjoyable. Comparing action adventure movies against Indiana Jones is silly and unfair though. That's like saying compared to the Godfather the Departed was just OK of course if you're going to compare to the best of the Genre all movies are going to suck. (Reply to this) |
|
Praz writes: on Feb 06 2007 09:10 AM So what I take from this article is that Crusader Entertainment is stupid, and should've probably checked some numbers before taking Cussler at his word. Anyways, this movie was obviously released for the sole purpose of cashing in on the Dan Brown craze. (Reply to this) |
|
bubbaburnstine writes: on Feb 06 2007 04:21 PM It's my favorite Cussler book and they ruined it by getting rid of almost every important plotline (Reply to this) |
|
arcadefire325 writes: on Feb 07 2007 11:38 AM terrible movie. i hate these type of movies. (Reply to this) |
|
mic19671967 writes: on Jun 14 2008 07:39 AM I like this movie. I like the interaction between the characters Dirk and Al. As long as you take it as a fun adventure, but not a movie that blows you away. I don't understand why it cost so much to make this movie. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |





