I found this over on SciFi.com!!!! Okay, modified -- I found the complete article on The Hollywood Reporter site. A bit more detail, but not all that much. Looks like a fan of the books is in on this as writer/producer.
Columbia sees a franchise in 'Deryni'
Studio picks up spec based on Katherine Kurtz's novel
By Borys Kit
Oct 24, 2008, 01:00 AM ET
Columbia Pictures is bringing Katherine Kurtz's "Deryni Rising" to the big screen.
In a six-figure deal, the studio has picked up "Deryni" as a spec by Alex Sabeti. Jimmy Miller is producing via his Mosaic banner.
"Deryni" is a historical fantasy novel first published in 1970 that launched Kurtz's "Deryni Kingdom" series that, almost 40 years later, encompasses five trilogies, short stories and reference books.
The story is set in a medieval kingdom of humans alongside the Deryni, a race of people with psychic and magical abilities. The first novel centers on a young prince who, after the death of his father the king, must defend his throne from a Deryni usurper.
Sabeti also will serve as an executive producer.
Sabeti, repped by UTA and Mosaic, is best known for writing "The Art of Cool," his high school comedy take on Sun Tzu's "Art of War" that Columbia picked up in 2006. After the sale, Sabeti didn't want to be pigeon-holed as a teen comedy scribe, so he decided to look for stories in an action genre to prove he had more than one voice.
"Deryni" was one of his favorite books as a boy, and Sabeti thought it offered feature franchise potential. He used the earnings from his first showbiz sale to option the entire book series. He adapted it on spec, which gave him a greater degree of control over how he told the book's story.
Columbia now takes over the movie rights to the books, which it hopes to turn into a tentpole franchise.
Andrea Giannetti, who worked with Sabeti on "Cool," is overseeing the project for Columbia.
I just saw this on a google search. Great news. Congrats to KK.
Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't mean that the movie will ever get made, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.
I hope the movie is made, because I would pay any price to see it.
Let's all keep our fingers crossed on this one. Who knows how Hollywood can "modify" a subject. Hopefully it gets a treatment like LOTR. ;D
you never looked at the Tolkien usenets I take it.:) Some really nasty stuff about Peter jackson and people who dared praise his version of LOTR.
luckily this group is much more tolerant of ideas (which it should being about a series of books on intolerance)
Quote from: tenworld on December 02, 2008, 07:48:12 PM
(which it should being about a series of books on intolerance)
One would think so. But it is amazing how intolerant some people who profess to be tolerant can be of ideas they don't agree with.
Look at Proposition 8. Mind you, I am disappointed in what the people of California decided, but if we believe in democracy, why should we try to circumvent decisions (as some people are) arrived at democratically if we disagree with them? If we go only by results, what is to be preferred between a democracy whose policies we we approve of and a tyranny whose policies we do
not approve of? And who anointed
us as the arbiters of what is approbale and what is not?
After all, Mussolini stopped littering in Rome and made the Italian trains run on time (neither of which nobody has ever managed either before or since); Hitler was a vegetarian and promoted organic farming; Franco gave refuge to Jews from the Holocaust; Stalin promoted public libraries--all things that many, if not most, of us would approve of.
In truth -- the longer they postpone making the movies -- the happier I will be. It is definitely not because I wish Katherine any ill, I wish her the best and I'm happy for her, but because I have yet to see a book made into a movie that wasn't a huge disappointment. LOTR came closest to NOT being disappointing.
I think Hunt for Red October movie improved on the book, but the other Clancy-based movies went downhill fast. So it can be done, but not often. Both Ivanhoe movies missed the essence of the book (which dealt with similar persecution of people because they were misunderstood on 2 levels, the Saxons in Norman england and the Jews in Christiandom).
And then there are the adaptations of Asimov that were horrible. There are rumors of a Foundation movie (another group of people with mind control) but I have loe expectations.
Quote from: Milo on June 02, 2010, 08:22:21 AM
... I have yet to see a book made into a movie that wasn't a huge disappointment.
Oh, there have been a few - but I agree that they are few and far between. I loved what they did a couple of years ago with
No Country for Old Men, and I agree with you about the LOTR adaptation. That was actually much, much better than I had expected, and if they hadn't gone on with some of that ridiculous battle stuff in the last movie (Legolas jumping onto the elephant, etc), it would have been even better.
I hope that any delays with the DR movie is because they are developing a quality script. Alas, many movies these days seem to be produced on the basis that if you use enough whizz-bang special effects, it will make up for deficiencies in script. Of course we hope for some great special effects for the magic in DR, but I really, really hope that these are not allowed to overwhelm the actual story or the characters.
It is interesting to go back to book adaptations made long before CGI and today's special effects, and look at how good a movie can be when the producers concentrate on story and acting quality. If you don't already know it, try David Lean's 1948 movie of
Great Expectations - an absolute classic. (And one of the scariest openings, all the better for being in b/w)
"Gone with the Wind"; much better than the book, IMHO.
Quote from: Elkhound on December 02, 2008, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: tenworld on December 02, 2008, 07:48:12 PM
(which it should being about a series of books on intolerance)
One would think so. But it is amazing how intolerant some people who profess to be tolerant can be of ideas they don't agree with.
Look at Proposition 8. Mind you, I am disappointed in what the people of California decided, but if we believe in democracy, why should we try to circumvent decisions (as some people are) arrived at democratically if we disagree with them?
Forgive me for dredging up an old comment, but given the present socio-political climate, it must be said: democracy must have limits, or it is merely the tyranny of the majority. It is wrong to put minority rights to a majority vote, because the risks of perpetuating discrimination are too great. This is particularly true for unpopular minorities. The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries saw the inherent danger of such tyranny, which is why they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
(In all candor, I regard the actions of the American men who voted to extend the vote to American women nothing short of miraculous. I tend to like what William Tecumseh Sherman said in another context: "
'Vox populi'? Vox humbug.")
How then, are we to distinguish between an enlightened despot, whose decrees we agree with in content, over a democracy that votes in provisions whose contents we do not? Some might argue that a despot or an oligarchy is preferable, as it is easier to reason with and persuade one person, or a few, than with a multitude.
Quote from: BalanceTheEnergies on June 05, 2010, 07:07:54 PM
The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries saw the inherent danger of such tyranny, which is why they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
Actually what we got was no direct voting - The Electoral College elects the President and V-P, the senior legislative house in each state elects senators. The presumption in 1786 being that Electors and State Legislators will be more responsible than ordinary citizens.
Um, not quite Alien. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S Constitution, not the structural stuff about the Electoral College and so on, which is found in the Articles. The debates of the period, much of which feature in The Federalist Papers, consider electoral tyranny, among other things. Those first amendments were added to answer objections raised in those debates, in part by taking some things out of consideration for elected bodies ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " —First Amendment, U.S. Constitution, emphasis mine)
This seems to be a recurring problem in American history. Portions of the Fourteenth Amendment (specifically the Due Process Clause) apply most of the rights in the Bill of Rights to relations between citizens and state governments; the doctrine is called incorporation, and has come down as a result of SCOTUS rulings applying the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) over many years. Even today, there are people who want to enact laws to strip citizenship from the American-born children of illegal immigrants (another unpopular minority), despite the specific definition of their citizenship in the Constitution. Some polling indicates that such measures enjoy majority support.
You are right to imply there is a difference between theory/the ideal and practice ("Actually what we got..."). Jim Crow laws in the South (and similar restrictions in other parts of the country) were enacted and enforced in the century following the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification. I also recall reading of people in North Carolina recently trying to oust a newly-elected atheist by applying a religious qualification for office in their state's constitution, despite incorporation and the explicit denial of religious tests for office in Article 6 of the Federal Constitution. You are also right to suggest that there was a notion prevalent in the Founding period that some citizens were better qualified than others; John Adams was a notable proponent of this idea, and it was at the heart of his political rivalry with Thomas Jefferson.
I can only answer Elkhound with a quotation from Winston Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Put another way, good governance requires good people doing the governing.
>Actually what we got was no direct voting - The Electoral College elects the President and V-P, the senior legislative house in each >state elects senators. The presumption in 1786 being that Electors and State Legislators will be more responsible than ordinary citizens.
True but can you name one example where the electroral college did not rubberstamp the general election(for the electoral voters)?