Culture Brandon Sanderson Affirms Script Writers Pitch IP Projects To Use The IP As A Skinsuit For Their Own Story

Brandon Sanderson, the author of the Mistborn series, affirmed that Hollywood scriptwriters intentionally pitch IP projects so they can use them as skinsuits to tell their own stories.

In a post to the LoTR Memes subreddit in October, Sanderson shared an anecdote about how one of his lesser known stories Emperor’s Soul was options for a Hollywood project.

After explaining how the writer for the project was the one who pitched it and eventually convinced the studio to option the rights, Sanderson revealed that when he eventually got his hands on the script it was nothing like his novel and described it as “one of the most bizarre experiences of my life.”

“The character names were, largely, the same, though nothing that happened to them was remotely similar to the story. Emperor's Soul is a small-scale character drama that takes place largely in one room, with discussions of the nature of art between two characters who approach the idea differently,” Sanderson shared. “The screenplay detailed an expansive fantasy epic with a new love interest for the main character (a pirate captain.) They globe-trotted, they fought monsters, they explored a world largely unrelated to mine, save for a few words here and there.”

Next, Sanderson explained why the script was so different from his novel, which it was supposed to be adapting, “Hollywood doesn't buy spec scripts (original ideas) from screenwriters very often, and they NEVER buy spec scripts that are epic fantasy. Those are too big, too expensive, and too daunting: they are the sorts of stories where the producers and executives need the proof of an established book series to justify the production.”

“So this writer never had a chance to tell his own epic fantasy story, though he wanted to. Instead, he found a popularish story that nobody had snatched up, and used it as a means to tell the story he'd always wanted to tell, because he'd never otherwise have a chance of getting it made,” he shared.

Sanderson then concluded that this was not a one-time deal, but is a major problem within Hollywood and is one of the many issues affecting the so-called adaptations that are currently being made. “I'm convinced this is part of the issue with some of these adaptations; screenwriters and directors are creative, and want to tell their own stories, but it's almost impossible to get those made in things like the fantasy genre unless you're a huge established name like Cameron.”

“I'm not saying they all do this deliberately, as that screenwriter did for my work, but I think it's an unconscious influence,” he continued. “They want to tell their stories, and this is the allowed method, so when given the chance at freedom they go off the rails, and the execs don't know the genre or property well enough to understand why this can lead to disaster.”

9cd39922-415f-4566-9987-883ba88670c1_1066x637.webp

Sanderson is not the only one to point this out. In March 2023, the Dungeon & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein admitted to this practice while promoting their film.

The duo were asked by Variety, “To be able to do the kind of storytelling at the level you want to do it, do you feel you have to find a way into a franchise versus writing an original story?”

Goldstein replied, “Using existing IP certainly greases the wheels. Any meeting we have with a studio head starts with, “Here’s four things we own — got any interest?” To some extent, I think we use intellectual property as a bit of a costume to get ourselves in the door. We’re still going to make the movie that we want to make. It just makes it all a bit easier to get it going if it has something that people are very familiar with.”

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power showrunners similarly noted they were planning to write the book that Tolkien never wrote despite the fact the show is set in the Second Age and Tolkien wrote The Silmarillion, a whole book that his son Christopher published that details the major events of the First Age and the Second Age.

Nevertheless Rings of Power showrunner Patrick McKay told Vanity Fair that the driving question for the show was: “Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?”

What do you make of Sanderson’s anecdote and his speculation that this leads to a number of problems with current Hollywood adaptations?


 
"This story is timeless, thoughtful, uplifting. It will make people think, it will let them escape for a while into a world where right and wrong are clearly defined, and it has a positive, life-affirming ending."

"Good, buy it gut it and render it unidentifiable. Change the zeitgeist to make it as demoralizing and current-year as possible, leave people with nothing, make it modern and callow. Destroy the original to the point that future generations will perceive our version as the only version, so they won't even bother looking for the 'original'."

That's all part of """their""" plan. Never forget that.
 
Is anybody remotely shocked by this? Movies are so full of random details being changed that they can only be explained by assuming it's the writer's "headcanon". You have a character liking chocolate in the book and, in the adaptation, character likes apples. Coincidentally, of course, the writer loves apples as well.
 
I thought this was already known? It's not like it's a big reveal. It's why most of the Hellraiser movies deviate so much from the source material.
They’re awful movies for the most part, too. Nightbreed was a pretty faithful adaptation and it was a shame to see it flop.

To be completely fair…
There is literally no excuse at all or whatsoever for what Amazon has done to Lord of the Rings, The Boys or Wheel of Time, or what Netflix has done to the Witcher. None.
 
Last edited:
You can see it even in the "good" hollywood movies. Joker was only a comic book film because the guy who made it knew he wouldn't have gotten an art film off the ground in the modern climate without disguising it as capeshit.
And yet if it was an independent 'art' film I would've watched the hell out of it, but if you're going to make me look at the Joker then I better also get Batman and Alfred and Catwoman and Solomon Grundy in the mix too.

Gotta feel a little sorry for the industry because people can't accept that there are no truly 'original' stories, and having a wizard with a white beard in your fantasy movie doesn't make it a 'ripoff' of LoTR.
 
You can see it even in the "good" hollywood movies. Joker was only a comic book film because the guy who made it knew he wouldn't have gotten an art film off the ground in the modern climate without disguising it as capeshit.
Ironically though, the only reason Joker was so good is because it was a new take on a well-known comic book villain; take the Joker out of Joker and you just have a crummy knockoff of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Joaquin Phoenix still probably would've carried the hell out of it, Batman tie-in or no.
Same with the non-Hollywood movies. Parasite? That's just Bong Joon Ho's second attempt at Memories of Murder. Portrait Of A Lady On Fire? That's just a lesbian version of Ingmar Bergman's Persona.
 
“I'm convinced this is part of the issue with some of these adaptations; screenwriters and directors are creative, and want to tell their own stories, but it's almost impossible to get those made in things like the fantasy genre unless you're a huge established name like Cameron.”
Then you have to learn how to make money with your creative work outside a system where giant corporations fund it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

It's the same story in games, in music. You want the easy life of steady corporate paychecks? Yeah guess what. That's called a job and you just lost all creative control. You can only be so creative with other people's money. Risk and reward go hand in hand in our economy.

You want creative control? Get your own audience that will fund what you make. You might have to start with small projects that don't cost $300 million, though.
 
This is shit I've been saying for years. I'm not even a professional writer, but I'm sure there are people around me that are sick of hearing my "better" ideas for stories that Hollywood has been shitting out the last few years.

You cannot possibly imagine how fucking mad this makes me.
Dude, it doesn't take a huge Tolkien nerd (and I know a few) to understand what Tolkien fundamentally is as an author. Aside from being massively influential, the man was a master of the written word.

Anyone in Hollywood that isn't on speed-humps' worth of coke should take one look at the idea of writing the novel that Tolkien didn't and say to themselves, "I'm not so arrogant to try and equal Tolkien and I should probably dissociate from anyone who thinks they can" should rightly be tarred and feathered.

The closest living equivalent to Tolkien by sheer acclaim is probably Kazuo Ishiguro. There are probably others, but he's the first that comes to mind. Point being, if you're going to try and write something Tolkien-level, get someone to do it who can understand him as a peer.
You can see it even in the "good" hollywood movies. Joker was only a comic book film because the guy who made it knew he wouldn't have gotten an art film off the ground in the modern climate without disguising it as capeshit.
Ironically though, the only reason Joker was so good is because it was a new take on a well-known comic book villain; take the Joker out of Joker and you just have a crummy knockoff of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Joaquin Phoenix still probably would've carried the hell out of it, Batman tie-in or no.
I hate to defend knock-offs, but Joker worked because it worked before.

That's not to say I want to defend going to back to the well. If you're going to do that, polish it up a bit and, get a great actor to star in it. Don't just smugly approach it and say, "this is what people like, they'll eat it up".
It's still nice to have confirmation from the "inside". It makes it feel less like you're yelling at a wall.
I always thought I'd see these confessions about the time I became a senior citizen, in a time when it's too late to call out the fraud for what it is, when the truth is, it's probably better for Hollywood to start owning up to things in a post-modern world so they look self-aware to the people who analyze their work negatively. "See, we can intellectualize our choices for being good, the same way you do for them being bad!"). That's a pretty lousy theory, but considering the creative output of the last few years, it's as good an explanation as any.
 
To be completely fair, and I'm not praising them as writers, what I think they're being told to paper over (cause their press was all just scripted) was they were going to write an original story anyway, but they don't have the rights to the Silmarillion, which effectively bars them from all three ages of the world. So isolated events and characters from the Silmarillion are truncated and a few of Tolkien's notes are forcefully jammed very awkwardly on top of the actual story they wanted to write.

Given that the show was astroturfed with Bezos money with loads of mandates, I can imagine that they were forced to add recognisable and pivotal events in Middle-earth in an otherwise very different story. For example, 'Halbrand' (Sauron)'s entire set of history, motives and behaviour completely changes between the two seasons. In his recognisable armour he leads an army of orcs who fear his presence in the opening, yet season 2, at a later age, he begins it as some guy, trying and failing to convince orcs of anything then gets stabbed. which leads me to think Halbrand was written as a completely different character, but were mandated to add Sauron because that's what people recognise, and his made the most sense. It feels like his first appearance was just intended to be a cool cameo.
Bless you for watching that absolute bullshit slop so it can be analyzed.
 
What MMO has ever had a shred of worthwhile story? It would take some hard evidence to convince me the answer is anything other than "none".
At launch, World of Warcraft's story was "humans and orcs fucking hate each other and want them to die, and also there are some other races that hate each other too". Pretty good if you ask me.
 
And yet if it was an independent 'art' film I would've watched the hell out of it, but if you're going to make me look at the Joker then I better also get Batman and Alfred and Catwoman and Solomon Grundy in the mix too.
There was some adaptation to make it more Batman-ish and it worked.

I didn't mind they did this, because in the specific case of the Joker, his lack of an actual origin story helps to come up with several "what if"s for him. And it's not like DC hasn't before made this. Gotham by Gaslight comes to mind. It works because the characters are almost the same, only the background has moved.

There are some changes that are understandable, even if we don't like them. Changing Barbara to be Alfred's niece rather than Gordon's daughter works for "Batman and Robin" (let's ignore the quality of the movie) because Gordon wasn't developed in the way Alfred was in those movies.

That is not the same as making characters look more like how the writer would want them to be just because they read some one-take or because they don't care and want their own vision. Like "hey, I like Storm bc she's a powerful black woman and she's gonna be the leader of the xmen now because she was once the leader in that one era and also Cyclops is white and male, so now Storm's also seducing Jean". Totally different things.
 
Say what you will about GRR Martin, but this is exactly why he forced anyone asking to adapt GOT to take a test, if you weren't a super fan you didn't deserve the rights, plus a fan probably isn't going to rape an IP as badly as someone who just sees it as a skinsuit. Why that didn't become a standard i don't know
I hate to defend knock-offs, but Joker worked because it worked before.

Joker "worked" because marketing made all the normies and NPCs go see a movie they wouldn't have without the IP attached, that plus the IP meant they were allowed a bigger budget than they would have if it didn't have an IP attached.

$70 million for a period piece that was a blatant knock off of other films would have gotten you laughed out of the office in the 2010s. Sinners was only greenlit because WB was desperate and when you factor in inflation it costs a lot fucking less, especially before Jonathan Majors had his career ruined and forced WB to just have Michael B Jordan do dual roles.

the entire 3rd act of the film was only possible because of the big budget allowed because of the joker, all those city blocks in new york shut down and remade to look like the 1970s, with a huge crowd of extras rioting. that wouldn't have existed without the hook of the IP.

also i hate how people don't understand King of Comedy, people don't realize it because stand up comedy has advanced yet its the main conceit of the film, De Niro is a world class comedian, he's not a loser. He just got blacklisted and between that and being a weirdo it led him to being unable to show off how amazing he was. Its like if Maverick in Top Gun got kicked out of the navy before they found out he was a world class pilot, or Dr.House being rejected from medschool. It was especially relevant at the time because when King of Comedy was made there was a fuckload of comedians getting banned from comedy clubs because they demanded places like The Comedy Store actually pay comedians, same thing with the tonight show, they didn't even pay busfare to make it to the show if you performed. plenty of stand up comedians in the late 1970s in NYC or LA made less money than a kid at a lemonade stand. And with how much of a boost appearing on the tonight show could be for someone's career you would do anything to appear and have a great set, it was the infinite money glitch at the time.

In a way it reminds me of how people wouldn't understand Rebel without a cause if they didn't know the cultural context. a teenager staying out past midnight on a school night being treated as the biggest criminal in Watts would feel like a joke if you didn't mention how its taking place in the 1940s.
 
Joker "worked" because marketing made all the normies and NPCs go see a movie they wouldn't have without the IP attached, that plus the IP meant they were allowed a bigger budget than they would have if it didn't have an IP attached.
It worked because the story they used fit the character as well and it's credible. Budget and marketing aren't making people go to theaters even when there is a big IP attached to it. They also gave him a relatable story. Lack of relatable heroes is the reason why the MCU is falling apart.

That the origin of the Joker was that he was a failed comedian who gave up on society because he wanted to make people laugh, yet he was treated like trash by that same society is one of those rare cases in which "it's like poetry". If Gotham by Gaslight was Superman or Spiderman instead of Batman, it wouldn't have worked the same. Joker hadn't worked the same if the story had been something else.
 
Post original three Jackson films the LotR movie-verse has been straight up trash but lets be real here, the Sillmarillon was not fit for the big screen. Even reading it in book form is more a chore than a treat.
That's why they should just leave things as they are. There's certain early age stories that might, might work as an animation but not in current year Globohomo.
 
Back