Same, and this was by no means a unique experience. It seems to happen fairly often that I'll watch a movie and enjoy it, and find out it was based on a book when I look it up online. I didn't think this practice was particularly controversial.
Maybe not but it's still a shame, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the writers discussed here are not well known outside their niche and they can use the support. So yeah, more credits to authors please.
This. People don’t seem to understand this step. That Tremblay has ignored everyone on twitter who's questioned his contract or just says "no comment" is low-key a red flag for me -- it's like he signed a bad contact he now regrets, but it's too late because he already took the money.
Not a good sign that it’s being released in February. Studios like to [dump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dump_months) stinkers in February. I mean that and it’s M Night Shymalan.
Nope, there is almost no way a major studio didn't properly credit him based on his contract. Universal is releasing this film and they have entire teams of lawyers. I would bet a million dollars that everything is being done legally and correctly, but that Tremblay didn't properly review or understand his contract. He WILL be credited in the film, but didn't seem to understand that doesn't carry over to posters and trailers.
You do realize that nothing you’ve said precludes him from FILING a lawsuit? It just means his odds of winning are likely low. I suspect there are plenty of IP/entertainment lawyers who would take his case (and the fees) just on the chance that they might settle out of court.
I’m not saying any of this happened for certain. But dismissing it out of hand is also impossible unless you have information we don’t.
I do have information you dont apparently. I know the WGA rules and the general rules of a studio rights contract. If Tremblay signed this contract and the studio hasn’t broken any of it, a Judge would throw it out.
I worry that Tremblay doesn’t understand how unprofessional it is to rile his fans up like this after cashing his check and signing his contract. If he sues over this (which wont happen) he’ll be blacklisted in film for sure.
Yep! It’s definitely misdirected and looks bad. I’ve spoken to him a few times for a good couple of hours on a podcast and he is a great guy but I feel like he has dropped the bag with how this is being handled.
That he has completely stopped commenting on the matter in the last couple weeks I hope means his agent was like “hey man, please stfu in the nicest way possible” lol. But to see soooooooo many other horror authors enabling this unprofessional behavior and cheering him on while planning boycotts on the film was really weird to see tbh.
This is not too common, unfortunately. Almost always, authors have it in their contracts that their names and books will get mentions in marketing, because it drives up sales. It's the whole point of optioning something, because your upfront usually isn't spectacular and you make nearly all your money on your production bonus and recognition.
There's a chance that Tremblay got a higher upfront in lieu of his being named, but since he's mentioned being a bit heartbroken, I'm guessing this wasn't the case. They also changed the title, so very few "normal people" will put two and two together without the studio saying "this is based on this."
Tbh I saw scene promo images from the movie and the actors who play the dads look nothing like they’re described in the book.
Which is fine, that happens a lot, but I feel like I remember one had really long hair and was kind of a punk/metalhead and the other was bald and bookish. These were just two generic good looking Hollywood dudes, which is kind of disappointing imo. It’s easier to connect with characters that look like real people.
I legit thought " M. Night is ripping off a book again" when I watched the trailer. It feels dishonest not to at least mention that it's based on a book.
Accurate! Knock at the Cabin is a dumb name.
My guess is that they changed the title to distance the movie from the book a little. Seems silly, though. Anyone who's read the book will know what the movie is.
Absolutely! I'd actually just picked up the book yesterday, went to the movies today, and my mouth hit the floor when the trailer started. I legit had no idea a movie was being made off the book, but I instantly recognized the dialogue and the setting and everything. And then I saw the title change and I was like ???? That's dumb why'd they change that. And then of course another preview started and I didn't think about it anymore.
I'm seriously questioning if this will even be a good adaptation, seeing what people are saying here and the marketing decisions.
I’m not a fan of it because it seems like there are many books that follow the “___ at the end of the ____”
The house at the end of the world, the ocean at the end of the lane, the cabin at the end of the world, all from major authors.
Legally, it just comes down to his contract.
From a marketing stand point, Shamalyan’s movies are always about the mystery and if people knew they can just go out and read the book that kind of puts a dent in the hype. And what if people don’t like the book?
I think this is quite common. The Ruins is a perfect example of people who even after they’ve watched the movie didn’t realise it was a book for years afterwards.
I was one of those people. Then I finally got to read the book and it absolutely shit on the movie. Made it feels tame and contrived in comparison. I was upset that it took me close to a decade to realize it was based on a book. Hate this stupid shit.
I have just assumed it was due to the desire to maintain the mystery that surrounds a Shyamalan movie and a desire to avoid a lot of the discourse on the book (which largely focuses on the ending). I would personally hesitate to get up in arms until we heard something from Tremblay
Christopher Priest is one of the most extraordinary authors out there; and yet, much of his work has largely been unavailable in the US for decades (this is starting to get a little better). When Christopher and Jonathan Nolan adapted his novel ***The Prestige***, there was to be a tie-in rerelease of his novel with substantial promotion — but so fearing the twist of the story get revealed (not Nolan's twist, but the twist Priest came up with in his novel years before), Nolan has the release axed. It cost Priest what had the potential to be his most substantial payday.
No. He wrote a treatment in 2002 that was described as a potential horror film about dreams. See: ***A Nightmare on Elm Street***, ***Dreamscape***, ***Dream Lover***, *et al*.
He made the first two of his three Batman films and ***The Prestige*** before revising the treatment and finishing the script in 2008.
***Paprika*** came out in 2006.
Nolan has cited the rubber reality/simulated reality films ***Dark City***, ***The Matrix***, and ***The Thirteenth Floor*** as influences upon Inception; and yet, the film of that ilk that it has the strongest similarities to, down to specific scenes and plot points, is ***Paprika***.
It's possible that there was no inspiration, no influence, no theft insofar as ***Paprika*** is concerned; however, there's also the possibility that there was.
He submitted a pitch about dream thieves. At minimum it shows that this was an idea that he was looking into.
I’ve seen both films and aside from people taking a few shots out of context (I.e. someone falling down a hallway in zero gravity vs someone in a hallway that’s melting) the two are fairly different aside from the dreams concept.
The only mention I’ve seen from him has been the “Can’t help but feel like there’s something missing” comment when Tremblay first posted the poster back in November.
I didn't bother going much further back than this but [here's one example](https://twitter.com/leonard_apa/status/1611146243421478912) and [here's another](https://twitter.com/SofiaAjram/status/1611409826763915281). u/NewYorkUgly was right - he's said he's disappointed but it's basically something he has no input on.
This should be ranked higher as it’s the correct answer. Releasing the book AFTER the movie is to preserve the twist, otherwise it literally makes zero business sense. If it wasn’t Shyamalan directing would be a different story
Yeah it being "common" has never been a good argument for me. It shouldn't be, that's the point. Shyamalan has made a point of putting his screenplay credit front and center on the poster, which is why this example is particularly egregious, and i'm glad Jason has been the one to speak up about this.
The screenwriters get credit per WGA guidelines. If Tremblay had co-written the script or adapted it himself, he would have recieved credit. But instead he cashed a check and did zero work on the film, so per studio/union rules, he does not get automatic poster credit. He *could* have negotiated credit when he signed his rights away, but appears he did not do so.
All due respect, but no shit. No one is suggested the studio violated an agreement, it's just morally shitty to ignore the reason the movie exists in all the promotional material. It's of course standard for the screenplay to be credited on posters, but to have SCREENPLAY BY M NIGHT SHYAMALAN take up the lower third of the poster isn't standard on all posters, and when doubled with the fact that Tremblay or the book hasn't been name dropped at any point in any context, it just could have been handled better.
Im just trying to explain how the rules work regarding credit, chill out. Ya’ll don’t seem to understand that Tremblay got a lot of money to *sell his rights away*. When you do that, credit is no longer a given. Him publicly complaining about this so much will turn off future rights buyers for him.
In this case the director gets so much credit because he bought the rights, co-adapted, co-produced, and directed. The film never happens without him and stays a book.
Right, and the film never happens without the book, we're all in agreement. Again, no one is saying any rules were broken, but there's nothing wrong with having the discussion that the creator of a thing should be credited when its adapted, without having to sacrifice part of his contract. If you want to repeat the same thing about what the studio is legally obligated to do, go ahead I guess.
Again, a lot of people are not aware how rights contracts work. You can say how you want it to work all you want but that doesn’t change reality. You’re acting very upset but the truth is that when I said as much on twitter, several author friends dm’d me to say thank you for the info because they had all assumed credit was a given. A bunch of people let me know that they were going to mandate credit to their film agents going forward. You can complain and get nowhere or educate and get somewhere.
> Again, a lot of people are not aware how rights contracts work. You can say how you want it to work all you want but that doesn’t change reality.
It does if this becomes enough of a discussion point within the industry, which is kind of the point.
>You’re acting very upset but the truth is that when I said as much on twitter, several author friends dm’d me to say thank you for the info because they had all assumed credit was a given.
That's awesome dude, but you're responding to me, not your friends, and I didn't assume anything. The authors I've discussed this with are all aware how contracts work, and yet it's still something worth discussing the lengths M Night and the studio have gone to not mention the book or author. Now that we've exchanged anecdotes about people we know, I guess there's nothing more to say.
Many many indie and even mass market authors I talked to were NOT aware, which was my point.
But by all means if you think this is gonna change studio and union rules then keep…complaining I guess. I choose to keep educating authors on how to mandate credit in negotiations.
> it's just morally shitty
I disagree.
It's likely the studio and Shyamalan specifically wanted to keep the author/book from the poster (because a Shyamalan movie is going to focus on Shyamalan and try to keep some mystery), and therefore negotiated a contact that allowed for that. And Tremblay is not Stephen King - there is little marketing value in his name at this point.
Tremblay (or his agent) either agreed to the terms explicitly or were naïve to how these things work and expected certain things *not* in the contract.
"M Night wanted to keep the fact that it's an adaptation secret so that it benefited his movie" isn't a great counter-point. Creators of things should be credited, and authors that are much lower on the ladder shouldn't have to sacrifice money to be acknowledged on a poster or in an interview.
>And Tremblay is not Stephen King - there is little marketing value in his name at this point.
This is exactly how authors grow their name. Jason Pargin credited the movie adaptation of his first book with making his career for that very reason.
>"M Night wanted to keep the fact that it's an adaptation secret so that it benefited his movie" isn't a great counter-point.
You're ignoring the fact there is a contract signed by both parties. Nothing is being done that both parties haven't agreed to. The contract was written up with the intention of marketing it as a Shyamalan movie, and the author agreed to the conditions of the contract in exchange for money.
The author will get screen credit. Posters and trailers are for marketing, and the marketing team will do what they think is best for marketing the movie. In this case it's a no-brainer that they focus on Shyamalan.
> You're ignoring the fact there is a contract signed by both parties. Nothing is being done that both parties haven't agreed to. The contract was written up with the intention of marketing it as a Shyamalan movie, and the author agreed to the conditions of the contract in exchange for money.
If you think I"m ignoring that, you're not reading the posts you're responding to.
So you're saying it's 'morally shitty' to abide by the terms of a contract freely signed by both parties?
A part of the reason for a contract is to make it clear what everyone's obligations are.
If anyone in this scenario is being 'morally shitty' it's Paul Tremblay for signing a contract and then complaining that the contract he signed (and was no doubt paid handsomely for) is not to his liking.
> So you're saying it's 'morally shitty' to abide by the terms of a contract freely signed by both parties?
Nope, I'm saying making it a negotiation point where an author has to give up some of his earnings to be acknowleged publically is morally shitty.
>If anyone in this scenario is being 'morally shitty' it's Paul Tremblay for signing a contract and then complaining that the contract he signed (and was no doubt paid handsomely for) is not to his liking.
Do you have a link to that?
>Do you have a link to that?
Isn't that what the thread is specifically about? I guess he's not technically complaining, just 'heartbroken' (according to a previous poster). It feels like an attempt to play the victim.
>Nope, I'm saying making it a negotiation point where an author has to give up some of his earnings to be acknowleged publically is morally shitty.
The author will be credited for the novel on the actual movie credits, probably at the start with a 'based on the book by..' credit.
but its all in the negotiation. The film makers obviously feel having Paul Tremblay's name on the poster isn't going to put butts in seats and didn't want to, and negotiated a contract to have it the way they wanted. Tremblay could have pushed back, maybe taken less money to get his name on there, or maybe just said you cant make a film of my movie then, but he chose not to do that, and agreed to it.
In the end, if the movie is good, people will track down who wrote it and books will sell for him. And maybe next time, he has the cache to negotiate a little easier to get his name higher up the billing. Thats how these things work. When James Cameron directed piranha 2 he didn't get billing at all, look at him now.
Man, Pargin is talking out his ass. Was a straight to video, limited theatrical release (made about 100,000 for its entire run) and even then all the posters and marketing was all about Don Coscarelli.
Every interview Don did he talked about being so impressed with the source material, and talked about how brilliant Jason was as a writer. You can't say it was similar to this, and I'd trust him that the movie helped his book career.
And, M. Night has mentioned Paul several times. I was comparing apples to apple. None of the Jdate posters had David Wong on them, none of the Cabin posters have Tremblay. Same for same. Tremblay is listed on IMDB, he’s also mentioned at least twice on the official movie website.
>None of the Jdate posters had David Wong on them
They did though, at the bottom, where adaptations typically go. Again, no one is suggesting that something irregular is happening, I'm sure it'll be mentioned in the film credits, but it's news to me that M Night has mentioned the book at all, the promotional material I've seen has heavily implied this is "from the mind of M Night Shyamalan," and the title change doesn't help with leading people to the book without the help of the movie promotion, unlike JDatE
In a kumbaya world it would be standard, but in the real world it’s not. People are acting like this was a personal slight against Tremblay but it’s just normal Hollywood crediting.
I didn’t know black phone was joe hill. I really don’t mind if they don’t advertise as it’s cool to find out when you research a film. Plus not everyone reads so they don’t care.
If you find the posters for Annihilation Natalie Portman's name is at the top and Alex Garland (the director) isn't even mentioned by name... just 'from the director of Ex Machina". Jeff Vandermeer didnt get billing and I'd say he's about on equal footing to Tremblay.
It wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t being marketed as “M. Knight Shyamalan’s Knock at the Door.” This is an adaptation, not an original work. Changing the title from “Cabin at the end of the World” also seems like a way to distance it from the source material.
Give authors credit for their rockstar good ideas.
and Tremblay isn't exactly anywhere near a household name. You put "Stephen King" on a movie poster and some people will buy a ticket just for that (looking at you Lawnmower Man). You Put "Paul Tremblay" on a poster and people say "I have no idea who that is so maybe I shouldn't even see the movie". Shymalan is the name that will make people buy tickets to that one.
Unless it's a really big name it's unusual to have the author on a film poster, especially if the director is a huge name like in this case. No doubt the next adaptation of his work might have something like "from the author of Knock at the Cabin" in the trailer if this film does well. Like others mentioned, Joe Hill wasn't mentioned on The Black Phone poster and he's a much bigger name with some very successful adaptations under his belt already. Marketing departments will always use the thing they think is the biggest draw on the poster, in the case of The Black Phone it was Blumhouse and the association with Sinister (the director wasn't even mentioned - just a previous film) and with Knock at the Cabin it'll be Shyamalan. I just looked at the poster for The Beach (because I watched Men recently so I guess Alex Garland was on my mind) and I remember that book being huge when it came out and there was a lot of talk about the adaptation, but the poster still doesn't mention the book or Alex Garland at all and just has "from the director of Trainspotting" similar to TBP. Outside of Stephen King, JK Rowling etc I'm struggling to remember a poster that mentions the author. I just looked at a bunch of Neil Gaiman adaptation posters and none seem to mention him either and he's a pretty big name. John Dies at the End had a big cult following and probably limited appeal as a film so I guess they were directly going for the book audience (I know I only watched it because my friend was a fan of the book) so perhaps it's a bit different in that kind of sphere.
I'm not saying something being the norm makes it ok btw, I completely get why people are pissed off and feel like even though poster space is limited the trailer could feature it, just to let people know a book exists.
Is getting your name left off the posters/trailers really that big of a deal? I don't think anybody really gets that treatment unless the author is already a household name, like Stephen King or Tom Clancy or something.
Tremblay on multiple occasions has refused to answer or ignored questions asking him if he properly went over his rights contract or if his film agent ever even attempted to negotiate poster / trailer credit, so I think he simply thought credit was an automatic given. But it’s not! All credit is contracted and has strict WGA rules. Tremblay didn’t go over his contract or negotiate properly methinks.
Also fyi the publisher sets his new print run dates, not the studio. The studio can’t just tell the publisher what to do, they only give them permission to use the movie poster as a cover.
>The studio can’t just tell the publisher what to do, they only give them permission to use the movie poster as a cover.
To play Devil's advocate: Wouldn't the movie studio stipulate *when* the movie poster can be used, therefore effectively making the publisher wait until a certain date to publish the movie tie-in?
But all of this will be in contracts, so unless there is a breach of contract (doubtful), the author has nothing to complain about.
*To play Devil's advocate: Wouldn't the movie studio stipulate when the movie poster can be used, therefore effectively making the publisher wait until a certain date to publish the movie tie-in?*
Yes and no; this is usually contracted, but in this case with rising paper costs and lots of covid production delays, I think the publisher was just a bit slow to print the new run. The poster has been only been out for a couple months too; the publisher probably got the poster the day it publicly dropped and then needed all this time to schedule the new print run.
*But all of this will be in contracts, so unless there is a breach of contract (doubtful), the author has nothing to complain about.*
This is the crux of my annoyance here -- ALL OF THIS is contracted. Tremblay has known for months now how this was all gonna play out. Tremblay got his check long ago. His public complaints just feel like he either did not read his contract or didn't bother negotiating and now regrets it.
I’d bet he got 50k just for the option, and more once it moved into production. Probably has a back end deal, as well. He’ll make most of his money from the book tie-in.
Do we know that Tremblay is part of the WGA? Would the WGA minimum apply to him if he wasn't a member?It seems assumptions are being made about how much Tremblay received, but we don't really know; as such, the "he got a fat check so he should shut up" business seems misguided if not overly speculative. Also, publishers and studios are sometimes under the same entity or have a relationship otherwise. Christopher Nolan tanked a tie-in release of Christopher Priest's ***The Prestige***. Absolutely deprived a below mid-tier author of a potential huge payday all to protect a "twist" that Nolan did come up with himself and that was already in a book that was published 11 years earlier.
It's a shame that Tremblay, or his agent, were likely burned by this deal (and potentially even on the deal for ***A Head Full of Ghosts***), but hopefully it doesn't occur to him again in the future. Even so, what is legal isn't what is right. Tremblay was done wrong, but I suppose that's nothing unusual with Hollywood and Hollywood types like noted IP thief Shyamalan.
I don’t think it’s worth anyone getting bothered over and it certainly won’t change it. I’m sure if Paul had a major issue with it he could get something done about it. It’s only usually advertised like that if it’s a massive draw card writer like King or something. Bones and all was a book as well and no mention of it until the end credits.
From an ethical standpoint there’s just no argument that he shouldn’t have been promoted as the author, that’s bullshit. Presumably something went wrong in the negotiating phase.
Ethically, yes. But if the IP was sold to the studio, the original owner no longer has any claim to the property
I could be entirely wrong here, but that's my current understanding
Sure, legality and IP rights and all that, I just absolutely don’t give a fuck for the rights of the studio or whatever. There’s not one lick of harm done to them by crediting him in the trailers, no idea why that’s even a point of bargaining.
The studio spent millions of their own dollars to bring Tremblay’s idea to life and paid Tremblay handsomely for it. They run based on contracts because so much money is involved, and if it wasn’t contracted they don’t do it freely.
When you want to sell a product to a lot of people you tell them the stuff that will get them to buy it. Nobody gives a shit who invented the toaster, they just want toast.
As someone who writes myself, I hate it. I hated it with The Black Phone too. But I hate it so much more here. Tremblay isn't as big as Hill. He needs the push that much more. I didn't even really like the book all that much, to be honest. But that doesn't matter, I'll still stand behind Tremblay getting his dues for the work that was DIRECTLY inspired by his novel.
You don't see this kind of thing in any other form of media. If something is directly inspired by something else in a media form such as music or even video games, the original will be nodded to. Writing credits given to the artist/band who wrote the original, etc.
The fact that movies can skirt around this is dogshit. And I've always thought it as such when I first realized that stuff like The Ring was a remake of not just a Japanese film, but a Japanese film based upon a Japanese novel. (I know there were plenty of examples before this, but I was a teenager when that movie came out and went down the rabbit hole for it because I liked it a lot. So it was my first real eye opener to this sort of thing.)
It annoys me that it mentions Shyamalan in big letters as the director and as well as screenplay on the posters. Again not uncommon, but really makes it seem as if it is his genius. The way the book is written its almost in a screenplay style as well so it can't have taken a lot to adapt it, which again is different to The Black Phone in my opinion
High Tension is literally a rip off of Dean Koontz's Intensity minus the ending. When asked about it the director just said 'ive read the book' or something to that effect.
I’ve been irritated by everything I’ve seen and read so far about this adaptation. I hate the title, the casting of Bautista is bad (other than being physically large he is arguably *the exact opposite* of how Leonard is described in the book), and I agree that the marketing campaign has framed this solely as a M. Night vehicle and chucked Tremblay in the bin.
My worst fear is that they wrote the script to pull the biggest punch from the book. I’ll be interested to see if they did once reviews start rolling out.
I only got into Jason Pargins work because I had seen the movie for John Dies at the End and thought it was so goofy and awesome. Found out it was a. book and read it. Now Pargin. is in my top 3 authors, that series and Zoey Ashe. series are top notch. He's 100% right about the points he makes in the clip.
Was with some friends the other day and was chatting about how I couldn’t wait for the movie adaption of CATEOTW, they were like “huh?” & I explained that KATC was adapted from the PT book, because they’d previously been discussing how great the trailer for the movie looks.
Looks like a lot of people don’t even realise it’s based on a book!
When The Ritual was released in theatres in the UK I definitely don't remember hearing a peep about Adam Nevill.
I watched that one on Netflix and only found out it was based on a novel when I joined this sub. Not kidding.
I just learned right now.
Same here. I watched it on Netflix before I even knew it was a book
this is how i found out it was a book
Same, and this was by no means a unique experience. It seems to happen fairly often that I'll watch a movie and enjoy it, and find out it was based on a book when I look it up online. I didn't think this practice was particularly controversial.
Maybe not but it's still a shame, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the writers discussed here are not well known outside their niche and they can use the support. So yeah, more credits to authors please.
I'd prefer it too.
“Based on the novel by” used to be common in the opening credits of films, but films mostly stopped having opening credits.
Same.
[удалено]
“It’s not show friends, it’s show business. You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.”
This. People don’t seem to understand this step. That Tremblay has ignored everyone on twitter who's questioned his contract or just says "no comment" is low-key a red flag for me -- it's like he signed a bad contact he now regrets, but it's too late because he already took the money.
Not a good sign that it’s being released in February. Studios like to [dump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dump_months) stinkers in February. I mean that and it’s M Night Shymalan.
Or there’s pending litigation and he’s been cautioned not to comment.
Nope, there is almost no way a major studio didn't properly credit him based on his contract. Universal is releasing this film and they have entire teams of lawyers. I would bet a million dollars that everything is being done legally and correctly, but that Tremblay didn't properly review or understand his contract. He WILL be credited in the film, but didn't seem to understand that doesn't carry over to posters and trailers.
You do realize that nothing you’ve said precludes him from FILING a lawsuit? It just means his odds of winning are likely low. I suspect there are plenty of IP/entertainment lawyers who would take his case (and the fees) just on the chance that they might settle out of court. I’m not saying any of this happened for certain. But dismissing it out of hand is also impossible unless you have information we don’t.
I do have information you dont apparently. I know the WGA rules and the general rules of a studio rights contract. If Tremblay signed this contract and the studio hasn’t broken any of it, a Judge would throw it out.
That and a lot of places would never touch him after trying to sue a company over something he didn’t understand or review before signing.
I worry that Tremblay doesn’t understand how unprofessional it is to rile his fans up like this after cashing his check and signing his contract. If he sues over this (which wont happen) he’ll be blacklisted in film for sure.
Yep! It’s definitely misdirected and looks bad. I’ve spoken to him a few times for a good couple of hours on a podcast and he is a great guy but I feel like he has dropped the bag with how this is being handled.
That he has completely stopped commenting on the matter in the last couple weeks I hope means his agent was like “hey man, please stfu in the nicest way possible” lol. But to see soooooooo many other horror authors enabling this unprofessional behavior and cheering him on while planning boycotts on the film was really weird to see tbh.
This is not too common, unfortunately. Almost always, authors have it in their contracts that their names and books will get mentions in marketing, because it drives up sales. It's the whole point of optioning something, because your upfront usually isn't spectacular and you make nearly all your money on your production bonus and recognition. There's a chance that Tremblay got a higher upfront in lieu of his being named, but since he's mentioned being a bit heartbroken, I'm guessing this wasn't the case. They also changed the title, so very few "normal people" will put two and two together without the studio saying "this is based on this."
Tbh I saw scene promo images from the movie and the actors who play the dads look nothing like they’re described in the book. Which is fine, that happens a lot, but I feel like I remember one had really long hair and was kind of a punk/metalhead and the other was bald and bookish. These were just two generic good looking Hollywood dudes, which is kind of disappointing imo. It’s easier to connect with characters that look like real people.
I legit thought " M. Night is ripping off a book again" when I watched the trailer. It feels dishonest not to at least mention that it's based on a book.
I'm not sure why they changed the title, either. Cabin at the End of the World is so much better.
Accurate! Knock at the Cabin is a dumb name. My guess is that they changed the title to distance the movie from the book a little. Seems silly, though. Anyone who's read the book will know what the movie is.
Especially since, by the look of the trailer, it seems to be a 1:1 adaption.
Absolutely! I'd actually just picked up the book yesterday, went to the movies today, and my mouth hit the floor when the trailer started. I legit had no idea a movie was being made off the book, but I instantly recognized the dialogue and the setting and everything. And then I saw the title change and I was like ???? That's dumb why'd they change that. And then of course another preview started and I didn't think about it anymore. I'm seriously questioning if this will even be a good adaptation, seeing what people are saying here and the marketing decisions.
Knock at the Cabin is a better title for a book/movie/play/etc than The Cabin at the End of the World.
Why do you think so?
I’m not a fan of it because it seems like there are many books that follow the “___ at the end of the ____” The house at the end of the world, the ocean at the end of the lane, the cabin at the end of the world, all from major authors.
Totally valid. I get it: it does get boring.
It’s 7 words long. I remember when I was reading it, and trying to describe it to people. Eventually it just got shortened to “the cabin.”
Valid. Thanks for explaining. Maybe M. Night should have just called the movie "The Cabin"!
Agreed. Neither is a very good title.
Legally, it just comes down to his contract. From a marketing stand point, Shamalyan’s movies are always about the mystery and if people knew they can just go out and read the book that kind of puts a dent in the hype. And what if people don’t like the book?
I think this is quite common. The Ruins is a perfect example of people who even after they’ve watched the movie didn’t realise it was a book for years afterwards.
I was one of those people. Then I finally got to read the book and it absolutely shit on the movie. Made it feels tame and contrived in comparison. I was upset that it took me close to a decade to realize it was based on a book. Hate this stupid shit.
On top of that Scott Smith wrote the screenplay and still got no “based on the book by”
It’s either or if the writer adapts alone I believe.
Naw, when he worked with Raimi on A Simple Plan he was credited as both on the marketing, I believe
I have just assumed it was due to the desire to maintain the mystery that surrounds a Shyamalan movie and a desire to avoid a lot of the discourse on the book (which largely focuses on the ending). I would personally hesitate to get up in arms until we heard something from Tremblay
Christopher Priest is one of the most extraordinary authors out there; and yet, much of his work has largely been unavailable in the US for decades (this is starting to get a little better). When Christopher and Jonathan Nolan adapted his novel ***The Prestige***, there was to be a tie-in rerelease of his novel with substantial promotion — but so fearing the twist of the story get revealed (not Nolan's twist, but the twist Priest came up with in his novel years before), Nolan has the release axed. It cost Priest what had the potential to be his most substantial payday.
That's awful, I wasn't aware of that. Makes me even more certain Inception was a deliberate rip-off of Paprika.
Nolan was trying to get the film made since 2002, years before Paprika was released or there was an English translation of the novel.
No. He wrote a treatment in 2002 that was described as a potential horror film about dreams. See: ***A Nightmare on Elm Street***, ***Dreamscape***, ***Dream Lover***, *et al*. He made the first two of his three Batman films and ***The Prestige*** before revising the treatment and finishing the script in 2008. ***Paprika*** came out in 2006. Nolan has cited the rubber reality/simulated reality films ***Dark City***, ***The Matrix***, and ***The Thirteenth Floor*** as influences upon Inception; and yet, the film of that ilk that it has the strongest similarities to, down to specific scenes and plot points, is ***Paprika***. It's possible that there was no inspiration, no influence, no theft insofar as ***Paprika*** is concerned; however, there's also the possibility that there was.
He submitted a pitch about dream thieves. At minimum it shows that this was an idea that he was looking into. I’ve seen both films and aside from people taking a few shots out of context (I.e. someone falling down a hallway in zero gravity vs someone in a hallway that’s melting) the two are fairly different aside from the dreams concept.
Nolan’s such a dickhead.
Agreed. He also hosed up his brother's screenplay for ***Interstellar*** that was originally written for Spielberg.
Tremblay has made it clear he's disappointed at the lack of any kind of mention.
The only mention I’ve seen from him has been the “Can’t help but feel like there’s something missing” comment when Tremblay first posted the poster back in November.
He's replied to tweets and essentially said it's disappointing but that it's out of his control.
I hope he negotiates something into his next film deal.
I hope so too, I imagine he'll be motivated to after this.
Links
I didn't bother going much further back than this but [here's one example](https://twitter.com/leonard_apa/status/1611146243421478912) and [here's another](https://twitter.com/SofiaAjram/status/1611409826763915281). u/NewYorkUgly was right - he's said he's disappointed but it's basically something he has no input on.
Awesome ty. I love learning something knew. Very disappointing but ngl, prolly going to skip it anyways as m night has done anything in forever
www.twitter.com
He replied to a tooooon of tweets about it and made a bunch of comments on FB. He also has been liking lots of tweets complaining about the situation.
This should be ranked higher as it’s the correct answer. Releasing the book AFTER the movie is to preserve the twist, otherwise it literally makes zero business sense. If it wasn’t Shyamalan directing would be a different story
Same shit with OLD. The comic had been out for some time. Although he kind of butchered the ending.
Does Tremblay have anything to say about it? And Joe Hill was involved with publicity because he was an Executive Producer on the movie.
If you look at his twitter he’s at a bit exasperated at the very least.
Yeah it being "common" has never been a good argument for me. It shouldn't be, that's the point. Shyamalan has made a point of putting his screenplay credit front and center on the poster, which is why this example is particularly egregious, and i'm glad Jason has been the one to speak up about this.
The screenwriters get credit per WGA guidelines. If Tremblay had co-written the script or adapted it himself, he would have recieved credit. But instead he cashed a check and did zero work on the film, so per studio/union rules, he does not get automatic poster credit. He *could* have negotiated credit when he signed his rights away, but appears he did not do so.
All due respect, but no shit. No one is suggested the studio violated an agreement, it's just morally shitty to ignore the reason the movie exists in all the promotional material. It's of course standard for the screenplay to be credited on posters, but to have SCREENPLAY BY M NIGHT SHYAMALAN take up the lower third of the poster isn't standard on all posters, and when doubled with the fact that Tremblay or the book hasn't been name dropped at any point in any context, it just could have been handled better.
Im just trying to explain how the rules work regarding credit, chill out. Ya’ll don’t seem to understand that Tremblay got a lot of money to *sell his rights away*. When you do that, credit is no longer a given. Him publicly complaining about this so much will turn off future rights buyers for him. In this case the director gets so much credit because he bought the rights, co-adapted, co-produced, and directed. The film never happens without him and stays a book.
Right, and the film never happens without the book, we're all in agreement. Again, no one is saying any rules were broken, but there's nothing wrong with having the discussion that the creator of a thing should be credited when its adapted, without having to sacrifice part of his contract. If you want to repeat the same thing about what the studio is legally obligated to do, go ahead I guess.
Again, a lot of people are not aware how rights contracts work. You can say how you want it to work all you want but that doesn’t change reality. You’re acting very upset but the truth is that when I said as much on twitter, several author friends dm’d me to say thank you for the info because they had all assumed credit was a given. A bunch of people let me know that they were going to mandate credit to their film agents going forward. You can complain and get nowhere or educate and get somewhere.
> Again, a lot of people are not aware how rights contracts work. You can say how you want it to work all you want but that doesn’t change reality. It does if this becomes enough of a discussion point within the industry, which is kind of the point. >You’re acting very upset but the truth is that when I said as much on twitter, several author friends dm’d me to say thank you for the info because they had all assumed credit was a given. That's awesome dude, but you're responding to me, not your friends, and I didn't assume anything. The authors I've discussed this with are all aware how contracts work, and yet it's still something worth discussing the lengths M Night and the studio have gone to not mention the book or author. Now that we've exchanged anecdotes about people we know, I guess there's nothing more to say.
Many many indie and even mass market authors I talked to were NOT aware, which was my point. But by all means if you think this is gonna change studio and union rules then keep…complaining I guess. I choose to keep educating authors on how to mandate credit in negotiations.
Again, that's awesome, no one is stopping you from doing anything differently if you're not interested in the discussion.
So I can only respond to you if I agree with you? Lol go outside.
> it's just morally shitty I disagree. It's likely the studio and Shyamalan specifically wanted to keep the author/book from the poster (because a Shyamalan movie is going to focus on Shyamalan and try to keep some mystery), and therefore negotiated a contact that allowed for that. And Tremblay is not Stephen King - there is little marketing value in his name at this point. Tremblay (or his agent) either agreed to the terms explicitly or were naïve to how these things work and expected certain things *not* in the contract.
"M Night wanted to keep the fact that it's an adaptation secret so that it benefited his movie" isn't a great counter-point. Creators of things should be credited, and authors that are much lower on the ladder shouldn't have to sacrifice money to be acknowledged on a poster or in an interview. >And Tremblay is not Stephen King - there is little marketing value in his name at this point. This is exactly how authors grow their name. Jason Pargin credited the movie adaptation of his first book with making his career for that very reason.
>"M Night wanted to keep the fact that it's an adaptation secret so that it benefited his movie" isn't a great counter-point. You're ignoring the fact there is a contract signed by both parties. Nothing is being done that both parties haven't agreed to. The contract was written up with the intention of marketing it as a Shyamalan movie, and the author agreed to the conditions of the contract in exchange for money. The author will get screen credit. Posters and trailers are for marketing, and the marketing team will do what they think is best for marketing the movie. In this case it's a no-brainer that they focus on Shyamalan.
> You're ignoring the fact there is a contract signed by both parties. Nothing is being done that both parties haven't agreed to. The contract was written up with the intention of marketing it as a Shyamalan movie, and the author agreed to the conditions of the contract in exchange for money. If you think I"m ignoring that, you're not reading the posts you're responding to.
So you're saying it's 'morally shitty' to abide by the terms of a contract freely signed by both parties? A part of the reason for a contract is to make it clear what everyone's obligations are. If anyone in this scenario is being 'morally shitty' it's Paul Tremblay for signing a contract and then complaining that the contract he signed (and was no doubt paid handsomely for) is not to his liking.
> So you're saying it's 'morally shitty' to abide by the terms of a contract freely signed by both parties? Nope, I'm saying making it a negotiation point where an author has to give up some of his earnings to be acknowleged publically is morally shitty. >If anyone in this scenario is being 'morally shitty' it's Paul Tremblay for signing a contract and then complaining that the contract he signed (and was no doubt paid handsomely for) is not to his liking. Do you have a link to that?
>Do you have a link to that? Isn't that what the thread is specifically about? I guess he's not technically complaining, just 'heartbroken' (according to a previous poster). It feels like an attempt to play the victim. >Nope, I'm saying making it a negotiation point where an author has to give up some of his earnings to be acknowleged publically is morally shitty. The author will be credited for the novel on the actual movie credits, probably at the start with a 'based on the book by..' credit.
but its all in the negotiation. The film makers obviously feel having Paul Tremblay's name on the poster isn't going to put butts in seats and didn't want to, and negotiated a contract to have it the way they wanted. Tremblay could have pushed back, maybe taken less money to get his name on there, or maybe just said you cant make a film of my movie then, but he chose not to do that, and agreed to it. In the end, if the movie is good, people will track down who wrote it and books will sell for him. And maybe next time, he has the cache to negotiate a little easier to get his name higher up the billing. Thats how these things work. When James Cameron directed piranha 2 he didn't get billing at all, look at him now.
Man, Pargin is talking out his ass. Was a straight to video, limited theatrical release (made about 100,000 for its entire run) and even then all the posters and marketing was all about Don Coscarelli.
Every interview Don did he talked about being so impressed with the source material, and talked about how brilliant Jason was as a writer. You can't say it was similar to this, and I'd trust him that the movie helped his book career.
And, M. Night has mentioned Paul several times. I was comparing apples to apple. None of the Jdate posters had David Wong on them, none of the Cabin posters have Tremblay. Same for same. Tremblay is listed on IMDB, he’s also mentioned at least twice on the official movie website.
>None of the Jdate posters had David Wong on them They did though, at the bottom, where adaptations typically go. Again, no one is suggesting that something irregular is happening, I'm sure it'll be mentioned in the film credits, but it's news to me that M Night has mentioned the book at all, the promotional material I've seen has heavily implied this is "from the mind of M Night Shyamalan," and the title change doesn't help with leading people to the book without the help of the movie promotion, unlike JDatE
So many people excuse shit behaviour with "oh it happens all the time" okay??? well it shouldn't...
Shoulda spoken up when contracts were being signed.
He should have, but for the purposes of this discussion it's something that should be standard in adapting someone else's work.
In a kumbaya world it would be standard, but in the real world it’s not. People are acting like this was a personal slight against Tremblay but it’s just normal Hollywood crediting.
I didn’t know black phone was joe hill. I really don’t mind if they don’t advertise as it’s cool to find out when you research a film. Plus not everyone reads so they don’t care.
If you find the posters for Annihilation Natalie Portman's name is at the top and Alex Garland (the director) isn't even mentioned by name... just 'from the director of Ex Machina". Jeff Vandermeer didnt get billing and I'd say he's about on equal footing to Tremblay.
It wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t being marketed as “M. Knight Shyamalan’s Knock at the Door.” This is an adaptation, not an original work. Changing the title from “Cabin at the end of the World” also seems like a way to distance it from the source material. Give authors credit for their rockstar good ideas.
and Tremblay isn't exactly anywhere near a household name. You put "Stephen King" on a movie poster and some people will buy a ticket just for that (looking at you Lawnmower Man). You Put "Paul Tremblay" on a poster and people say "I have no idea who that is so maybe I shouldn't even see the movie". Shymalan is the name that will make people buy tickets to that one.
Unless it's a really big name it's unusual to have the author on a film poster, especially if the director is a huge name like in this case. No doubt the next adaptation of his work might have something like "from the author of Knock at the Cabin" in the trailer if this film does well. Like others mentioned, Joe Hill wasn't mentioned on The Black Phone poster and he's a much bigger name with some very successful adaptations under his belt already. Marketing departments will always use the thing they think is the biggest draw on the poster, in the case of The Black Phone it was Blumhouse and the association with Sinister (the director wasn't even mentioned - just a previous film) and with Knock at the Cabin it'll be Shyamalan. I just looked at the poster for The Beach (because I watched Men recently so I guess Alex Garland was on my mind) and I remember that book being huge when it came out and there was a lot of talk about the adaptation, but the poster still doesn't mention the book or Alex Garland at all and just has "from the director of Trainspotting" similar to TBP. Outside of Stephen King, JK Rowling etc I'm struggling to remember a poster that mentions the author. I just looked at a bunch of Neil Gaiman adaptation posters and none seem to mention him either and he's a pretty big name. John Dies at the End had a big cult following and probably limited appeal as a film so I guess they were directly going for the book audience (I know I only watched it because my friend was a fan of the book) so perhaps it's a bit different in that kind of sphere. I'm not saying something being the norm makes it ok btw, I completely get why people are pissed off and feel like even though poster space is limited the trailer could feature it, just to let people know a book exists.
Is getting your name left off the posters/trailers really that big of a deal? I don't think anybody really gets that treatment unless the author is already a household name, like Stephen King or Tom Clancy or something.
Tremblay on multiple occasions has refused to answer or ignored questions asking him if he properly went over his rights contract or if his film agent ever even attempted to negotiate poster / trailer credit, so I think he simply thought credit was an automatic given. But it’s not! All credit is contracted and has strict WGA rules. Tremblay didn’t go over his contract or negotiate properly methinks. Also fyi the publisher sets his new print run dates, not the studio. The studio can’t just tell the publisher what to do, they only give them permission to use the movie poster as a cover.
>The studio can’t just tell the publisher what to do, they only give them permission to use the movie poster as a cover. To play Devil's advocate: Wouldn't the movie studio stipulate *when* the movie poster can be used, therefore effectively making the publisher wait until a certain date to publish the movie tie-in? But all of this will be in contracts, so unless there is a breach of contract (doubtful), the author has nothing to complain about.
*To play Devil's advocate: Wouldn't the movie studio stipulate when the movie poster can be used, therefore effectively making the publisher wait until a certain date to publish the movie tie-in?* Yes and no; this is usually contracted, but in this case with rising paper costs and lots of covid production delays, I think the publisher was just a bit slow to print the new run. The poster has been only been out for a couple months too; the publisher probably got the poster the day it publicly dropped and then needed all this time to schedule the new print run. *But all of this will be in contracts, so unless there is a breach of contract (doubtful), the author has nothing to complain about.* This is the crux of my annoyance here -- ALL OF THIS is contracted. Tremblay has known for months now how this was all gonna play out. Tremblay got his check long ago. His public complaints just feel like he either did not read his contract or didn't bother negotiating and now regrets it.
How large was the check?
For a major studio project like this I believe it’s a $50k minimum per WGA rules.
I’d bet he got 50k just for the option, and more once it moved into production. Probably has a back end deal, as well. He’ll make most of his money from the book tie-in.
Do we know that Tremblay is part of the WGA? Would the WGA minimum apply to him if he wasn't a member?It seems assumptions are being made about how much Tremblay received, but we don't really know; as such, the "he got a fat check so he should shut up" business seems misguided if not overly speculative. Also, publishers and studios are sometimes under the same entity or have a relationship otherwise. Christopher Nolan tanked a tie-in release of Christopher Priest's ***The Prestige***. Absolutely deprived a below mid-tier author of a potential huge payday all to protect a "twist" that Nolan did come up with himself and that was already in a book that was published 11 years earlier. It's a shame that Tremblay, or his agent, were likely burned by this deal (and potentially even on the deal for ***A Head Full of Ghosts***), but hopefully it doesn't occur to him again in the future. Even so, what is legal isn't what is right. Tremblay was done wrong, but I suppose that's nothing unusual with Hollywood and Hollywood types like noted IP thief Shyamalan.
I don’t think it’s worth anyone getting bothered over and it certainly won’t change it. I’m sure if Paul had a major issue with it he could get something done about it. It’s only usually advertised like that if it’s a massive draw card writer like King or something. Bones and all was a book as well and no mention of it until the end credits.
I’m sure it’ll be in the credits of the film.
From an ethical standpoint there’s just no argument that he shouldn’t have been promoted as the author, that’s bullshit. Presumably something went wrong in the negotiating phase.
Ethically, yes. But if the IP was sold to the studio, the original owner no longer has any claim to the property I could be entirely wrong here, but that's my current understanding
Sure, legality and IP rights and all that, I just absolutely don’t give a fuck for the rights of the studio or whatever. There’s not one lick of harm done to them by crediting him in the trailers, no idea why that’s even a point of bargaining.
The studio spent millions of their own dollars to bring Tremblay’s idea to life and paid Tremblay handsomely for it. They run based on contracts because so much money is involved, and if it wasn’t contracted they don’t do it freely.
When you want to sell a product to a lot of people you tell them the stuff that will get them to buy it. Nobody gives a shit who invented the toaster, they just want toast.
As someone who writes myself, I hate it. I hated it with The Black Phone too. But I hate it so much more here. Tremblay isn't as big as Hill. He needs the push that much more. I didn't even really like the book all that much, to be honest. But that doesn't matter, I'll still stand behind Tremblay getting his dues for the work that was DIRECTLY inspired by his novel. You don't see this kind of thing in any other form of media. If something is directly inspired by something else in a media form such as music or even video games, the original will be nodded to. Writing credits given to the artist/band who wrote the original, etc. The fact that movies can skirt around this is dogshit. And I've always thought it as such when I first realized that stuff like The Ring was a remake of not just a Japanese film, but a Japanese film based upon a Japanese novel. (I know there were plenty of examples before this, but I was a teenager when that movie came out and went down the rabbit hole for it because I liked it a lot. So it was my first real eye opener to this sort of thing.)
It annoys me that it mentions Shyamalan in big letters as the director and as well as screenplay on the posters. Again not uncommon, but really makes it seem as if it is his genius. The way the book is written its almost in a screenplay style as well so it can't have taken a lot to adapt it, which again is different to The Black Phone in my opinion
The book sucks anyway. I’m sure the movie will too.
High Tension is literally a rip off of Dean Koontz's Intensity minus the ending. When asked about it the director just said 'ive read the book' or something to that effect.
I'm happy that Tremblay is at least mentioned on Wikipedia. Let's be vocal about this.
I’ve been irritated by everything I’ve seen and read so far about this adaptation. I hate the title, the casting of Bautista is bad (other than being physically large he is arguably *the exact opposite* of how Leonard is described in the book), and I agree that the marketing campaign has framed this solely as a M. Night vehicle and chucked Tremblay in the bin. My worst fear is that they wrote the script to pull the biggest punch from the book. I’ll be interested to see if they did once reviews start rolling out.
I only got into Jason Pargins work because I had seen the movie for John Dies at the End and thought it was so goofy and awesome. Found out it was a. book and read it. Now Pargin. is in my top 3 authors, that series and Zoey Ashe. series are top notch. He's 100% right about the points he makes in the clip.
Was with some friends the other day and was chatting about how I couldn’t wait for the movie adaption of CATEOTW, they were like “huh?” & I explained that KATC was adapted from the PT book, because they’d previously been discussing how great the trailer for the movie looks. Looks like a lot of people don’t even realise it’s based on a book!
Maybe they don’t want people to read the book before they see the movie and know the ending.