Netflix buys Roald Dahl

[Bad Ambassador]

Ooh, first topic started in SA.

Netflix has purchased the Roald Dahl Story Company, meaning it now owns all of the author's work and all related properties, allowing them to make new adaptations, games, live shows, merchandising etc.

It's basically what Disney did with Lucasfilm, but this feels like a more serious issue. The idea of a studio owning an author's entire ouvre to exploit as they see fit makes me uneasy in a way that it didn't with Star Wars because obviously not. There's no reason to assume it'll all be a cavalcade of shit, since Netflix has a good reputation for giving artists free reign with their projects, but it doesn't feel like a step forward.

Thoughts?

[Fambo Number Mive]

Does this mean they have control over the children's gallery in Aylesbury and the museum in Great Missenden? Went to the former when I was a child, never been to the latter

[Bad Ambassador]

Does this mean they have control over the children's gallery in Aylesbury and the museum in Great Missenden? Went to the former when I was a child, never been to the latter

It owns the books and connected copyrights and IP, but nothing else. Also, not his work for adult readers, so we wouldn't get something we could be happy with, which is a reboot of Tales of the Unexpected with Netflix cash behind it.

[Retinend]

So Disney made James and the Giant Peach, which I watched as a child in the cinema, and remember as being very good, ages ago in 1996. It didn't make much money.

In retrospect it was a forerunner in style to Disney subsidiary 20 Century Fox's 2009 adaptation of Fantastic Mr Fox.  In spite of good reviews (it being a good film), it also didn't seem to make much money.

Matilda was in 1996 and made by Sony Pictures AKA Columbia.  I'll bet the time is ripe to remake this one (I'm reminded of how Warner Brothers did this recently with The Witches). This film looms large in the nostalgic imagination of lots of women of my generation (now over 30) and they would definitely be interested in a new take on it.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Tim Burton was also Warner Brothers. That was a massive commercial success, although a terrible film.

Disney made a film of the BFG in 2016, which seems to have done well for itself.

So all in all, I think they are making a wise investment... they can dig into some of the lesser-known stuff, like The Twits, George's Marvelous Medicine, and, of course, the demented sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.

edit: for a slight misunderstanding

[Huxleys Babkins]

Also, not his work for adult readers, so we wouldn't get something we could be happy with, which is a reboot of Tales of the Unexpected with Netflix cash behind it.

Shame. We could have got a 4K version of the intro where you could actually see her nipples.

[idunnosomename]

The Twits origin story

Separate movies for the the giraffe, the pelly and the Muggle-Wump

Hints dropped throughout about the importance of Wonka Corp

The witches and giants threaten the multiverse so original Quentin Blake Wonka (CG), Johnny Depp Wonka and Gene Wilder Wonka (deep fake) have to use all their technological genius to stop them in the gripping anthology finale

[Mister Six]

There's no reason to assume it'll all be a cavalcade of shit, since Netflix has a good reputation for giving artists free reign with their projects, but it doesn't feel like a step forward.

Thoughts?

Netflix's original stuff has been mostly dismal for years now. The days of BoJack Horseman etc, just flinging anything at the wall - plenty of it good/offbeat - and seeing what sticks is gone. There's still good stuff here and there, often stuff made independently of Netflix but bought up for distribution rights (The Mitchells Vs The Machines is a little cracker, for example), but much of the output seems to follow the model of "Hire a couple of big-name actors, then cobble together a film with what you have left." The flicks are frequently ugly and underwritten, and...

...ugh, god, I hate myself for saying this, but...

...Netflix has clearly realised that the bulk of its target market is teens and early-mid twentysomethings for whom things like cinematography and coherent scripting are unknowns, and pandering wokeness by (mostly white, male, cis etc) writers and execs trumps everything. So all they need to do is crap out a gender/racebent version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where the elderly grandparents are shown to be mendacious idiots and the young kids are brilliant guardians of the future who help the Oompah-Loompahs overthrow Willy Wonka[nb]But not as fucking great as that sounds.[/nb] and their target audience will be happy.

If the company had been bought by HBO Max or even Hulu, I might be more hopeful (not up to date on Amazon's stuff, but their Patriot/Man in the High Castle days are long behind them, sadly).

[popcorn]

Disney made a film of the BFG in 2016, which seems to have done well for itself.

Not sure it did well enough. It was directed by Steven Spielberg and sorta bombed comparatively speaking.

[Mister Six]

Matilda was in 1996 and made by Sony Pictures AKA Columbia.  I'll bet Disney is itching to remake this one (like Warner Brothers did recently with The Witches). This film looms large in the nostalgic imagination of lots of women of my generation (now over 30) and they would definitely take their children to this.

They might do an adaptation of the Broadway musical by Tim Minchin, which I believe is still going, although that would require additional expenditure, so maybe not.

[Retinend]

Not sure it did well enough. It was directed by Steven Spielberg and sorta bombed comparatively speaking.

Thanks for the correction. I was basing that on the respectable box office takings I saw ($200k), but looking again, compared to its budget ($140k) it was indeed a bomb.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

fab can't wait for a NetflixOriginalSeries tales of the unexpected but with like tits and bums or whatever

[chveik]

Patriot/Man in the High Castle days are long behind them, sadly

and even then, Patriot's second series was disappointing, and their PK Dick adaptation was imo a misinterpretation, turning an exploration of history and counterfactuals into a resistance narrative.

i dunno how it works but even though they're supposed to throw a shitload of money at projects, the most ambitious ones still look pretty cheap (see Sense8). maybe it's a bigger problem than netflix, something rotten about the streaming age, capable of entertainment but not of greatness

[gilbertharding]

I thought Ronald Dahl had been cancelled for his racism and misogyny. Ah well.

[H-O-W-L]

So Disney made James and the Giant Peach, which I watched as a child in the cinema, and remember as being very good, ages ago in 1996. It didn't make much money.

Matilda was in 1996 and made by Sony Pictures AKA Columbia.  I'll bet the time is ripe to remake this one (I'm reminded of how Warner Brothers did this recently with The Witches). This film looms large in the nostalgic imagination of lots of women of my generation (now over 30) and they would definitely be interested in a new take on it.

To be fair I'm (presumably?) much younger than you and I grew up with these works too. I think Matilda still holds up. Danny Devito directed it and produced and handled it with such clear care.

[PlanktonSideburns]

Can't wait for Switch Bitch in the style of Riverdale

[Retinend]

To be fair I'm (presumably?) much younger than you and I grew up with these works too. I think Matilda still holds up. Danny Devito directed it and produced and handled it with such clear care.

"much younger"

As it happens, I'm just a few years older than you. And I agree it holds up - it doesn't need a remake, but I'm resigned to the fact that it will happen.

[Jerzy Bondov]

That Spielberg BFG was shite

[bgmnts]

I liked James and the Giant Peach and even Mathilda.

I would like to see The Twits adapted by 'flix.

[Mister Six]

and even then, Patriot's second series was disappointing, and their PK Dick adaptation was imo a misinterpretation, turning an exploration of history and counterfactuals into a resistance narrative.

i dunno how it works but even though they're supposed to throw a shitload of money at projects, the most ambitious ones still look pretty cheap (see Sense8). maybe it's a bigger problem than netflix, something rotten about the streaming age, capable of entertainment but not of greatness

I suspect a lot of it is about the execs not necessarily being interested in/from a background in visual arts, and just tossing money at stuff that sounds like it might do well (not so much with early Amazon, because Patriot actually is a fucking weird show), and then leaning heavily on algorithm analysis to tailor "products" for their market, rather than commissioning stuff that treads new ground. Thank fuck for HBO.

[popcorn]

Off-topic, but this is a fascinating account of the localisation fuckups in Man in the High Castle: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/aim-higher-localization-donts-from-man-high-castle-agness-kaku/

[Replies From View]

Thank fuck for HBO.

Does everyone here apart from me have an HBO subscription?  I completely lack the finances all these companies seem to assume we have.

[popcorn]

Does everyone here apart from me have an HBO subscription?  I completely lack the finances all these companies seem to assume we have.

but you never miss an episode of Sex and the City. ?

[Rainbow Moses]

I thought Ronald Dahl had been cancelled for his racism and misogyny. Ah well.

I doubt there's anything Netflix can't just rewrite or write out. The franchise will be a separate phenomenon from the books (and from Dahl).

[Gurke and Hare]

When books are licensed for a film adaptation, is there typically a time-limited exclusivity to the license? So that, for example, Netflix couldn't now do their own BFG for a few years if they wanted to?

[Mister Six]

Does everyone here apart from me have an HBO subscription?  I completely lack the finances all these companies seem to assume we have.

Well, me, obviously. HBO Max, actually, which I wish they'd roll out outside of the Americas, the incompetent dunces.

[Replies From View]

I doubt there's anything Netflix can't just rewrite or write out. The franchise will be a separate phenomenon from the books (and from Dahl).

You mean they might not treat Fantastic Mr Nonce as canon?

[Replies From View]

but you never miss an episode of Sex and the City. ?

I know and they keep churning new ones out all the time.

[Retinend]

Oh, apparently Netflix did this deal in 2018? Although it's been in the news recently, it's referenced in this article: https://time.com/5937507/roald-dahl-anti-semitism/

[Theremin]

Oh, apparently Netflix did this deal in 2018? Although it's been in the news recently, it's referenced in this article: https://time.com/5937507/roald-dahl-anti-semitism/

That link name makes me think they're adapting Roald Dahl's The Protocols of The Elders Of Zion

[Ignatius_S]

When books are licensed for a film adaptation, is there typically a time-limited exclusivity to the license? So that, for example, Netflix couldn't now do their own BFG for a few years if they wanted to?

Usually, it's the option someone takes out on a book that is time-limited. That gives exclusive rights for a certain amount of time, which they can potentially extend. Going from memory, if they then want to make a film out of it, they have to pay to purchase the rights to then do so. The option gives time to work out if an adaptation can be done and the next step of exercising the option is done when it's viable.

I suspect there will cases that there may be some sort of deal struck to the option is being exercised that they won't license the rights again within a certain timeframe but suspect in a lot of cases it doesn't make sense to do another film quickly. If the film was a big hit, for example, that's going to be a massive act for someone else to follow.

One of my friends had a television script optioned by a TV star's production company, but they couldn't get a channel interested - or rather, the sticking point was it was a one-off drama and at the time, commissioners weren't interested in those. They got some money for the option but the big thing was that they were able to get an agent because of the option.