This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You are correct, that makes a lot of sense. More familiarity with the process as well. But I'd think the most important thing is having two producers (directors, studios, whatever and etc.) interested in the work. One guy wants to make a movie of your book, you get what's "fair;" two guys want to compete to make a movie of your book you have a bidding war.
Michael Lewis also spoke at my sister's graduation, so I've followed his writing pretty closely, but less so the movies. I never recall hearing anything about the book prior to the movie, where Moneyball and Liar's Poker and The Big Short were huge successes and cultural landmarks prior to their respective films. The Blind Side was sort of an also ran as a book.
Possibly relevant: on another forum someone mentioned that Oher was in college when the book was written/published. NCAA rules would have prohibited him from benefitting from the book during that time. This may have impacted the later distribution of rights based on the book. So because Oher probably didn't/couldn't get revenue from the book, he would not have gotten part of the book rights, his rights in the film would have had to be a more general "life rights" agreement. But the filmmakers may not have pursued that, given that they had the rights to the book in hand. Maybe a sufficiently zealous advocate manages to carve out some money for Oher, but that seems like a tiny slight to sue over.
It's an interesting theory but the timing doesn't work out. The conservatorship started in 2004, and it's doubtful that there would be any indication that not only would a book that featured him be written by a prominent writer but that that book would be turned into a movie. He wouldn't have needed to sign over publicity rights for a book because he wouldn't have been entitled to any money from it, and there's no indication that he made any money. It's certainly not customary for publishers that aren't tabloids to offer cash to people whose stories they make money off of. In any event, even if NCAA rules prohibited him from making money directly, it's unlikely that they would be interpreted that a conservator would be allowed to make money on his behalf. Even if that were the case, it would make more sense to establish a trust for his benefit that to go full-blown conservatorship, since a trust doesn't require court approval.
This wouldn't relate to the creation of the conservatorship, but instead to why Oher would not receive proceeds from the film (which came out in 2009) based on the book (which came out in 2006). Oher remained NCAA eligible to my knowledge until 2008, and would not have been able to sign any contract to profit from his name image or life story without losing eligibility. The other family members were under no such constraints.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were implying that they created the conservatorship to skirt NCAA rules because the conservator would be receiving the proceeds on paper.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link