Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
why are there two novelizations of "Capricorn One"?
242 views
Skip to first unread message
William December Starr
Jun 29, 2013, 9:17:55 AM6/29/13
to
"Capricorn One" was a 1978 movie about a NASA conspiracy to fake a
manned landing on Mars, and to then, when things went wrong, cover
it up by trying to kill the three astronauts and anybody else who
might spill the beans. It was... well, for what it was, it was what
it was.
The story and screenplay by Peter Hyams (who also directed the
movie) were original; there was no prior novel that it was adapted
from. I'd long been aware of Ron Goulart's novelization:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?863882
Title: Capricorn One ISFDB Title Record # 863882
Author: Ron Goulart
Year: 1978
Type: NOVEL
Publications:
* Capricorn One, (Oct 1978, Ron Goulart, publ. Fawcett Gold Medal,
0-449-14024-5, 189pp, pb)
(ISFDB output trimmed down a bit there, because we really don't care
about a Dutch translation from 1979.)
...but I just recently learned that there was also a second,
separate, novelization, also published in 1978:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?863881
Title: Capricorn One ISFDB Title Record # 863881
Author: Bernard L. Ross
Year: 1978
Variant Title of: Capricorn One (by Ken Follett )
Publications:
* Capricorn One, (1978, Bernard L. Ross, publ. Arthur Barker,
0-213-16698-4, 219pp, hc)
* Capricorn One, (1978, Bernard L. Ross, publ. Futura,
0-86007-584-2, £0.80, 219pp, pb) - [VERIFIED]
(Yes, "Bernard L. Ross" was actually Ken Follett. I'm guessing that
he did this, or at least the contractual paperwork for it, just
before he started to hit it big under his own name with books like
_The Eye of the Needle_ (1978), _Triple_ (1979), and _The Key to
Rebecca_ (1980).)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
says:
Two novelizations of the film were written and published
by separate authors. The first was written by Ken
Follett (written under the pseudonym Bernard L. Ross)
and published in the United Kingdom, the other written
by Ron Goulart and published in the United States.
...but that doesn't really explain _why_ there are two separate
novelizations out there. Does anybody know what happened?
-- wds
manned landing on Mars, and to then, when things went wrong, cover
it up by trying to kill the three astronauts and anybody else who
might spill the beans. It was... well, for what it was, it was what
it was.
The story and screenplay by Peter Hyams (who also directed the
movie) were original; there was no prior novel that it was adapted
from. I'd long been aware of Ron Goulart's novelization:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?863882
Title: Capricorn One ISFDB Title Record # 863882
Author: Ron Goulart
Year: 1978
Type: NOVEL
Publications:
* Capricorn One, (Oct 1978, Ron Goulart, publ. Fawcett Gold Medal,
0-449-14024-5, 189pp, pb)
(ISFDB output trimmed down a bit there, because we really don't care
about a Dutch translation from 1979.)
...but I just recently learned that there was also a second,
separate, novelization, also published in 1978:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?863881
Title: Capricorn One ISFDB Title Record # 863881
Author: Bernard L. Ross
Year: 1978
Variant Title of: Capricorn One (by Ken Follett )
Publications:
* Capricorn One, (1978, Bernard L. Ross, publ. Arthur Barker,
0-213-16698-4, 219pp, hc)
* Capricorn One, (1978, Bernard L. Ross, publ. Futura,
0-86007-584-2, £0.80, 219pp, pb) - [VERIFIED]
(Yes, "Bernard L. Ross" was actually Ken Follett. I'm guessing that
he did this, or at least the contractual paperwork for it, just
before he started to hit it big under his own name with books like
_The Eye of the Needle_ (1978), _Triple_ (1979), and _The Key to
Rebecca_ (1980).)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
says:
Two novelizations of the film were written and published
by separate authors. The first was written by Ken
Follett (written under the pseudonym Bernard L. Ross)
and published in the United Kingdom, the other written
by Ron Goulart and published in the United States.
...but that doesn't really explain _why_ there are two separate
novelizations out there. Does anybody know what happened?
-- wds
Brenda Clough
Jun 29, 2013, 12:01:53 PM6/29/13
to
issues with the authors. Author 1 wrote it, the suits didn't like it,
but his contract allowed him to get out of rewriting it. So to get a
novelization the suits had to hire Author 2. Years pass; everybody
involved is dead or has moved on; the suits are still sitting on novel 1
and somebody decides to send it out into the world to rattle its tin cup
and garner what pennies it can.
The other would solely focus around Hollywood assholery. The right hand
didn't know what the left hand was doing and two novels were commissioned.
Or, the movie was with studio A for years, and they set up a
novelization; then the contract moved to studio B and they hired another
novelization either from ignorance or dislike of the first book. You
could fold studios C, D and E in as well, if you wanted more excitement,
plot convultion and red herrings.
Or, and this one I like best, it was the actors. The star didn't like
novel 1 and had the power to force the creation of novel 2.
Brenda
--
My latest novel SPEAK TO OUR DESIRES is available exclusively from Book
View Cafe.
http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Brenda-Clough/Novels/Speak-to-Our-Desires-Chapter-01
J. Clarke
Jun 29, 2013, 12:48:53 PM6/29/13
to
In article <kqn03s$7gt$1...@dont-email.me>, Brenda...@yahoo.com says...
> > 0-86007-584-2, ￜ0.80, 219pp, pb) - [VERIFIED]
Or a third possibility--someone decided that different novelizations
were needed for US and UK audiences.
were needed for US and UK audiences.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jun 29, 2013, 1:14:44 PM6/29/13
to
In article <kqmmq3$o4c$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
Why was "Rubber Sole" different in the UK and US markets? It pretty clearly
sounds like a national rights issue and that whoever was responsible for
the UK rights decided to go with a separate contract (or vice versa).
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
sounds like a national rights issue and that whoever was responsible for
the UK rights decided to go with a separate contract (or vice versa).
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Kurt Busiek
Jun 29, 2013, 1:46:31 PM6/29/13
to
> I can offer you two hypotheses. One would revolve around contractual
> issues with the authors. Author 1 wrote it, the suits didn't like it,
> but his contract allowed him to get out of rewriting it. So to get a
> novelization the suits had to hire Author 2. Years pass; everybody
> involved is dead or has moved on; the suits are still sitting on novel
> 1 and somebody decides to send it out into the world to rattle its tin
> cup and garner what pennies it can.
Since they were both published the same year, that doesn't hold up.
> issues with the authors. Author 1 wrote it, the suits didn't like it,
> but his contract allowed him to get out of rewriting it. So to get a
> novelization the suits had to hire Author 2. Years pass; everybody
> involved is dead or has moved on; the suits are still sitting on novel
> 1 and somebody decides to send it out into the world to rattle its tin
> cup and garner what pennies it can.
> The other would solely focus around Hollywood assholery. The right hand
> didn't know what the left hand was doing and two novels were
> commissioned.
> Or, the movie was with studio A for years, and they set up a
> novelization; then the contract moved to studio B and they hired
> another novelization either from ignorance or dislike of the first
> book. You could fold studios C, D and E in as well, if you wanted more
> excitement, plot convultion and red herrings.
> Or, and this one I like best, it was the actors. The star didn't like
> novel 1 and had the power to force the creation of novel 2.
neither novel was suppressed in favor of the other.
My guess would be that it was a contract issue, but with the studio and
distributor, not with the authors.
The rights were bought by Lew Grade's ITC, and they wound up with
novelization rights. They made a distribution deal with Warner Bros.,
and they wound up with novelization rights too, either due to an
oversight or because for whatever reason, they both wanted them and
agreed to split them like that.
So ITC licensed a British novelization and Warners licensed an American one.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
lal_truckee
Jun 29, 2013, 3:31:44 PM6/29/13
to
On 6/29/13 6:17 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> "Capricorn One"
> "Capricorn One"
> Does anybody know what happened?
>
Missing the important questions:
>
Is there anyone here who has read either?
Is one substantially better than the other?
ppint. at pplay
Jun 29, 2013, 4:15:24 PM6/29/13
to
- hi; in article, <b38j04...@mid.individual.net>,
t...@loft.tnolan.com "Ted Nolan <tednolan>" asked [0]:
label as the beatles and george martin intended the
lp to be. emi's wholly-owned, but separately-run
merkin subsidiary, capitol records, had a history
of differing from their uk owners on the beatles -
not bothering to pick up the rights to their first
few singles (which allowed these to be taken by
far smaller merkin labels, including v-j records),
was still in the habit of putting five tracks a
side on lps rather than the uk tradition of ~six,
and regarding lps as naturally containing two a-
sides ("and eight b-sides!") of singles, not the
the carefully ordered - programmed - sequence of
a dozen pieces of music, all of high quality and
intended to contrast in mood and key, the beatles
and their producer jointly were now designing and
putting together. (the same is true of perhaps
their best "traditional" album, "revolver", and
also - and to an order of magnitude more so - of
"sergeant pepper's lonely hearts club band"; but
by then their merkin record company's management'd
caught up with them, and released those lps whole.)
>It pretty clearly sounds like a national rights issue and that whoever
>was responsible for the UK rights decided to go with a separate contract
>(or vice versa).
- uk lps had often contained seven tracks a side,
but the beatles' track lengths were beginning to
creep up above the 2'30" to 3' of the merkin single
track, which had been largely dictated by what the
program-managers of radio stations were prepared to
play-list. things were rather different in the uk,
with most pop music air-play being via the evening
service of the boosted power of radio luxemburg's
transmittter (and in the mid-sixties, from ships
anchored just outside british territorial waters,
and not subject to hmg's radio licencing & control).
the content of these radio stations' programming
was to a greater or lesser extent controlled by the
uk record companies - in radio luxemburg's case, by
the "big five" major record companies, as minimum
time-slots sponsorable were for a regular half-hour
show, that small record companies could not afford.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
[0] - "I like rhetorical questions;
I usually get them right."
- joann l.dominik, 6/95
t...@loft.tnolan.com "Ted Nolan <tednolan>" asked [0]:
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>[..]
>>...but that doesn't really explain _why_ there are two separate
>>novelizations out there. Does anybody know what happened?
>
>Why was "Rubber Sole" different in the UK and US markets?
- "rubber soul" was released on emi's parlophone
>>novelizations out there. Does anybody know what happened?
>
>Why was "Rubber Sole" different in the UK and US markets?
label as the beatles and george martin intended the
lp to be. emi's wholly-owned, but separately-run
merkin subsidiary, capitol records, had a history
of differing from their uk owners on the beatles -
not bothering to pick up the rights to their first
few singles (which allowed these to be taken by
far smaller merkin labels, including v-j records),
was still in the habit of putting five tracks a
side on lps rather than the uk tradition of ~six,
and regarding lps as naturally containing two a-
sides ("and eight b-sides!") of singles, not the
the carefully ordered - programmed - sequence of
a dozen pieces of music, all of high quality and
intended to contrast in mood and key, the beatles
and their producer jointly were now designing and
putting together. (the same is true of perhaps
their best "traditional" album, "revolver", and
also - and to an order of magnitude more so - of
"sergeant pepper's lonely hearts club band"; but
by then their merkin record company's management'd
caught up with them, and released those lps whole.)
>It pretty clearly sounds like a national rights issue and that whoever
>was responsible for the UK rights decided to go with a separate contract
>(or vice versa).
but the beatles' track lengths were beginning to
creep up above the 2'30" to 3' of the merkin single
track, which had been largely dictated by what the
program-managers of radio stations were prepared to
play-list. things were rather different in the uk,
with most pop music air-play being via the evening
service of the boosted power of radio luxemburg's
transmittter (and in the mid-sixties, from ships
anchored just outside british territorial waters,
and not subject to hmg's radio licencing & control).
the content of these radio stations' programming
was to a greater or lesser extent controlled by the
uk record companies - in radio luxemburg's case, by
the "big five" major record companies, as minimum
time-slots sponsorable were for a regular half-hour
show, that small record companies could not afford.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
[0] - "I like rhetorical questions;
I usually get them right."
- joann l.dominik, 6/95
abc
Jun 30, 2013, 4:50:16 AM6/30/13
to
Not that I have read either but it's hard to imagine anything different.
abc
John Savard
Jun 30, 2013, 6:53:01 AM6/30/13
to
On 29 Jun 2013 09:17:55 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
Starr) wrote, in part:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
>says:
>
> Two novelizations of the film were written and published
> by separate authors. The first was written by Ken
> Follett (written under the pseudonym Bernard L. Ross)
> and published in the United Kingdom, the other written
> by Ron Goulart and published in the United States.
>
>...but that doesn't really explain _why_ there are two separate
>novelizations out there. Does anybody know what happened?
I'd say that _is_ likely to be the reason why. For whatever reason, one
of the two novelizations may have been felt to have some shortcomings
with respect to sales in the other market. The British one could have
contained errors about things American, or (as I suspect is more likely
to be the case) the American one could have relied upon too much
familiarity with things American.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
Starr) wrote, in part:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
>says:
>
> Two novelizations of the film were written and published
> by separate authors. The first was written by Ken
> Follett (written under the pseudonym Bernard L. Ross)
> and published in the United Kingdom, the other written
> by Ron Goulart and published in the United States.
>
>...but that doesn't really explain _why_ there are two separate
>novelizations out there. Does anybody know what happened?
of the two novelizations may have been felt to have some shortcomings
with respect to sales in the other market. The British one could have
contained errors about things American, or (as I suspect is more likely
to be the case) the American one could have relied upon too much
familiarity with things American.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
Robert Carnegie
Jun 30, 2013, 7:55:38 AM6/30/13
to
On Sunday, 30 June 2013 09:50:16 UTC+1, abc wrote:
Early Follett, too.
Nevertheless:
<http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3584107-capricorn-one> (Follett)
<http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1310225.Capricorn_One> (Goulart)
imply that both are transcribed straight from the film script, but
Mr. Follett may have produced the better novel, as (somewhat) more
than lines of dialogue and directed action. But I daresay Ron Goulart
was faster.
> lal_truckee wrote:
> > Missing the important questions:
> > Is there anyone here who has read either?
> > Is one substantially better than the other?
>
> The one by Ken Follet is about a thousand times better.
> Not that I have read either but it's hard to imagine anything different.
Follett.
> > Missing the important questions:
> > Is there anyone here who has read either?
> > Is one substantially better than the other?
>
> The one by Ken Follet is about a thousand times better.
> Not that I have read either but it's hard to imagine anything different.
Early Follett, too.
Nevertheless:
<http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3584107-capricorn-one> (Follett)
<http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1310225.Capricorn_One> (Goulart)
imply that both are transcribed straight from the film script, but
Mr. Follett may have produced the better novel, as (somewhat) more
than lines of dialogue and directed action. But I daresay Ron Goulart
was faster.
John Savard
Jun 30, 2013, 2:28:00 PM6/30/13
to
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:46:31 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote,
in part:
>My guess would be that it was a contract issue, but with the studio and
>distributor, not with the authors.
>
>The rights were bought by Lew Grade's ITC, and they wound up with
>novelization rights. They made a distribution deal with Warner Bros.,
>and they wound up with novelization rights too, either due to an
>oversight or because for whatever reason, they both wanted them and
>agreed to split them like that.
>
>So ITC licensed a British novelization and Warners licensed an American one.
Although this isn't something I would have thought of, it does sound
very plausible as an explanation.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
in part:
>My guess would be that it was a contract issue, but with the studio and
>distributor, not with the authors.
>
>The rights were bought by Lew Grade's ITC, and they wound up with
>novelization rights. They made a distribution deal with Warner Bros.,
>and they wound up with novelization rights too, either due to an
>oversight or because for whatever reason, they both wanted them and
>agreed to split them like that.
>
>So ITC licensed a British novelization and Warners licensed an American one.
very plausible as an explanation.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
mim...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2013, 10:24:58 AM7/1/13
to
Perfectly skillful and straightforward.
I was disappointed because it wasn't a GOULART novel per se, eg, perfectly lunatical.
--
Since when is a mechanical cow
an act of God?
< Goulart
Joe Pfeiffer
Jul 2, 2013, 7:26:35 PM7/2/13
to
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
> On 2013-06-29 16:01:53 +0000, Brenda Clough <Brenda...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>> I can offer you two hypotheses. One would revolve around
>> contractual issues with the authors. Author 1 wrote it, the suits
>> didn't like it, but his contract allowed him to get out of rewriting
>> it. So to get a novelization the suits had to hire Author 2. Years
>> pass; everybody involved is dead or has moved on; the suits are
>> still sitting on novel 1 and somebody decides to send it out into
>> the world to rattle its tin cup and garner what pennies it can.
>
> Since they were both published the same year, that doesn't hold up.
Is the "Year:" field the year it was actually published, or the
> On 2013-06-29 16:01:53 +0000, Brenda Clough <Brenda...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>> I can offer you two hypotheses. One would revolve around
>> contractual issues with the authors. Author 1 wrote it, the suits
>> didn't like it, but his contract allowed him to get out of rewriting
>> it. So to get a novelization the suits had to hire Author 2. Years
>> pass; everybody involved is dead or has moved on; the suits are
>> still sitting on novel 1 and somebody decides to send it out into
>> the world to rattle its tin cup and garner what pennies it can.
>
> Since they were both published the same year, that doesn't hold up.
copyright date?
Kurt Busiek
Jul 2, 2013, 7:46:21 PM7/2/13
to
opened in the US, the Follett late in the year, before the movie came
out in the UK.
Ahasuerus
Jul 2, 2013, 10:55:36 PM7/2/13
to
0 new messages