Aaron Sorkin's TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Adaptation to premiere on Broadway December 13, 2018 — Page 4

haha yeah the West Wing was SO low-brow lol

newintown said: ""Casting adults as the children is not a gimmick, it is a viable directorial choice..."

You say "eether" and I say "either."

Personally, I have no objection tothe actions here of this(problematic) estate; I confess that I also have absolutely no interest in an "adaptation" of thisgreat novel by a low-brow TV writer like Sorkin, attempting to "fix" the novel's "problems." If you wantTo Kill A Mockingbird, try picking up the book and reading it. If you want a play that's only somewhat similar toMockingbird, write your own story."

I'm curious what you mean by "problematic." As to the rest of what you write, it's basically irrelevant , and I'd also note that the estate has never suggested the issue has to do with the age of any actor.

The estate has no argument on changing the perception of Atticus after they published GO SET A WATCHMAN.

IdinaBellFoster said: "The estate has no argument on changing the perception of Atticusafter they published GO SET A WATCHMAN."

Well... sure they do. Go Set a Watchman is a different property by the same author. Not a direct adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird by someone contracted to be faithful to it.

"So now that we know that newintown has some weird personal beef with Aaron Sorkin..."

Never met the guy. I don't think I even know anyone who has met him. My "beef" is purely aesthetic. If you are able to comprehend such an idea.

Oh, yes, with Chenoweth, it's definitely personal.

I’m mostly immune to Sorkin’s talents, so I’m open to criticisms of his aesthetic—but his writing doesn’t really fit the definition of lowbrow. He’s not doing anything brilliant or revolutionary—but he’s not exactly making “The Big Bang Theory” either. Middlebrow would probably be the most appropriate term for his style.

His writing is often intelligent, the characters he creates are convincingly articulate and cultured, he has a distinctive voice, and his work generally doesn’t appeal to the lowest common denominator. That they're usually not my cup of tea is beside the point.

I’d use lowbrow to describe the writers of most sitcoms and most of those endless crime/forensics shows. Some of them are decent entertainment, but they never make any attempts to deviate from the formula or elevate the material.

1) Ah, yes, Lee was still alive upon the publication (dying 6 months later); however, she was not in full possession of her faculties, and the controversy about that situation is well known to all, and there's no need to revisit it here. Suffice it to say, there is undeniable controversy about the actions of those who were handling her between her sister's death and her own, and who now control the estate.

2) No one but you is talking about Watchman having anything to do with the contract for this show; you're conflating two different topics.

3) No one seems to think otherwise, as far as I can tell.

4) "Side agendas," whatever they may be, are as much a part of this site's raison d'etre as anything else.

Updated On: 3/15/18 at 02:28 PM

newintown said: "KAd wrote: "Well... sure they do. Go Set a Watchman is a different property by the same author.Not a direct adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird by someone contracted to be faithful to it."

I think thepoint of that comment was that many people (including those close to Lee) believed that theestate was essentially robbing Lee's grave, against her stated wishes, in order to fill their coffers.

This is that same old conversation that pops up here frequently; there are some who seem to believe that, because creative artists' estates have the legal right to do whatever they want with thework of the dead, then that automatically bestows not only a moral right to do whatever they want, but aesthetic quality and integrity as well."

I should have been more precise, but newintown is correct. Obviously the estate has the rights to whatever their contractual agreement is with Sorkin/Rudin, but in regards to the character's integrity, they were the first to tarnish it.

newintown said: "1) Ah, yes, Leewasstill alive upon the publication (dying 6 months later); however, she was not in full possession of her faculties, and the controversy about thatsituation is well known to all, and there's no need to revisit it here. Suffice it to say, there is undeniable controversy about the actions of those who were handling her between her sister's death andher own, and who now control the estate.

Even a minor amount of effort on your part would reveal that there is NO consensus on this, your absolute pronouncement notwithstanding.

2) No one but you is talking about Watchman having anything to do with the contract for this show; you're conflating two different topics.

The response was to #80. Read that and I think you'll correct yourself.

3) No one seems to think otherwise, as far as I can tell.
see #2 above.


4) "Side agendas," whatever they may be, are as much a part of this site'sraison d'etreas anything else."

Agree but I don't have to like it.

If they put the kibosh on this and insist on production only of the banal "licensed" adaptation without allowing a new one, the production will fail, and people will likely assume the story "just can't be adapted well."

Then, in a few decades, expect a "Wild Party" situation of multiple dueling adaptations released simultaneously when the book lapses into public domain. (As a matter of fact, expect that in a couple years over "Great Gatsby." I wonder which luminaries are already working on adaptations in secret as we speak?)

10086sunset said: "Whether or not she knew she was actively engaging seems to be the real question. It has been reported that she spent her final years at an assisted living facility in a wheelchair, nearly deaf and nearly blind."

Yes there are those reports and there have also been reports from people who engaged with her during this period that she was not impaired. (As I stated earlier, these people include Rudin.) But regardless, that is not the "real question" because if she was not competent to enter into a contract, then the contract is void and Rudin gets back his $100k and has no rights to the property. Stated differently, I am certain that is not a position Rudin wants to pursue.