Tina Fey is a Mean Girl

I am with Roaslind Wiseman on this one. She was fucked. Hard.

Tina Fey isn't a mean girl. Rosalind is a dumb shit who made a bad deal and is now bitching about it.

"In signing her original contract, Wiseman signed away in perpetuity all rights to original motion pictures and derivative works, including musicals and TV projects — although she said there was no discussion of any other projects at the time."

You just know Paramount cooked those books. Studios do it all the time to fuck others out of backend deals.

$17M budget, let’s est. $20M marketing and PR, throw in $5M for misc. expenses

$130M BO

That leaves $88M let’s say other deductions of 40% to theater owners, you’re left with $52M

That’s not counting Home video etc

R2 yes but that they made NO profit is bullshit and you know it

Every girl under the age of 30 owned that DVD

Tina is so full of shit and fake feminist. She’s just using the culture of the moment to further her own bank account.

Aren't there many stories of Fey being a cunt? And not just for allowing her talentless fuck husband write the awful score for the Mean Girls musical?

BUT, if the writer signed away all other rights, indeed, she has a shit lawyer. Who was also short sighted.

But Fey has taken all credit for the mean Girls brand, so can see why the writer is pissed off.

in hindsight, she signed for a bad deal. Whose fault at the time? Her own.

Lots of people sign bad deals initially, this is how one learns how to get good deals in the future.

[quote] she said there was no discussion of any other projects at the time

The very reason for a contract, I’m afraid.

I'm with Tina Fey on this one. The woman made a bad deal and her agent was a fucking moron. Stupid mother-fucker.

It’d be nice if the audit could shake some cash loose for her but she can’t argue that she didn’t sign the contract she signed. She just got a very expensive education.

They fucked her on the profits and Tina was complicit.

Meh. l doubt very much that Tina Fey reads other people's contracts with Paramount.

Tina Fey is a cunt who is not the genius she and her ass kissers want the rest of us to believe? Paramount are crooks? I am shocked, I tell you! SHOCKED!

I also doubt Tina had much to do with whichever lawyer would have acquired the book rights. It might have been a fair price for what they reasonably expected it could become. It just sucks for her that her lawyer at the time didn’t or couldn’t get her even the tiniest share of future profits.

Has she written anything since then?

R18 Lotsa tie-in books.

Queen Bee Moms & Kingpin Dads: Dealing with the Parents, Teachers, Coaches, and Counselors Who Can Make — or Break — Your Child's Future (2006), ISBN 1-4000-8300-1 Owning Up Curriculum: Empowering Adolescents to Confront Social Cruelty, Bullying, and Injustice (2009), ISBN 0-87822-609-5 ISBN 978-0878226092 Queen Bees & Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and the New Realities of Girl World, (2009), ISBN 0-307-45444-4 ISBN 978-0307454447 Boys, Girls & Other Hazardous Materials (2010),[10] Penguin Books ISBN 0-399-24796-3 ISBN 978-0399247965 Masterminds and Wingmen: Helping Our Boys Cope with Schoolyard Power, Locker-Room Tests, Girlfriends, and the New Rules of Boy World (2013)[11]ISBN 978-0-307-98665-8 The Guide: Managing Douchebags, Recruiting Wingmen, and Attracting Who You Want (2013), ASIN B00EZB57QC Owning Up Curriculum (2020) Distance Learning Playbook for Parents: How to Support Your Child’s Academic, Emotional and Social Learning in Any Setting (2020),[12] ISBN 978-1071838327 Courageous Discomfort: How to have Brave, Life Changing Conversations about Race and Racism (August 2022)[13] by Chronicle Books. Co-authored with Shanterra McBride, ISBN 978-1797215266

That Roaslind bitch again ? blerg

Mind you, $400k may not have actually been a bad deal at the time - on paper, this was just another tween vehicle for Lohan, whose previous film, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, was a massive bomb. No one could have anticipated that Mean Girls would turn out to be as sharp, clever and enduring as it is, or that it would launch the careers of McAdams and Seyfried, who were unknowns. The film is really much funnier/better than it has any right to be. It was a fluke.

This just sounds like a case of sour grapes, now that this author has seen how successful the IP is. And love her or hate her, that’s largely thanks to Fey.

Aren't most people in entertainment pricks?

[quote] Lots of people sign bad deals initially, this is how one learns how to get good deals in the future.

Oh that’s good. So the next time she comes up with a once-in-a-lifetime idea, she’ll know how to negotiate on the rights.

Did she sign a contract for residuals from the movie, or was it part of the contract to sell the film rights? If not, she has nothing to complain about. People sell rights to things all the time - and other people end up making a shit ton of money from those rights.

I don't know about "once in a lifetime" R22.

Take a look at R18's list.

Tina has no say in what Paramount may or may not owe this woman.

I will decide where I stand on this matter only after Lacey Chabert weighs in.

Rosalind is totally fetch.

This is not surprising. Most option/purchase deals for book rights include a small participation in the “net proceeds” of the film. The problem is that net proceeds participations rarely pay out any money, even on films that are profitable for the studio. This is because in addition to all the production costs and distribution expenses associated with making and distributing the film, the studio takes out hefty distribution fees, an overhead charge on their production costs and advertising costs (usually 10-15%), interest, all the participations and bonuses that they paid to the producers, actors, director, screenwriter, etc. (Producers will usually get what’s called an “adjusted gross” participation, which often *will* pay out, sometimes in the millions of dollars — and that money then gets deducted from “net”.) What I wrote only scratches the surface. There are so many accounting practices employed by studios that have the effect of taking lots of revenue out of the pot or not counting it as revenue at all.

So, studios will often show that net proceeds are in the red, even on films where the studio and the producers with “real” profit participations made lots of money. Of course, this has been litigated in the past and studios have learned from experience to structure their net participations and include disclaimers in agreements so as to help shield themselves from liability.

Book authors, unlike screenwriters, don’t get residuals on films. So, for most authors, the purchase price they receive for the rights (in this case, $400K) is likely the most money they’ll see from the film. Sometimes, it is possible for an author to reserve (retain) the live stage rights to their book. If that had happened here, Ms. Wiseman would have had the opportunity to negotiate for more compensation for the stage musical and any film based on the musical.

All that is to say: It’s not necessarily that this author’s representatives made a bad deal for her. It’s just that profit participations of the type that most authors get on film adaptations of their books generally don’t pay.

It will be interesting to see if she gets anywhere with her claim.

Why does Tina keep going back to this well. Is she that hard up for cash? Is she trying to keep her husband employed?

R29 Yes, and yes.

Isn't Mean Girls simply inspired by "Queen Bees and Wannabes?" It's not even an adaptation.

Rosalind's book is a parental guide book, not a novel. Tina incorporated a lot of the themes and psychology of girl culture and relational aggression Rosalind writes about in her guide book, but the story itself is wholly Tina's.

She created Regina George, Gretchen Weiners, Glenn Coco and everything else. The story, characters and world of Mean Girl belongs to Tina. She is the reason the film was so successful.

Just because Rosalind's book sparked an idea in her, doesn't give her any ownership or rights to the franchise's lasting profits or success. Rosalind was hardly the first person to research, study and write about girl culture and socialization. Female gender scholars have been writing about it for decades. Tina could have easily just come across one of their works instead.

I'd be more inclined to side with Rosalind if Tina had struck millions adapting a novel she wrote, using her original story and characters, while she ended up with a mere 400K.

But as it is, Tina doesn't owe her much. Rosalind was paid pretty handsomely for the credit nod and she signed away all rights. Boo hoo.

R31 You raise an important point. It may explain why she wasn’t able to reserve the live stage rights to her book. Since the characters and story weren’t hers, she would have had little justification for keeping the stage rights and potentially holding up the studio and filmmakers from mounting a stage play without her consent. (Either that, or her representatives just didn’t ask…)

If all she did was sign a bad contract, why did the studio lie to her about the profits they made? All they had to say was: "Did you sign this contract? Yes? Fuck off". Or were they hoping to squeeze more out of her idea and script wise?

Some people don't see the bigger picture of their ideas being spun in all kinds of directions like musicals, sequels, merchandise, etc. And either your legal representation is stupid or doesn't want to get on Hollywood's bad side for working too hard for his client.

Agents work for their clients and negotiate hard, because they get a cut from whatever their client is making off said deal. They know the fine line between getting the best out of the studio while the studio still makes the better deal money wise. If an agent doesn't do that or know where that line is, he has no business to work in Hollywood (or anywhere else).

If you are a nobody with great ideas, be prepared to get fucked without lube by both Hollywood and your own agent / legal representation. This doesn't happen if you are in a position of power (rich, connections / someone in Hollywood believes in you making him a shit ton of money, know a thing or two about the copyright and ownership law, etc.).

Very strange because she brings up two conflicting points.

If she "signed away" her rights to participate in any further derivative works, then that's it. She is done. There's no need to audit Paramount because Paramount could have made $100m in profits alone and she wouldn't be entitled to any of it.

If she signed a contract that included some small percentage of net profits (either from both the proceeds from the film and derivative works or just the film itself), then yes, she has a case. If so, she wasn't fucked over in her contract dealings, especially when you consider that they basically optioned the title out of safety and Fey built the story and characters up from scratch. Net profits of a derivative work is about the best someone of her stature could hope for.

It sounds like she's talking out of both sides of her ass.

Wiseman=Jewish

End of story

It’s not Tina’s nor Lorne’s fault that she didn’t hire a proper entertainment attorney to keep her from making a completely amateur mistake. The Forrest Gump case from the 90s is taught in entertainment law classes as an example of creative Hollywood accounting and paying attention to every detail. Even a first year associate would’ve known to delete net and insert gross. She’s just trying to embarrass Tina in the hopes that she’ll get involved to pressure Paramount to settle. You’re responsible for your own choices and it’s extremely petty to talk shit about people just because they made better choices than you. Tina doesn’t owe her anything and whether Tina is a real or fake feminist is completely irrelevant.

It also happened to the Big Fat Greek Wedding lady.

Erm, this woman owes a lot of her book sales to Tina Fey.

And Fey often spoke of how she was inspired by this material, throughout the promotion of the film. She didn’t have to do that.

The article clearly states her contract included net profit points and Paramount claims no profit. They are entitled to their audit but Paramount will throw her a bone rather than opening their books. Paramount is notorious for this.

Well, did she have no Lawyers or just shit Lawyers? Tina Fey, didn't get where she is by being nice, she knows business entertainment. This woman doesn't sound too smart.

[bold] Read R31 [/bold]

Wiseman wrote a non-fiction book about the social life of high school girls.

Fey took the ideas--that there were mean girls in high school-- created characters and plot and turned it into a movie.

She is owed nothing.

^^As in Wiseman is lucky she got any money at all,

Fey did not have to acknowledge that she got the idea for the movie after reading Wiseman's book. It's not as if the existence of cliques and mean girls in high school is a closely guarded secret.

I am sure plenty of authors and screenwriters do this every day.

Vaguely Related Sidenote: The movie "Saturday Night Fever" was based on a non-fiction story in New York magazine about disco culture in Brooklyn and followed the life of a guy who the character of Tony Manero (Travolta) was based on. Sometime in the 90s the article's author, Nik Cohn, admitted it was a complete work of fiction.

R41 Tina has nothing to do with it. She’s not in the Paramount legal dept sending out boilerplates to authors who are too dumb to hire an entertainment attorney instead of using their Lit/divorce/probate/squash buddy/best friend’s dad to legally represent them. If she has a case to stand on she’d have attorneys falling over backwards to rep her in court or to negotiate a settlement ages ago. Asking anyone involved with the production to go to bat for her when it has nothing to do with them is insane. They are busy and she is not their responsibility. This is clearly a desperate act by someone who was willing to take her on who suggested going below the belt by dragging Tina and whoever else into it in the hopes it would get a reaction from the studio because my guess they aren’t returning calls/letters or if they have they simply referred back to that section in the contract where she signed it all away. The only way she gets to audit the studio is if the contract allows auditing rights or she gets a court order to force it. I’m pro creator and always stand by their intellectual property rights, but I’m also anti stupid and no one did anything to her, she just had bad representation. She needs to accept that and get on with life.

Tina Fey paid shills are here- what a greedy witch she is

Tina should do the right thing and give her a fair payment.

400,000 dollars for book rights is already an amazing deal.

Then, when you take into consideration that the book and the movie have literary nothing to do with one another, it is an easy better deal. Tina Fey could have easily done the same film and literally no one would have known it was “inspired” by a nonfiction book.

Basically this woman got an extra 400,000 in her pocket plus better book sales for free. She is stupid to look a gift house in the mouth like that.

What I imagine happened is when they bought the rights, they were planning a more “faithful” adaptation . Perhaps the Tina Character would be based on the writer and would have used more of her insights and quotes from the book. It probably changed a lot in development.

I think it is bullshit that Paramount claims the film didn’t make any net profits.

R48 It 100% is bullshit, and that’s why you need to write it into your contract that you’ll be paid on first dollar, otherwise, ‘creative’ accounting will keep all projects in the red so they don’t have to pay out on those net points.

It's not Tina Fey; it's a combination of the original writer's agent, book-optioning standards, and the gamble that writers take when optioning their works.

Writers usually get fucked when a movie based on their writing makes a splash.

A lot of books are optioned and never make it into production. In those cases, the writer ends up disappointed their work never made it to the screen and at the same time, they end up profiting much more than had they not optioned the book. They get a cash advance for the option, and the advance is usually a flat, set amount. If the book never gets made into a movie, the writer basically "wins" in the sense that they made money for something that never came to fruition.

If the movie or TV show gets made and flops, then that can do serious damage to the original author's reputation, and they of course won't make more money than the option.

If the movie or TV show makes it big...the writer most often will feel more fucked over than in any other scenario, because non-brand-name authors do not get good deals from their entertainment deals *if* the entertainment product ends up being a hit.

Some writers may get a percentage of net profits. When they do, they assume they will get a cut of the profit of a successful movie or TV series. They typically are unaware that entertaiment productions are expert at accounting practices that limit net profits, sometimes to zero, even when the production is profitable. After accounting for expenses that come off the top—including percentages of *gross* profits that go to producers, investors and big-named stars whose agents negotiate great deals for them—nothing is left to show as net profit, and so the writer inevitably gets fucked when comparing their payoff with the payoffs of others involved.

Entertainment is a cutthroat business and book publishing is a profitable enterprise for very few authors.

I would like a do-over on a number of my decisions that could have turned out better if differently played.

All these negotiations are done by lawyers, not actually Tina Fey.

This is not that difficult homosexuals.

Non-fiction books, especially non-fiction books like Wiseman's [bold] which is a self-help book for parents[/bold] and has no storyline it at all, rarely, if ever, get made into movies.

So even if she had hired the Best Entertainment Attorney Ever, it was unlikely that anyone could have predicted that Fey would take this self-help book and turn it into a hit movie franchise.

I have no doubt they were shocked that anyone, let alone Tina Fey, wanted to buy movie rights.

R31 and R47 have the correct takes on this.

Tina could use her influence and power to try and throw her a bone

This thread is “Queen Bee” of TL;DR but, yes, Tina was magnanimous to credit the original author at all and also Paramount are famously litigious (ask Robert Evans). Tina wrote an inarguably iconic movie which became a Broadway show and that’s now a new movie musical. It’s great that it was “inspired” by this book but nobody cares and Mean Girls is a “thing” and Tina Fey owns it. Next.

Hasn’t Fey’s already used her power and influence by acknowledging that her book provided some inspiration and HUGELY increasing its sales? I’m not sure why she got paid anything at all. Did the book have a distinctive format that somehow got translating into the Mean Girls storyline? Otherwise, why wouldn’t it just be part of Fey’s general knowledge or research? Fey didn’t have to admit she got the idea from reading the book.

The full title of the book is:

Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence

and the blurb from Amazon notes that it is "The Basis for the Movie Mean Girls" [note use of word "basis" no doubt something imposed by legal] and continues:

PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN GIRL WORLD

Do you feel as though your adolescent daughter exists in a different world, speaking a different language and living by different laws? She does.

This groundbreaking book takes you inside the secret world of girls' friendships, translating and decoding them, so parents can better understand and help their daughters navigate through these crucial years. Rosalind Wiseman has spent more than a decade listening to thousands of girls talk about the powerful role cliques play in shaping what they wear and say, how they feel about school, how they respond to boys, and how they feel about themselves. In this candid and insightful book, Wiseman discusses:

• Queen Bees, Wannabes, Targets, Torn Bystanders, and others: how to tell what role your daughter plays and help her be herself

• Girls' power plays, from birthday invitations to cafeteria seating arrangements and illicit parties, and how to handle them

• Good popularity and bad popularity: how cliques bear on every situation

• Hip Parents, Best-Friend Parents, Pushover Parents, and others: examine your own parenting style, "Check Your Baggage," and identify how your own background and biases affect how you relate to your daughter

• Related movies, books, websites, and organizations: a carefully annotated resources section provides opportunities to follow up on your own and with your daughter

Enlivened with the voices of dozens of girls and parents and a welcome sense of humor, Queen Bees and Wannabes is compelling reading for parents and daughters alike. A conversation piece and a reference guide, it offers the tools you need to help your daughter feel empowered and make smarter choices.

I agree the author has herself to blame, but can we all also agree that Tina is an annoying, backstabbing bitch who believes her own hype and thinks - excuse me, *knows* - she is always the smartest and most talented person in the world.

Magnanimous? Because she credited source material?

II really hope Tina is writing some of these replies because I can’t imagine someone going to the mat this hard over someone they don’t know.

Never blame the companies, only individuals!

Tina witnessed a teen girl get molested by Horatio Sans. She just pointed & laughed. She did not help the girl.

“Woman complains she hasn’t seen a cent of net profits”

[quote] Because she credited source material?

LOL

Are there many performers that doesn't describe, R58?

If Fey owes this nonfiction author any money, then Dan Brown owes the authors of this book hundreds of millions.

Shrill, middle-aged Jewish woman complains, is unhappy

Film at 11

She signed a contract. Not anyone’s fault she didn’t read it in full or have a proper entertainment lawyer rep her. She wanted the $400K . She didn’t look at the future for this book and subsequent movie and franchising. I’m sad she’s stupid but sick of bashing Tina Fey for it.

Seinfeld bullied that women his wife stole the cookbook from. THAT was a mean girl tactic.

This woman is stupid. You need a good lawyer.

But Tina is a twat. I’ve dealt with her from a PR standpoint and she wants nothing to do with fans.

The studio probably would have offered her less money in exchange for the right to earn from future adaptations, and she still would have probably taken the higher amount

This woman sounds most unhappy that she herself is not part of the “popular crowd” of above the line creatives who enjoy the fruits of the premieres and parties. That’s why she brings up the anecdote about the premiere. This isn’t about money, she merely wants to be popular. Pathetic. Her contribution to the original movie is no greater than the person who removed the human waste nightly from Lindsay Lohan’s trailer.

We also have no idea what whoever optioned the book from this woman at the time would agree to or stonewalled. It's very possible her lawyer WAS asking for derivative percentages and the other side played hardball. Or that the other side said- we'll give you $400K now with no further payment or $100K (just using as an example) and some tiny, ridiculous net profit percentage. If I was the attorney, I would have likely advised for the larger upfront payment.

None of this means she is entitled to any monies from any of the spinoff projects, but if she is owed net profit monies from the original film, then she should absolutely be trying to audit Paramount. This kind of thing happens all the time. I used to work for a producer whose various partners would be threatening to audit a particular studio depending on the project, and sometimes the studio would settle and others we went through the full audit. No one gets bent out of shape about it.

Sorry R70, I was writing as you were posting.

I learned about this decades ago when I was interested in screenwriting and I learned that the author of Forrest Gump felt cheated out of the massive profits. I sympathize with him. It's a very different situation than a self-help author whose book inspired a fictional narrative, though.

On one hand, imagine being the creator of a world that ends up being a cultural phenomenon, winning Oscars for actors and launching a restaurant francise, and getting almost nothing from it.

The author was paid $350,000 for film rights, plus 3% of the net profits. That's the catch. Obviously, when he saw the movie blow up, he assumed he'd have big checks coming in. But thanks to 'creative Hollywood accounting,' the movie never posted any profit to the books and he ended up with nothing at all—despite a $678.2 million gross, not including the restaurant franchise.

Writers are generally not money people, and literary agents who work with Hollywood should know better but they also rarely do deals that end up massive hits like this and on average a $350k check for a novelist 20 years ago was a hell of a lot of money.

But the writer was still fucked over. They gave him 3% of the net profits, and no one on his side knew that a hugely profitable movie would show losses on the books because Hollywood studios are evil like that. Yes, his agents should have pushed for at least one percent of the gross profits, but usually only people with huge brand names swing that kind of power. Meanwhile, all the producers and stars involved banked on the success of that movie for the rest of their careers.

I think it is AMAZING that J.K. Rowling managed to take in so much of the revenue from her book series. That's the incredible, rarest of all book-to-movies stories.

Well, Rowling was in an enviable position that studios were vying for the rights to her books. She was able to write her own ticket.

Someone like Winston Groom with Forrest Gump was in a much less advantageous position.

Look at Stephanie Meyer. She was a nobody who got lucky with her books first time out and because her series was so hot, she was also able to command a fantastic deal because every studio wanted the rights to her work.

decide by penalty kicks?

[quote]She was fucked. Hard.

Pics please.

JK Rowling arguably started the latest iteration of theme park wars because of the amount of control she was able to exercise in her contract. Disney balked at it and she went to Universal and they played ball.

She even earns money from every beverage sold in Wizarding World and is able to keep Coke products out of it.

R77 Why does she want to keep Coke products out of it? Do they somehow 'erase women'?

Because the only beverages you can buy in her themed areas are the branded ones she earns money on.

How much more money does Rowling need?

This is one of the most nonsensical threads on Datalounge.

As a few posters have noted, Wiseman is one lucky bitch.

The best lawyers in the world would not have given her different advice.

Many of you seem unaware of the situation.

A self-help book is more likely to win a Pulitzer Prize as it is to get a movie deal with a major studio like Paramount.

The contract offered was no doubt as R71 posits - a sizable one-time payment vs a smaller payment and percentage of profits.

Given that most works of fiction that are optioned never get made into movies, let alone self-help books, $400K was an incredible deal for Wiseman.

I would also add that she's no doubt made as much if not more from sales of her book spurred by its tie-in to the movie, plus the additional money she was able to command from publishers for her subsequent books.

She is also now able to command decent enough fees for any public speaking she does, which should also net her an additional six-figure sum every year.

Again, it's not like she came up with the characters and story line the way Rowling or the Forest Gump guy did.

So she is very lucky and most certainly came out way ahead on this deal.

Tina should respond by publishing a valid self-help book for girls that would certainly become an NYT bestseller, and by writing a darkly comedic movie about a screenwriter who is harassed and stalked by a self-help book writer who becomes obsessed with her and advises people how to 'live their best lives' while spiraling downward until she crashes and burns.

This is why no one likes women

Women always retreat to the “women should help other women” bullshit

Men don’t do this

Have to agree with R2 and R83. Didn't she have a lawyer?

R84, please read R81

I can't find it now but I remember watching a YouTube video of Howard Stern interviewing Tina Fey about the making of the original Mean Girl movie.

It sounded like Tina really didn't make as much money from Mean Girls as you would think she did. This was because she was a first time screen writer with no track record. It seems like the people who made the money were the ones who bankrolled it. Also got the impression that Lorne Michaels made more money off of it than her.

And you know how Howard is when it comes to talking about money. He likes to poke at people to see if he can get them to be mad about maybe being taken advantage of financially. But as I remember Tina just brushed it off as it iust being the way that Hollywood works and the low likelihood that someone like her would even get the opportunity to write a movie script. I would imagine it was quite different before the existence of all these streaming services.

When Mean Girls came out, it felt like a throwaway movie to me. It didn't seem "important" in the least and I certainly did not expect it would have become a timeless classic.

I appreciate it more now than I did then—although still hardly a work of genius—and I imagine there's a good reason why this woman is complaining now versus when it came out almost 20 years ago. The movie's appreciation has increased over the years and she wants credit for its relevance.

But mean girls in high school cliques is hardly a new trope. Amy Heckerling could just as well claim this author was inspired by Heathers.

[quote]She is owed nothing.

She she is owed profits and if you think Paramount Pictures didn't make a cent on a $17 million dollar picture, and yes add on releasing cost so let's say $34 million you were born yesterday. Besides box off gross, add in DVD/Blu-ray sales (every library in the country has a copy and they pay for them, all the Amazon and Walmart sales, On Demand/PPV rentals, Airplane/Hotel rental, Premium Cable/Basic Cable sales, Network and Local TV sales, soundtrack and related merchandise and you get the picture. Paramount Studios hasn't been in the business over one hundred years by losing money on their hits.

No one has commented on the hot son?

The son looks mean.

[quote]Mind you, $400k may not have actually been a bad deal at the time - on paper, this was just another tween vehicle for Lohan, whose previous film, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, was a massive bomb. No one could have anticipated that Mean Girls would turn out to be as sharp, clever and enduring as it is, or that it would launch the careers of McAdams and Seyfried, who were unknowns. The film is really much funnier/better than it has any right to be. It was a fluke.

What? Lindsay Lohan was on a roll by the time MEAN GIRLS (April 2004) was released.

FREAKY FRIDAY (August 2003) had been a smash hit the previous summer, and CONFESSIONS OF A TEENAGE DRAMA QUEEN (February 2004) was a modest hit, not a massive bomb.

Rather, it was HARVEY: FULLY LOADED (June 2005) the following year that was a big flop. Her first theatrical failure, too, and one of several afterward.

Up until then, her previous films, including THE PARENT TRAP (July 1998), had all been hits. Thus, began her downward spiral.

[quote]How much more money does Rowling need?

Rowling donates away much of it.

R80, how come no asks how much money does Stephen King need?

R93 Because he's not a billionaire with a tacky Florida theme park who forbids brand-name soft drinks so that he can squeeze an extra $0.03 of profit off of every diabetes-inducing beverage at his DeSantis-profiting entertainment venue

R94, do you believe in capitalism or communism?

I can imagine that Tina probably is a bitch and she's annoying with her "aren't I so clever" shtick. She fucking ruined Kimmy Schmidt playing the drunk shrink. But wasn't that book fairly old(ish)? It's not like everyone was clamoring for the rights to it and she sold it cheap to Tina. I doubt it would have made 400k on it's own, and yeah, Tina thought up all the characters and the storyline. Once you sell the rights, that's it. Clearly her lawyer thought it was a good deal, he probably thought Tina was getting taken and nothing would even come of this. This fucking victim mentality needs to stop. Yeah, it sucks she made a ton of money and you didn't, most people will never get paid 400k for an idea in their lives. Get better lawyers, write another fucking book, move on.

R91 My name is Herbie, not Harvey!

HARVEY: FULLY LOADED was the Jimmy Stewart movie.......

I just hate Tina Fey.

Apropos of nothing, but Amanda Seyfried is hilarious and adorable in that movie

[quote] I just hate Tina Fey.

Clearly you are not alone, as witnessed by all the people on this thread blaming her for things she had nothing to do with.

R96, I've always thought that the author wouldn't even have known that Tina's story was inspired by the author's nonfiction work if Tina hadn't mentioned it.

Don't hate on Tina Fey. She saved the world from a fully-realized Sarah Palin.

R100 I think she is REALLY talented. From Mean Girls to Big Love to Mamma Mia! to the Elizabeth Holmes docuseries, she's very versatile.

And so is Rachel McAdams. From Regina to Red Eye, she's hardly recognizable as the same person.

It's like when Disney claimed that "Frozen" was based on the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale "The Snow Queen" even though the stories are nothing alike, not even the title, which they changed just before release.

R105 It's not really like that since Andersen's stories are in the public domain.

R73, Sales of the novel Forrest Gump was based on skyrocketed after the success of the movie so hopefully Winston Groom made bank off of that even if he didn't enjoy any of the film profits.

R105 I meant that "Frozen" and "The Snow Queen" are nothing alike, just like 'Mean Girls" and that self-help book, so it was pointless of Disney and Tina Fey, respectively, to claim that their movies were based on those works. They are even credited in the films.

[quote] this was just another tween vehicle for Lohan, whose previous film, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, was a massive bomb.

It grossed 33 million vs a budget of about 15 million. That doesn't sound like a bomb. Not a massive success but not a major dud either.

Can the author rewrite it in a different color ink then republish it and reap millions like Taylor Swift did with all of her shitty music?

Throw the son a few million

Tina Fey is a mean girl because she's ugly.

R107 Most book deals don't really pay much in royalties these days.

The original business model was that authors were paid an advance against royalties. That is, they were given a check up front for some of the sales the publisher expected. But if the book didn't sell as many copies as expected, the author had to pay back the amount of royalties that were not made by book sales. And when books sold past their advances, authors got sizeable royalties payments.

The terms have remained, but the business model has changed. An author's 'advance' now is pretty much their paycheck in most cases. They get two or three advance payments, and then they get very marginal royalties. They typically do not have to pay back royalties that are not recouped by sales, but they don't make much in the way of royalties, either. It's a much smaller percentage than it used to be.

And part of the reason authors don't have to pay back against advances anymore is because they basically get one shot: Advances are based on how popular publishers expect a book to be. If publishers think the book will be hot, they pay big advances. If the book turns out not to sell well...well, the author is punished and informally blacklisted, written off as an author whose writing doesn't interest anyone. It's commonly understood among authors today that a huge advance is a huge gamble. If you get a gigantic paycheck and the book doesn't perform as expected, it may be your last book. If you get a modest advance and it performs better than expected, your next advance will be higher. If you get a small advance and the book doesn't sell well, you can usually find another publisher who'll invest in another book because you weren't a high-profile failure, just a smalltime failure.

R109 That doesn’t include marketing costs. There was a huge push for this movie, including capitalizing on Lohan’s Freaky Friday fame by having her record new music for the soundtrack. After promotion is factored in, $33 million worldwide on a $15 million budget means Disney lost quite a bit of money. Not to mention, it earned terrible reviews and sunk like a stone at the box office. Interestingly, Confessions, like Mean Girls, was also based on a popular YA book. I’m sure that author was paid handsomely as well, and in hindsight - given the film’s reception - is probably ecstatic to have earned $300k - $400k.

You just never know, and that’s showbiz. There was no reason to believe Mean Girls would be anything other than a run of the mill teen comedy. The best Paramount could hope for at the time was another Freaky Friday. Luckily, the studio had a secret weapon in Tina Fey (and the alchemy of their talented cast of up and comers) and the rest is history.

Tina Fey and Lorne Michaels talk about their hit film, "Mean Girls" back in 2004 with Charlie Rose.

I signed a bad contract for my own reasons and now I am whining as a victim because the contractual agreement I signed has been enforced, and I wasn't smart enough to include a clause concerning how profits would be compiled and reported in a transparent way.

I think it’s odd that people are bashing Rowling making money off a world she created instead of third-party corporations taking the bulk of the dough. Good for her.

She’s not making ANY money she doesn’t deserve.

And the jabs about brand-name products being left out of the theme park? So fucking what - they make gazillions everywhere else and the presence of real-world reminders lessens the fantastical impact of the world she created.

It’s not just financial control, it’s creative control. And I’m sure the kids love it.

R116, as explained by others above it probably wasn't even a bad contract.

No matter whether Tina was or was not at fault, I think we can all agree she's a talentless cunt.

R105 Actually, when I saw Frozen I could tell right away it was an adaptation of The Snow Queen. Probably one of Disney”s looser adaptations, but I definitely can see the connections.

The main (and frankly ingenious) difference is that Frozen combines the characters of Kai and The Snow Queen.

R133, that sounds like the story a publisher would tell a new author. “Trust me - that last thing you want is a big advance!”

i know it was hugely successful, but i thought the movie was a slog. For a movie centered around high school girls. just give me Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows and I'm happy as can be.

AndI thank god eery day that when I spied Amy Poelher in front of the Joyce Theatre at intermission to Momix, or Paul Taylor Dance, or something, I'd already read somewhere that both Fey and Amy Poelher readily admit to being C-ya Next Tuedays when they're in work mode. And they are probably ALWAYS in work mode. I practiced restraint and did not approach. Talk about dodging a bullet.

It's not news that this broad is a class A cunt.

I hated Mean Girls. Tina Fey isn't 1/10 as funny as she thinks she is. Her becoming head writer on SNL was its downfall. It has never recovered.

My mother was the original [italic] Mean Girl.

Fuck the fascist NYPost. Anyone who posts a link to it deserves to be banned.

That and it was a non-fiction book. Regardless of what inspirations were drawn from it, there’s no dispute that Tina Fey made Mean Girls into the beloved movie it is now.

[quote]Even a first year associate would’ve known to delete net and insert gross.

And that first year associate would have lost that point. And would have looked inexperienced for asking.

Book authors, for the most part, don’t get gross participations. They get net. The only (rare) exceptions are authors with a famous “brand” and a built-in movie audience. Someone like Stephen King.

Just clarifying for those on this thread who are saying, “She should’ve gotten gross! Bad deal!” No.

Did Wiseman think of naming the possible lesbian character Janis Ian? No, that was all Tina and it was brilliant!

Bow down to Tina

R48, without going into it, I was there. Tina was inspired by the book and used the sociological aspects as a framework for a teen comedy - concepts and ideas that most were already familiar with but that the book made clear and brought into focus. The main conceit inspired by the book is when the lunchroom or mall turns into a safari; having the main character live in Africa for a period facilitated this metaphor in a really clever way.

But the book was never more than a guide. There was never any attempt to make the author a character. The trope of a cool/uncool teacher is in all teen comedies, most of which are based on previous material. Like Fast Times is based on the Cameron Crowe article but he’s not actually a character in the film and, in fact, the story is told through the young girl, Stacy, played by JJL.

But wren Tina Fey promotes the movie musical I doubt she’ll ever mention this author or her book again; she probably won’t even get a credit. Do not cross Tina Fey. She does not suffer fools.

Hmm R131, I thought the safari part in the mall was dumb and out of place. Even with her having lived in Africa, they didn't ever use metaphors before or after that and it was weird and out of place.

I actually side with Tina on this but looking at those gifs with her fucking smirky face makes me dislike her so much.

R132, they also did it in the cafeteria (as R131 mentioned).

Fair enough, R132. My point is, that’s the most obvious influence of the book - illustrating high school as a jungle.

I’ll sum up this thread: mean girls calling Tina and the author stupid, talentless cunts.

Mean Girls is a little overrated - it becomes an after school special in the last half hour - but it gave us Rachel McAdams, so all’s well that ends well.

No, THE HOT CHICK (which was a surprise, modest success) gave us Rachel McAdams -- and Anna Faris.

I don't think Wiseman's lawyer necessarily made a bad deal; she was an unknown author at the time and had limited leverage. Net profits are virtually worthless, so really good lawyers try to get their clients as much money as possible upfront, plus bonus payments regardless of the film's bottom line and/or a share of gross points, but these are granted mainly to brand-name authors with clout.

Authors without major name recognition are often presented with take-it-or-leave-it deals by studios, who argue that there are plenty of other good books out there for them to buy and they will walk away if the author doesn't give them what they want.