Take the money and write another book. 
This is pretty much my choice too.
Hell, if the movie sucks, people will spend half of their time telling each other how much better the book was, which will probably increase book sales. It’s a win-win.
Also, even with Option #2, there’s no guarantee that the author, even with full creative control, is going to produce a decent movie. The fact that you can write a book doesn’t mean that you know what the fuck you’re doing when it comes to making a movie. As The Hamster King and others have noted, doing that is hard. The fact that so many mediocre movies get made, even by people who apparently know what they’re doing, shows how hard it is.
Anyone who would take Option #2 either has more artistic integrity than me, or is more delusional about their own movie-making ability. Perhaps both.
Here’s a question for you guys: If this was the case (the movie sucked, but it didn’t rub off on you), and a couple of years and another novel down the road someone came to you with the same offer again, would you go for it a second time?
There’s a movie version of Milan Kundera’s “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”, with Daniel Day-Lewis and Juliette Binoche. It’s, well, not a *total *stinker, but it completely faceplants on capturing the tone and feel of the book. Every Kundera fan agrees that the novel is a squillion times better.
There was no damage done to Kundera’s reputation. If anything, the relative stinkiness of the movie made fans appreciate the book more.
But Kundera never let anyone adapt one of his novels again. That would probably be my reaction, too. I’ll take the money. Once.
Probably.
The thing is, though, that it’s hard for someone like me to answer this question, precisely because i’m not a novelist, or any other kind of artist really. I understand that artists feel a close and quite personal connection with their work, and that this would likely factor into any decision about selling the work to a movie studio. As a non-artist, i don’t have these sorts of feelings, so for me the decision would be mainly about finances. But i appreciate that other people feel differently about their work.
I guess the closest i can come to the feelings of an artist is when i relates to my photography. I like taking photographs, and while i’m still a rank amateur, over the years i’ve taken a few pretty decent pictures. I enjoy the buzz of taking a good photo, and i feel some pride when i look at my better images.
But if someone offered me money to use my picture, the only way i’d turn it down is if the image was going to be used to promote a cause or issue that i was really strongly opposed to. I’m a lefty but if the Republican Party wanted my picture for a poster or something, i’d probably sell it to them. I’d draw the line at an anti-abortion organization, or an anti-gay rights group, or something like that, and i might also reject offers from some corporations. Maybe that, for me, is the equivalent of the novelist who wouldn’t sell his or her book to a movie studio. But for the most part, if you want to pay me to use one of my images, i’d probably take the money.
I’m a poet, stereotypically one of the most “personal” art forms (frankly, it’s a bullshit stereotype, but still). I’d sell a poem or a novel or anything without a second thought.
I think I would be disappointed in myself if I wrote a best-selling novel that could realistically be turned into a movie.
Really?
As opposed to what? Not writing anything that anyone wants to read, ever? Because that’s what happens to (conservatively) about 99 out of every 100 aspiring writers. I know there’s a certain cachet among some writers (and other artists) about issues of credibility, but too often the talk around this sort of issue seems clouded by a certain amount of delusion.
Plenty of writers (and musicians) seem to believe that they could easily make it big if only they were willing to sell out and produce middle-of-the-road airport fiction or formulaic top-40 pop. These folks kid themselves that producing those kinds of books, or that kind of music, is easy, and that the only thing preventing them from producing such stuff is their artistic integrity. But it’s not. For most of them, the fact is that they don’t produce that stuff because they can’t. It’s hard.
Look, i understand that some writers are much better than others. As a teenager, i read a bunch of Robert Ludlum spy novels. I liked them because they had a bunch of action, and i thought they were fun. I picked one up again recently, and i soon realized something that i never realized as a teenager: Ludlum is actually a pretty crappy writer in many respects. His descriptions seem forced, his exposition is often incredibly simplistic, and his dialog is, at times, risible.
But you know what? I’d take Robert Ludlum’s ability to produce a novel in a heartbeat. He might not be David Foster Wallace or Toni Morrison or Michael Chabon or Margaret Atwood, but i know for a fact that i couldn’t do what he did. Millions of people read and love his work, and it has also be adapted into some pretty entertaining movies. No way would i feel “disappointed in myself” if that was the extent of my writing abilities.
Agreed. And, frankly, there are a lot of authors who do what I call “getting out of their own way” style-wise. You aren’t aware of every single portentous word. If you can write like that and you can do a half-decent job with characters and plot, people will want to read what you write.
And there is nothing better than people wanting to read what you write.
Hollywood’s calling for the movie rights
Singing hey baby let’s keep in touch
Hey baby let’s keep in touch
Yeah, this is where I’m coming down. In addition to the things you mention, life is too short to spend time being given the runaround by an industry I have no experience with, and am not equipped to deal with.
Gimme the $2M, I’ll get on with my life, and not waste a bunch of time with a majorly unpleasant experience.
Well, as I said in my response, I would want the creative control, but I wouldn’t use it at anywhere near the level of involvement described by the OP. I’d be looking for the biggest problems only.
You know, things like someone deciding to make Greedo shoot first, filling up a barren desert planet with dinosaurs, or thinking that’s it’s OK for Han Solo to step on the tail of a notorious mobster. (And, yes, I’m fully aware of the irony that this is what happened when the originator exercised too much creative control.)