The Clive Cussler versus Sahara case is finally at an end, and with a surprising result. The author was claiming that he was promised approval rights over the story and was then pushed out of the writing process, so he sued.

Meantime Crusader, the company behind the film adaptation, counter sued (because they can, and because that's what's done these days) claiming that Cliver Cussler had "duped" them into adapting his book based on over inflated sales figures.

It's all rather complicated, but although the verdict came out that Cussler had inflated the sales figures of the book of Sahara and that he should pay US$5 million to the production company, however the story in Yahoo News tells us that his lawyer believes he will see a net gain of US$3 million if the Judge upholds the Jury's verdict.

It all sounds a little complicated, but looking at the above verdict I just find it insane that a company would go ahead on film production of a novel without asking the publishers for the actual figures of sales. Are they saying that the film went through all the development, writing, production, and release without the production company actually asking to see figures of the sales? More fool them I say.

However it does mean that there won't be a sequel to the film, not from Crusader anyway. So that option goes right out the window. Perhaps this means Cussler can take it somewhere else and get a more intelligent film made? After all they've just had tons of free publicity.

What did you think of Sahara? Does it deserve a sequel? Does it deserve a better sequel, and what of the book?