posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:05 PM
As has already been said, including by the OP himself, whether anyone believes Sitchin's theories to be credible or not wasn't the question- the
topic was, I believe, just why hasn't Hollywood made a movie with specific reference to it?
My guess is that Sitchen (and now his heirs as he's recently passed on) would have to approve the script, and perhaps no script has met with their
approval. It's rather interesting to think of the legal issues with this, and my thanks to the OP for bringing up the subject. If Sitchin's work is
fiction, then his heirs would most certainly have rights to script approval and royalties. But, if Sitchin's work is history revealed- then much of
it would be public domain and may be used freely.
I've read some of Sitchin's books, and I'm not a gullible sort. I also have a strong background in archaeology and linguistic theory, and mythology
(though no- I don't read cuneiform and I'm far from an expert on the bible). I found his basic premise intriguing and worth further study, though I
think he "jumped the shark" on more than a few points. Same with Von Daniken- he can rightly be credited with raising some compelling
interpretations that may well have some truth, but he unfortunately took it a bit further into reckless speculation than perhaps he should have done.
Both authors, like a number of others, have touched on ideas that may well have some merit, but are taboo for conventional science and thus they
really couldn't afford to give their critics as much obvious opportunity to discredit them as they did. The conventional theories are absurd as well,
if you read them carefully, but they have the academic status and they don't readily admit alternative views.
Too bad, really, that there isn't more open-minded discussion on ancient history. That's another reason we have ATS, eh?