<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, moneyball]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, moneyball]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/moneyball http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/moneyball <![CDATA[Sandra Bullock Adaptation Of Michael Lewis' Blind Side Looks Heartwarmingly Awful]]> The trailer's up for Michael Lewis' first book to be made into a movie, The Blind Side. After the embarassing Moneyball breakdown, it must be relieving for Lewis to finally have something hit the screen. Too bad it looks terrible.

Now: The Blind Side is a book that's primarily about the evolution of football strategy and the players recruited to execute it. The book has a sub-story: not so much a sub-plot, because it's so patently different — but well weaved into — the book's core. It's about a rags-to-riches college football prospect who goes from being impoverished to being taken in by a rich family. Which is basically the entire conciet of The O.C..

So: why this?

There are so, so many ways to make a great movie out of this book that walks the line between emotional and cerebral, between a rabble-rousing sports film and a heady one. A few examples: Remember The Titans, Hoosiers, Field Of Dreams, A League of Their Own, Bull Durham. They could've made the good version of Blue Chips, or the uplifting version of Hoop Dreams. Instead, it looks like they turned a bestselling Michael Lewis book into an after-school special, produced by and starring Sandra Bullock.

Fox optioned Blind Side following an excerpt The New York Times Magazine published preceding the book's 2006 release. Back then, Gawker managing editor Gabriel Snyder, writing for Variety, reported on the "intense bidding war" over the property. A look back in history shows that Lewis probably expected something like this to happen to his book:

While many of Lewis' books have been optioned through the years — Warner Bros. owns rights to his breakthrough Wall Street trader yarn "Liars' Poker" but it is not in active development — none of them have reached production. Columbia is still developing an adaptation of "Moneyball" with Mike De Luca producing.

But Lewis said his hopes are higher with "Blind Side."

"The main through-story is the collision between this destitute 16-year-old black kid and this evangelical rich white couple," he said. "Of all the books I've written, this is by far the most likely to be made into a movie."

Well, we know what happened to Moneyball, Liar's Poker's nowhere to be seen, and then there's this. Not that Lewis would have a problem with it: if the film does well, his books (and the options to them) will go for even more, and he might even be able to jack up his quote for The New York Times Magazine and Vanity Fair contracts for more money than he's already getting.

If Michael Lewis didn't have any involvement with this movie — and really, does it look like he did? — he's got this racket far more figured out than some of his more uppity book writing contemporaries: leave it to Hollywood to do whatever they want to the book. The worse the adaptation, the more commercial (and thus: bankable) it'll probably be. Besides: books are always better than the movie, anyway. Why lose out on any cash?

Come to think of it, there's probably a Michael Lewis book somewhere in that line of thought.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5343826&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Everything Un-Ravaged, Everthing Un-Burned in Hollywood]]> Three picture deals, reunions, prequels, and the secret ingredient to box office success have all been revealed! Like a fresh patch of skin that emerges after a viscous sunburn, this last week of July has some rejuvenating news from Hollywood.

Box office battle of the peens this weekend! Who will win? Judd Apatow's self-effacing, sarcastic but ultimately tender peen? Or the magical, wonderful, man-craving peens of the wizarding world?! The wiz-kids up the ante by projecting their weens in IMAX this weekend! [HWT ]

Nope, Universal's not nervous at all about Judd Apatow's Funny People opening. Not one bit. They just signed a three picture deal with Hollywood's most prolific comedy producer. Unreported is whether the new deal calls for all three titles contain the words "Dick Jokes." [THR]

Have you been itching to watch a group of beloved Hebrew sitcom stars who's discussions center around the baffling ordinary exchanges of life but you believe that reunion show would be too 'low end'? Good news! It has been announced that Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis Dreyfus and Jason Alexander will all appear on the new season of Larry David's Curb your Enthusiasm.[THR]

Leave it to Vanity Fair to dole out karmic justice in this world! The magazine is set to have an expose of the ugly in-fighting surrounding embattled production Moneyball. The Brad Pitt project has gained a notorious reputation after squeezing out its writer/director Steve Soderbergh. The rumor is that the piece will be as so many things in this world should be: Pro-Soderbergh. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

Mom populated book clubs rejoice! Billy Crudup, the guy attached to the giant, floating, bluberry toned wang in Watchmen, will join Julia Roberts in the movie adaption of 'Eat, Pray. Love' [Variety]

We don't know about you but it has been exhausting to sit through movies that don't have the basic element of 'franchise' or some kind of 'origin' story. So we're pleased that Ridley Scott has the courage to come along and do a prequel for Aliens! Wait there's more! Disney just bought the domain name Monsters Inc. 2! Haha, in your face, Originality! [ Variety ]

After years of research t box office scientists have concluded that the ingredients to a blow out success are : robots, mammoths, and Meryl Streep [THR]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5327311&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Aaron Sorkin Rides in on a White Horse to Save Moneyball]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Aaron Sorkin, noted scribe, addict and boner of Maureen Dowd and Kristen Chenoweth, has been hired to write a new draft of Moneyball, the film based on Michael Lewis' bestselling book. But are Steven Soderbergh and Brad Pitt still involved?

Reports the Hollywood Reporter:

The writer has been brought on to do a draft of the baseball drama, drawing on Steve Zaillian's earlier take. The studio wants to move forward quickly with the new iteration, with Sorkin set to turn in his version as soon as next month.

Brad Pitt remains on board to star, but Steven Soderbergh no longer will write or direct and is not involved in the film.

Soderbergh, you may recall, fought with the studio over the creative direction of film, leading to production being killed by the studio just days before shooting was set to begin last June

Now, we like Sorkin's work (especially Sports Night!) so we're confident that if anyone can make an adaptation of the book work, it's him, but we still can't figure out how it would be worth a crap on the big screen. However, if it does work out, and we seriously doubt that it will, we do look forward to a scene in which Billy Beane and Jason Giambi walk down a long corridor, pause in front of the door to the locker room and turn to face each other so Beane can yell "You can't handle a curveball!" at Giambi. It'll be grand!

Aaron Sorkin Game for Moneyball [Hollywood Reporter]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5311541&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Sony Knew What Soderbergh Was Up to on Moneyball Script]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Yesterday we posted Sony's take on why Moneyball, the Soderbergh/Pitt film based on Michael Lewis' book, died five days before shooting was to start. Now someone close to the project has provided us with a different version of events.

First, let's briefly recap what we and others have reported so far: The film was set to begin shooting last week. Five days before the start of shooting, director Steven Soderbergh turned in a rewrite of the original script, which was written by Steven Zaillian, that Sony executives, led by co-Chairman Amy Pascal, did not like. The studio felt that Soderbergh, who was insistent that every event in the film had to have taken place in real life, was taking the film in an "artsy" direction that they weren't willing to gamble $58-million dollars on, so they killed it. That's the short version of events according to Amy Pascal anyway.

Since then a few more details about the project emerged. Movieline and Deadspin provided some new information in reports of their own, and today the New York Times has an article that sheds some light on Soderbergh's zeal for authenticity.

One reason was to win the approval of Major League Baseball, which was not happy with some factual liberties in Mr. Zaillian's version. Such approval is crucial in a baseball film that intends to use protected trademarks.

"Typically, on a film like this, we look at it for historical accuracy," said Matthew Bourne, a vice president of Major League Baseball for public relations. "We've been in touch with Soderbergh and Sony, and they've been receptive to our requests."

What baseball saw as accurate, Sony executives saw as being too much a documentary.

All of this brings us to the information provided to us by a tipster who'd been working on the project and has a decidedly different point of view than that of Amy Pascal and Sony.

First and foremost, Soderbergh had been upfront with the direction in which he intended to take the film from the very beginning of his employment. In fact, it was clear to all of us - whether in the Art Department or the Costumes Department, etc. – that Soderbergh intended to use real people to play themselves in the creation of the true story of Moneyball. Additionally, for months Soderbergh had been shooting interviews with real ball players and people from Billy Beane's past, and the studio approved these shoots. How could the studio then at the eleventh hour claim that his approach was a surprise to them? He intended to tell the true story rather than a fictitious version of the story. How innovative.

What exactly is wrong with making a movie accurate? And since when does an authentic film translate as an "art" film? I know numerous people that thought that Soderbergh's approach sounded insightful and interesting and true to the game and what really happened. If baseball lovers and non-baseball lovers alike in my large social network felt this way (not to mention the hundreds of bloggers that were fans of the concept), why couldn't this approach have universal appeal?

Regarding the notion that Sony executives were shocked to discover the direction Soderbergh planned on taking the film:

Soderbergh's script dated June 17, 2009 was not the first script that he handed in to Sony. On June 7th, Soderbergh submitted a draft to the studio with the following note on the first page:

"NOTE: Scenes involving Billy Beane's minor and major league career have been removed from this draft. They will be determined by filmed interviews with scouts, coaches, managers, players and family members who were with him at the time."

Sony executives read this draft. And Sony executives gave Soderbergh their notes. Clearly Amy Pascal did not read this draft – if she had, maybe the drama that began with the June 17th draft could have been avoided.

Another fact: Soderbergh handed in yet another draft dated June 10, 2009 with this note on the first page:

"NOTE: Billy Beane's minor and major league career will be shown via filmed interviews with scouts, coaches, managers, players and family members who were with him at the time. These interviews will comprise approximately ten percent of the film.

"Another ten percent of the film will consist of re-enactments of real events as remembered by the people playing themselves. The purpose of these scenes will be to provide set-up and perspective for subjects, situations, or relationships which currently appear in the screenplay without the requisite/normal amount of context."

Now why in the world was Amy Pascal so shocked (or, rather, "apoplectic" as it was relayed to the production team) when she read the June 17th draft? Could Soderbergh have made his intentions any more clear? Even if these executives did not read beyond PAGE 1, they would have known the direction in which he wanted to take the film – and they should have perhaps reported that to their boss. And maybe, just maybe, if there had been communication with their boss, maybe, just maybe, another avenue could have been taken rather than pulling the plug three days before the film was supposed to start shooting. For instance, maybe they could have delayed principal photography while script/concept issues were resolved.

Our tipster closed with this note:

On the day that Amy Pascal pulled the plug, there were 230 people that were working on Moneyball. Now those 230 people are all out of jobs.

When Soderbergh had to address a stage filled with crew members who were about to lose their jobs, he told us that just as Moneyball was the unorthodox version of building baseball teams, Moneyball the movie was the unorthodox way of making a film. Unfortunately, Amy Pascal does not believe in Moneyball as a concept; otherwise the film would be in its second week of shooting right now.

So there you have it—Another side of the story. All of this is obviously meaningless in the grand scheme of life, not to mention very "inside baseball" (pun intended), but it's so damn fun to talk about. We anxiously await the next bit of backbiting to emerge between the Sony and Soderbergh camps.

Why Did Sony Kill the Pitt/Soderbergh Film Adaptation of Michael Lewis' Moneyball [Previously]
MLB Approval Still Murky as Moneyball Circles the Drain [Movieline]
Money Worries Kill A-List Film at Last Minute [New York Times]
Soderbergh's Moneyball Script Too Real to Get Made [Deadspin]
pic via Vulture

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5305994&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Soderbergh's Moneyball Script Too Real To Get Made]]> The Sony Pictures executive who pulled the plug on Moneyball says that Steven Soderbergh changed the original script because he didn't want anything in the movie that didn't actually happen. So Billy Beane isn't a sweaty, foul-mouthed, Hooters waitress slayer?

Everyone loved Steven Zallian's version (he's an Oscar-winner, you know!), because it had jokes and snappy dialogue and actually made sabermetrics non-mind numbing. But Soderbergh wanted realism so much, he was determined to only film events that took place in real life. He also scrapped the conceit of having Bill James as the "Greek chorus", bookending the film with his anecdotes with and wise old man stories. The verdict:

That might make for an intriguing art film, but it clearly was no longer a film that any studio would spend $58 million to make, especially with baseball films having virtually no appeal outside of the U.S.

We got our hands on the Soderbergh draft, and it's about as bad as others have said. Gone, thankfully, is the Beane-as-dork-Messiah stuff. Soderbergh's Beane is more of a proxy for the audience this time — Bud Fox meets Crash Davis, as they say in Hollywood — and in his script, Moneyball is more of a Beane-Paul DePodesta buddy movie, which maybe makes some sense when you imagine Brad Pitt and Demetri Martin in those roles. Maybe.

The script was probably doomed from its second page, from which the above image was taken. Here's Soderbergh's disclaimer:

Billy Beane's minor and major league career will be shown via filmed interviews with scouts, coaches, managers, players, and family members who were with him at the time. These interviews will comprise approximately ten percent of the film.

Another ten percent of the film will consist of re-enactments of real events as remembered by the people playing themselves. The purpose of these scenes will be to provide set-up and perspective for subjects, situations, or relationships which currently appear in the screenplay without the requisite/normal amount of context.

All that is to say an important portion of this film will be written in the editing room. This isn't a cop-out; it's just a fact, and entirely by design.

That sounds an awful lot like, "Yes, this script sucks. But trust me. I made The Limey." It was probably at this point that Amy Pascal, the Sony executive, optioned the script to the bottom of her coffee mug. Even though it was five days from shooting and Sony had already sunk $10 million dollars into the film, Pascal pulled the plug. The movie is now in limbo. The studio would presumably still make the Zaillian version if they could find a director, but would likely lose Brad Pitt if Soderbergh walks. And the current talent is free to take the project somewhere else, but no one is biting, because that brings us all back to the original argument, "Why anyone make a movie about this?" Maybe Scott Hatteberg is really big overseas?

(Additional Soderbergh script reveals, information by Tommy Craggs.)

Sony's Amy Pascal speaks out about 'Moneyball' [Los Angeles Times, via Gawker]
What happened to...Moneyball? [ScriptShadow]
Billy Beane Is A Golden God: Excerpts From The Scrapped Moneyball Script

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5305316&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Why Did Sony Kill the Pitt/Soderbergh Film Adaptation of Michael Lewis' Moneyball?]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Last week Sony killed Moneyball, the Steven Soderbergh-directed $58-million baseball film starring Brad Pitt based on Michael Lewis' book about former Oakland A's GM Billy Beane, just five days before filming was set to start. So what the hell happened?

Rumors have been swirling since Variety first reported last week that Soderbergh's vision for the film differed dramatically from the vision studio executives had for the film, but up to this point no one associated with the project has been willing to speak on the record about it.

But yesterday Sony's Amy Pascal, the studio executive in charge of the film, spoke to the LA Times' Patrick Goldstein. According to Pascal, what it all boiled down to was essentially simple—The studio loved screenwriter Steven Zaillian's original adaptation of Lewis' book, while Soderbergh felt the script lacked authenticity and rewrote it himself, making radical changes that Pascal and the studio weren't willing to gamble on, fearful that Soderbergh would turn it into an "artsy" film like Solaris or Schizopolis, especially when baseball movies traditionally don't do well at the box office outside of the United States. Soderbergh was insistent that everything in the movie had to have happened in real life.

Reports Goldstein:

Some changes to Zaillian's script were subtle, others were dramatic. At one point, Beane signs Scott Hatteberg, a journeyman catcher with a bad arm whom Bean can get for peanuts and turn into a first baseman. Beane loves Hatteberg's ability to get on base, but his staff is appalled — he just can't turn anyone into a slick-fielding first baseman overnight. In Zaillian's script, one of the coaches watches Hatteberg taking ground balls at a Little League field, his wife armed with a plastic laundry basket full of baseballs. She hits the balls to her husband off a tee, with their 4-year-old daughter backing him up down the line. One ball takes a bad hop and goes between Hatteberg's legs. When his daughter scoops it up, the coach quips: "Maybe we should sign her."

Soderbergh cut out the joke because it was the screenwriter's invention — the coach had never actually said it. He also cut out a scene where Beane gives a tongue-lashing to Jason Giambi, one of his departing free agents, again because it didn't actually happen. Zaillian's script was anchored by on-screen monologues by Bill James, the oddball guru of modern-day baseball statistics (who today works in the Boston Red Sox front office). James functioned as a Greek chorus for the film, offering wry, Yoda-like explanations about the complexity of the game.

Zaillian's deft renditions of James' maxims were funny and always to the point, allowing the audience the opportunity to see inside the game. In one monologue, James says: "If you score three runs and the other team scores four, you can be inspired as all hell but you still lost. The numbers represent the ineluctable sum of victories and defeats, and that cannot be made one iota larger or smaller than it is by PR campaigns, personal animosities or any of the greater and lesser forms of B.S." But in Soderbergh's draft, the James material had all vanished, presumably to be replaced by interviews with Beane's real-life associates.

At a "summit" held after Soderbergh turned in his draft of the script, he reportedly pleaded "trust me" to the Sony executives, who were obviously unwilling to do so. Besides Pitt, the film was also set to star comedian Demetri Martin as well as former ballplayers Darryl Strawberry, Mookie Wilson, David Justice and Lenny Dykstra, but Soderbergh's unrelenting zeal for authenticity proved to be the project's demise.

Bob Costas would be proud.

As for Michael Lewis, he seems unfazed by the developments with the film version of his book, telling MSNBC recently, "I don't understand why they bought it for a movie in the first place."

Sony's Amy Pascal Speaks Out About Moneyball [LA Times]
Image via Vulture

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5305167&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Brad Pitt's Steven Soderbergh-Directed Adaptation Of 'Moneyball' Strikes Out]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Columbia Pictures was aghast when the latest script for the adaptation of Michael Lewis' Moneyball arrived. So much so that they've put the project in turnaround. Oh, and: production was supposed to start next week.

Per a Variety report that dropped today, Columbia Studio head Amy Pascal hated the script so much when she got it, she shut down production on the movie, which was supposed to start Monday in Phoenix. The script, adapted from Lewis' book by Steve Zaillian (American Gangster, Schindler's List) and Steven Soderbergh, had changed so much since Pascal had first seen it, that she's given Soderbergh and Pitt the weekend to find a new home for the movie, either with Paramount or Warner Bros.

The movie, starring Brad Pitt, Demetri Martin, and a bunch of actual baseball players (David Justice, et al) isn't exactly a traditional baseball flick, but this was also the project that ended up sidelining Steven Soderbergh's epic - and hopefully, epically flamboyant - musical take on the life of Cleopatra ("Cleo"), so, you know, you get what you pay for. Variety suggests that if they can't line someone else up to take over the bill of the movie, Columbia's either going to (A) try to replace Soderbergh on the project, (B) delay production indefinitely until Soderbergh and Pascal can agree on what's going to happen once the thing gets back into gear or (C) scrap the entire thing.

Meanwhile, Michael Lewis is still sitting on piles of money from his Vanity Fair writing contract and this, while a small bump in the road for him, certainly isn't the end of it. This project's far too beloved by Hollywood for it to go anywhere but (eventually) into production, and Brad Pitt's probably not going to stick around if Soderbergh gets taken off of it.

But most importantly, here's the list of facepalm-worthy baseball wordplay Variety used in their report:

"Columbia Pictures has dropped the ball"
"attempting to get another studio to play ball in a game that will play out"
"turnaround news on "Moneyball" is surprising, given that had reached the equivalent of third base"
"Oakland A's general manager who found success fielding competitive teams for low cost"


Sony scraps Soderbergh's 'Moneyball'
[Variety]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5298884&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Soderbergh Switches Projects To Bat 'Moneyball' at Pitt]]> Soderbergh's insane Cleo delayed. Damn you, Brad Pitt. [Variety]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5147415&view=rss&microfeed=true