MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

More Moneyball…

As alluded to, but perhaps not with direct intent, the new spin out of the Sony camp on Moneyball is that Brad Pitt disliked the new script as much as Amy Pascal and that he is the one who secretly sunk the ship, though he didn’t want to be seen as doing it.
This is, actually, a more plausible bit of spin than the previous efforts. But one still has to wonder, what is the real truth? Is Amy Pascal willing to eat millions now because Pitt has privately committed to moving forward with another director? Would she be willing to eat millions to be Pitt’s beard on this one?
The connection being made to State of Play logically fits Pascal’s wish… that someone will take it off her hands and make the movie, so she is in the clear in every way. No risk.
Also, all the chatter about all the things that are wrong about the film… all were in the script delivered long before last week. This doesn’t mean that expectations of ‘fixes” were not in play, but the “the entire idea is a problem” means the movie should never have been greenlit in your opinion, but really doesn’t speak to what happened in recent days.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “More Moneyball…”

  1. Wrecktum says:

    So does this qualify as a good reason the film was torpedoed or a bad reason?

  2. Hopscotch says:

    The Brad Pitt angle fits with his fickleness, State of Play being the most recent example, The Fountain slightly less recent.
    I’m sure time will give us the real story. Always remember how many crew members and dept heads and caterers and hundreds of other people get burned by shit like this.

  3. SarahN says:

    since Amy Pascal’s decision to pull the plug made no sense. I too thought Pitt wanted out. But considering he offered to reduce his fee AGAIN when they went out to the other studios..that seemed to indicate he was firmly committed to Soderbergh and the project

  4. SarahN says:

    since Amy Pascal’s decision to pull the plug made no sense. I too thought Pitt wanted out. But considering he offered to reduce his fee AGAIN when they went out to the other studios..that seemed to indicate he was firmly committed to Soderbergh and the project

  5. David Poland says:

    He is.
    Sony says they are still in play if Soderbergh will return to the earlier draft.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon