moneyball_soderbergh_pitt

Over the weekend, the biggest news in Hollywood was that Sony chief Amy Pascal had put the brakes on Steven Soderbergh’s baseball stats movie Moneyball, which had been set to begin shooting yesterday with Brad Pitt in the lead. Soderbergh was given the option to shop the movie to other studios over the weekend — ‘limited turnaround’ was the phrase used — and now thanks to the LA Times, we know that Warner Brothers and Paramount both passed. What it means for the movie, after the jump.

After Friday, when Paramount’s Film Group President John Lesher was axed, there was little to no chance that the film would find a home there. But Warner Brothers wasn’t interested, either. Both studios cited concerns about the nearly $60m budget and the niche appeal. A baseball stats movie is going to have a small audience even in America, and the sport doesn’t draw overseas. That counters Brad Pitt’s overseas draw which, as broken down by Dave Poland, is substantial. For a basic studio film with Brad Pitt, $60m is nothing. But this really feels like a $30-40m picture that got inflated.

Word remains that Pascal killed the movie after a late rewrite by Soderbergh pushed the film in a direction she wasn’t comfortable with. But there have been musings about all sorts of truths behind the scenes — was Pitt, notoriously willing to pull out of films at the last minute, unhappy with the script? Or did Pascal just realize that greenlighting a seriously niche film at this budget, even with Pitt, wasn’t the best move?

So what happens now? Sony has spent about $10m already on the film, but could still kill it altogether. Pascal (and Pitt?) could convince Soderbergh to go more mainstream with the movie, which seems unlikely. It could be given to another director, which also doesn’t seem like the most likely option. Who’d want to take this on at this point? I’d hate for the film to be dead; as I wrote at the beginning of the month I love the idea of this film being made, and I’d love to see Soderbergh’s take. (Even with a reduced budget, and slightly less crazy angle — scratch the plans for an animated character!) But while it may be too early to call the thing dead, it’s not looking good now.

  • Damn shame man. Pascal's no dummy though...
  • Mike
    Seems like she is.
  • Sorry to pick on you, but when I see this online - a lot - it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me for some reason. The studio should be referred to as "Warner Bros." - it's never written out as "Brothers".
  • Guest
    I think this film is toast. You have to respect Soderbergh's commitment to the material. And you have to respect the fact that no one is going to finance it.

    Toast.
  • Frankly, I'm amazed that a movie based on baseball stats was ever greenlit to begin with. I like Soderbergh and I even liked the book a bit... but I never had any expectation that it could be made into an interesting movie.
  • This type of news has to be particularly detrimental to any budding filmmakers out there. You can have Brad Pitt and Steven Soderbergh interested in doing your movie, and it still doesn't mean it's getting made.
  • At first when I read about the film It didn't really strike me as a film I would be interested in..Now I really don't know much about it, but I can see why it was not greenlit. Thanks Russ.
  • fuckAmyPascal
    Thanks what fucking happens when a dumb motherfucking ass chick runs a studio. No storytelling abilities, just money. Amy Pascal, go choke on dick.
  • fuckAmyPascal
    That's what fucking happens when a dumb motherfucking ass chick runs a studio. No storytelling abilities, just money. Amy Pascal, go choke on dick.
  • booger
    Hahaha, ooooh man. ('man' being meant literally AND figuratively)
  • That's deep, because as you know, men studio heads never make any bad decisions, and they never, ever, tell a bad story or falter in their storytelling abilities.
    I am going to guess you must be a male yourself (couldn't tell from the name) to write such an intelligent comment. Please ask Peter (the guy who runs this blog) if they have any writer openings, I would love to read more from you and your insightful commentary.
  • Mind=Blown.
  • GreatBigLion
    We can only hope that, at the very least, Sodebergh scales it down and goes independent again, aiming for a "Fox Searchlight & Slumdog Millionaire" success story. At the very least. But with the interviews and licensing issues (shooting in A's Stadium =/= cheap), it seems like the only way to make this movie is to make it big. A shame really, and another example of why independents > Hollywood.
  • Rockie
    its a burn when a director loses out but Pascal hatred=pointless

    shes gonna greenlight, you are gonna post
  • I would've like to see a movie that focused on the Oakland Athletics for once but i guess it wasn't meant to be.
  • I don't get it. It's baseball, and Brad Pitt. How could it not make a profit. And I can't imagine the budget being bigger then 25 Million. It has to be something with Pitt or the studios. Probably both. If Pitt backed out, there goes the profit. Maybe that's what the studio is thinking?
  • You're right, if the movie were $25mil, it would've made a profit. But as you can see in the article, they spent $10mil and hadn't even gotten to production yet.

    A movie with a $60mil budget would actually have to make at least $90-100mil to see a profit. If you look at baseball-themed movies, they are not moneymakers, only one has surpassed $90mil. The last major baseball movie released fell just short of $60mil (and coincidentally distributed by Sony).
  • And it's a movie about statistics! Baseball stats! How was that ever going to make money?

    That's a niche movie if there ever was one.
  • TheHick9
    too bad this had to happen, would have loved to see a good baseball movie which must have had a decent script (now that pitt seemingly only does decent movies as of late) and especially since it had to do with the oakland athletics, a very interesting team that most of mainstream america doesnt know about from their early days
  • Weren't their early days in Philadelphia?
  • TheHick9
    ya im talkin about when they first came to oakland
blog comments powered by Disqus