Yuku free message boards

July 02, 2009

Trying To Close The Door On Moneyball

This has been one of those stories that just keeps sliding and sliding and sliding. And I don't think we are still quite at the truth.

When it started, the central spin, launched via Variety, was that Soderbergh delivered a late draft that so differed from the Steve Zaillian version, which the studio loved, that the movie, over $10 million into a $58m production, had to be canceled. Subsequently, we were told that it was an act of bravery by the studio.

But there are a few big problems in this smooth story…

1) Soderbergh had delivered another draft a weekend before the Death Draft, which also noted the real-life interview concept, which he was already shooting on the studio's dime.

2) Soderbergh pegged this change at about 10% of the film… or around 10 minutes of total on-screen time.

3) The much-loved Zaillian draft had NOT been approved by MLB because of the many inaccuracies, starting with Billy Beane being a skirt-chaser and not a married man. Some insiders say that the changes that MLB had requested did not demand such a dramatic change and that the draft can still be adjusted in small ways that will get MLB approval. But there is no clear answer on this critical distinction.

Personally, I am a little miffed, as I asked about whether Soderbergh's draft was a reflection of inaccuracies in the Zaillian draft and was told, "no." A couple of days later, Patrick Goldstein became the only person to get an on-the-record conversation with Amy Pascal. And for good reason. He was so busy polishing Zaillian's Oscar, he didn't bother to ask any serious questions, freeing Sony from answering them.

For instance…

Why wasn't Zaillian doing the rewrite?

If Brad Pitt decided to move forward with another director, who would do the rewrite necessary to get MLB approval?

How could Soderbergh be shooting interviews for the movie on the studio dime without the studio knowing what his plan was?

If a "baseball movie" is such a problem, why was the project greenlit in the first place?

Why is Jim Brooks, whose last movie cost $80m and grossed $42.7m domestic/ $12.3m foreign in spite of having Adam Sandler in the lead (easily the funnyman's biggest financial loser), moving forward with a "baseball movie" that will likely cost at least as much, if baseball movies are a problem?

Why paint Soderbergh as a "mad artist," absurdly pinning this choice on movies that were made for budgets of under $5 million, when ten of Soderbergh's last dozen pictures were profitable, half of those grossing over $200m worldwide? (The only two financial misses… both heavy dramas starring George Clooney.)

What so irks me about the ongoing stories is this bizarre notion that Soderbergh was somehow transforming this project from a $58 million studio movie into a personal art project. As I have noted before, Soderbergh knew exactly what was at stake for him and his career going into this movie. Success was more important to him on this film than on most of his recent films. It was the commercial lynchpin that would make it easier to move along with his more challenging, smaller projects.

There wasn't 10 minutes of documentary footage in another Sony sports-minded film built around a major star that was working outside of what people saw as his sweet spot. But there was at least 3 minutes. And it is probably a bit more reflective of what Soderbergh's vision was. The film grossed $275 million worldwide, got a Best Picture nomination, and was set in the world of American professional football. It was called Jerry Maguire.

I'm not saying that Soderbergh's vision would be as commercial Jerry Maguire. But then again, who thought that Traffic or Erin Brockovich would each gross over $200m worldwide? Seriously. Answer: No One.

Also… this idea that the world now gets a vote on what Soderbergh's film would have been… I mean, sod off… seriously. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I am sure that some of those commenting are very bright. But I'll have the conversation with someone who actually has delivered on the skill set, thanks.

So… I will be at peace when I get the answers to these questions… unless the answers demand more questions. In the meantime, the case is not closed, even though the film looks to be dead.

Movies die every day. Feelings and careers are hurt. (Over 200 people were put out of work unexpectedly by this cancellation.) But the cheap slaps at Soderbergh are way over the top and as unnecessary as slapping down someone you just fired with gossipy attacks (even if accurate), adding insult to injury. Hollywood treats artists like shit because of money and ego. But there is no excuse for those of us who cover the industry to be equally venal.