'Social Network' Director David Fincher Will Not Helm Steve Jobs Movie

Bummer.

Shame to see him go. If whoever replaces him is half as talented, the movie will be alright.

they compare Fincher to the TRANSFORMERS movies???? rude

He deserves the moneh

With Hollywood studios you have to make the best deal possible, cash upfront. Otherwise they'll give you only peanuts if the movie turns out to be a big hit.

I don't give 5 .......

Thank goodness. There's not much of a movie there. Franky. the Social Network was not much a story, but Fincher did an excellent job with it to make it entertaining.

"David Fincher will not direct Sony's Steve Jobs biopic"

"It is possible that negotiations will proceed between the director and Sony."

"A source with ties to the studio says Fincher potentially could re-enter negotiations"

"Article Link: 'Social Network' Director David Fincher Will Not Helm Steve Jobs Movie"

er...

I'm left wondering if Sony or Fincher had a proposed budget for the rest of the production in mind and if that was part of their disagreement.

The film presumably takes place in only three backstage environments (before keynote events). That seems like it should allow for a relatively modest budget even if Fincher would want to make use of some more technical/pricey stylistic choices.

Some quick Googling shows:
Panic Room production budget: $48million
Social Network: $40-50million
Dragon Tattoo: $90million

Somehow, putting up a $50-60million budget that *includes* pay for great talent like David Fincher and a possibly matching fee for Christian Bale doesn't sound so terribly unheard of or unwise.

So I wonder if it's Sony that's balking at this kind of cost, or was Fincher somehow proposing something closer to 100million total?

That's a shame. I saw Jobs, and it was okay, but I was hoping for more.

It's hard to capture the spellbinding magic of Steve and Apple. I hope they find a creative replacement.

Revearti said:

Bummer.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Ok, line drawn in the sand. Now: re-negotiate! Fincher obviously sees a lot of worth in the script, and right now I can't imagine any other director helming such a story, particularly after reports of Sorkin's "basic" 3-Act layout in the script.

I don't think it matters who "helms" this movie. If Alan Sorkin actually did what he said he would do, which is write a screenplay that had only three scenes, each back stage before a product announcement and all taking place in real time, I think it will disappoint the Apple faithful.

Is that a rug or a combover? If he is that position with money, he doesn't need the hair to get the babes.

There is a part of me that agrees with the studio on this. Part of the justification for paying directors, actors etc big bucks is that they are supposed to bring in the box office. But when you do this it balloons the budget. Then if the film doesnt make the box office having those people involved was supposed to guarantee then the notion falls apart.

Hiring Tom Cruise etc at $10-20 million plus another $5 in all their demands is just nutty. Pay them more like $250k and then a cut off the first dollar gross or even first dollar net once the budget is recovered. With a lower budget that is a lot easier to get to. And if they did their job then there should be plenty of money in the bank, especially if they are savvy and work in a cut of digital downloads and home video or other products (sound tracks, tee shirts, books)

Good. Hopefully he's looking to do something more interesting, like The Girl Who Played With Fire.

Porco said:

"David Fincher will not direct Sony's Steve Jobs biopic"

"It is possible that negotiations will proceed between the director and Sony."

"A source with ties to the studio says Fincher potentially could re-enter negotiations"

"Article Link: 'Social Network' Director David Fincher Will Not Helm Steve Jobs Movie"

er...

Click to expand...

good point. Seems to me like the author just wanted to fluff up his article and make it longer than it should've been, as a result leading to the contradictory nature of the post.

Nunyabinez said:

I don't think it matters who "helms" this movie. If Alan Sorkin actually did what he said he would do, which is write a screenplay that had only three scenes, each back stage before a product announcement and all taking place in real time, I think it will disappoint the Apple faithful.

Click to expand...

Directors can and often do play a big role as to how the whole movie comes off.

----------

mojolicious said:

Good. Hopefully he's looking to do something more interesting, like The Girl Who Played With Fire.

Click to expand...

Or he could do both, as he did The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and The Social Network (not necessarily as far as timing goes, but just in general that he was able to do both of those films just fine).

The amount of talent, experience and dedication Fincher brings to the table 10 mil isn't too much. Fincher is one the few best directors working today. I mean he made the freaking facebook movie look like modern day Godfather.

Thank goodness they don't want to pay for quality. That would be horrible.

A large part of the problem with Hollywood today is that they use comparisons such as "you're not doing Transformers or Captain America here" to somehow suggest doing a high quality film without a flashy action franchise is somehow not worth big money. The Social Network was an excellent film, well written and directed, and a multi-award winner. Transformers and Captain America were watered down dreck aimed at the lowest common denominator, and to sell tie in toys.

Zorn said:

A large part of the problem with Hollywood today is that they use comparisons such as "you're not doing Transformers or Captain America here" to somehow suggest doing a high quality film without a flashy action franchise is somehow not worth big money. The Social Network was an excellent film, well written and directed, and a multi-award winner. Transformers and Captain America were watered down dreck aimed at the lowest common denominator, and to sell tie in toys.

Click to expand...

I guess the main question (unfortunately) is how much money did each one of those make for everyone involved (in many cases beyond even the movie itself, as in merchandising, etc)?

Ugh!

C DM said:

I guess the main question (unfortunately) is how much money did each one of those make for everyone involved (in many cases beyond even the movie itself, as in merchandising, etc)?

Click to expand...

There will surely be an explosion of Steve Jobs bobble-head sales.

charlituna said:

There is a part of me that agrees with the studio on this. Part of the justification for paying directors, actors etc big bucks is that they are supposed to bring in the box office. But when you do this it balloons the budget. Then if the film doesnt make the box office having those people involved was supposed to guarantee then the notion falls apart.

Click to expand...

Nothing is guaranteed but having a famous actor or director attached to the picture certainly hedges your bets that people will go see it just because Steven Spielberg directed it or Denzel Washington has the leading man. If you look at the list of highest grossing movies of all time they almost all have either a famous actor/actress, famous director, and/or built-in fan base (the movie was part of a series, based off a famous book, comic book, the Bible, etc.,).

Hiring Tom Cruise etc at $10-20 million plus another $5 in all their demands is just nutty. Pay them more like $250k and then a cut off the first dollar gross or even first dollar net once the budget is recovered. With a lower budget that is a lot easier to get to. And if they did their job then there should be plenty of money in the bank, especially if they are savvy and work in a cut of digital downloads and home video or other products (sound tracks, tee shirts, books)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately "hollywood accounting" is designed to make all movies look unprofitable in the books for the explicit purpose of not having to payout backend percentages or royalties. Even people like Stan Lee and Peter Jackson have had to sue for their cut of the profits because, according to the studios Spider-man and The Fellowship of the Ring never turned a profit.

Perhaps he thinks Apple is paying for the movie.