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

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Apr 14, 2014.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    The Social Network director David Fincher will not direct Sony's Steve Jobs biopic, both written by Aaron Sorkin, reports The Hollywood Reporter. Back in February, a report came out saying Fincher was in negotiations to direct the film.

    The report says Fincher was asking for $10 million in fees in addition to control over marketing the movie, with Sony saying his asking price was too high. It is possible that negotiations will proceed between the director and Sony.
    Sorkin and Fincher worked together on The Social Network, which made $225 million worldwide and saw Sorkin win an Oscar for best adapted screenplay, in addition to nominations in several other categories.

    Article Link: 'Social Network' Director David Fincher Will Not Helm Steve Jobs Movie
  2. mKTank macrumors 68000


    Jul 2, 2010
    Shame to see him go. If whoever replaces him is half as talented, the movie will be alright.
  3. bushido Suspended


    Mar 26, 2008
    they compare Fincher to the TRANSFORMERS movies???? rude
  4. fxmx Suspended

    Apr 9, 2014
    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.
  5. carmenodie macrumors 6502a

    Apr 25, 2008
  6. CosmoFox macrumors regular

    Mar 10, 2014
    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.
  7. Porco macrumors 68020


    Mar 28, 2005
    "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"

  8. NameUndecided macrumors 6502a

    Mar 28, 2011
    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?
  9. jonnysods macrumors 601


    Sep 20, 2006
    There & Back Again
    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.
  10. BlueParadox, Apr 14, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2014

    BlueParadox macrumors regular

    Sep 3, 2010
    Melbourne, Australia

    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.
  11. Nunyabinez macrumors 65816


    Apr 27, 2010
    Provo, UT
    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.
  12. CFreymarc Suspended

    Sep 4, 2009
    Is that a rug or a combover? If he is that position with money, he doesn't need the hair to get the babes.
  13. charlituna macrumors G3


    Jun 11, 2008
    Los Angeles, CA
    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)
  14. mojolicious macrumors 68000


    Mar 18, 2014
    Sarf London
    Good. Hopefully he's looking to do something more interesting, like The Girl Who Played With Fire.
  15. anshuvorty macrumors 6502


    Sep 1, 2010
    California, USA
    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.
  16. C DM macrumors Westmere

    Oct 17, 2011
    Directors can and often do play a big role as to how the whole movie comes off.


    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).
  17. mdridwan47 macrumors 6502


    Jan 20, 2014
    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.
  18. highdough macrumors regular

    Sep 10, 2008
    Thank goodness they don't want to pay for quality. That would be horrible.
  19. Zorn macrumors 6502a


    Feb 14, 2006
    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.
  20. C DM macrumors Westmere

    Oct 17, 2011
    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)?
  21. filmantopia macrumors 6502a


    Feb 5, 2010
    There will surely be an explosion of Steve Jobs bobble-head sales.
  22. LethalWolfe macrumors G3


    Jan 11, 2002
    Los Angeles
    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.,).

    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.
  23. Reason077 macrumors 68000


    Aug 14, 2007
    Perhaps he thinks Apple is paying for the movie.

Share This Page