Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Social Network' Director David Fincher Will Not Helm Steve Jobs Movie
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fincher would be a good director for this project. He and Sorkin made the Facebook story interesting.
I don't think "the Apple faithful" will make or break this movie. If the movie were going to be aimed mainly at the Apple faithful, Sorkin wouldn't be writing it, the budget would be tight, and the cast would be B-list at best.
Actually, percent of gross receipts is what you want, if you are in a good negotiating position. As has been stated elsewhere, profits are too easy to manipulate.
Heh, interest is all relative.
The only 'computer movie' yet made that I'd pay to see is 'Desk Set' aka 'His Other Woman'.
Which would be fine, if they had to give back part of their high fee because the bet was a losing one. Which happens plenty of times. Especially in things that aren't summer blockbuster type films.
Why should they give the money back when there are so many other factors that help determine the fate of the movie? If Studio X doesn't think Actor Z is worth the asking price they shouldn't hire Actor Z to do it. The studios know the risks better than anyone (which is why they cook the books and horde as much of the revenue as they can). Plus, what an actor is 'worth' is incredibly fluid. If Actor Z isn't 'hot' anymore then Actor Z will have to drastically lower his price if if wants work. Not to mention sometimes actors get monster checks because they don't want to do a project but the studio really wants them on board so the studio keeps offering up money until the actor final gives in.
On the flip side there are a number of times when big stars work well below their going rate because they really want to be part of projects that don't have massive budgets. For example, many A list actors will charge well below their going rate to work with directors like Tarantino, Soderbergh, Allen and Rodriguez. In a similar vein, Vin Diesel produced and stared in Riddick and bankrolled the movie himself for a time until the funding came through.
Lots of people here don't understand the movie industry.
The Transformers movies made: $709,709,780, $836,303,693, $1,123,794,079
The Captain America movies made: $370,569,774 and $502,272,687 (and counting)
The Social Network made $224,920,315
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo made $232,617,430
Those numbers are nothing to scoff at, but they certainly aren't much compared to big commercial franchises, which is the type of number Fincher is asking for.
The Transformers movies made: $709,709,780, $836,303,693, $1,123,794,079
The Captain America movies made: $370,569,774 and $502,272,687 (and counting)
The Social Network made $224,920,315
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo made $232,617,430
Those numbers are nothing to scoff at, but they certainly aren't much compared to big commercial franchises, which is the type of number Fincher is asking for.
What was the budget and marketing for each one of those? Basically what's the actual profit there.
That said, of course the big blockbusters make more money overall, as well as merchandising and a whole lot of other licensing deals, including sequels and spin-offs, which would factor in into it all.
Of course the social network budget is tiny compared to transformers, but transformers sustains a franchise, and like you said, products, licensing etc. All this allows the director of franchise films to demand high fees.
A movie like the social network or jobs, smaller fee up front and good points on the backend. Those films are under much more pressure to get their budgets low.
Michael Bay perhaps, or maybe JJ Abrams?I believe David Lynch will also not direct it. Nor Ron Howard. Nor Jerry Bruckheimer.
