I am not by any means a, "The book was better than the film" guy, BUT IT WAS. The film was technically proficient in every way, and I suspect that had I not read the book I'd have loved it, but to ME, the most interesting portions of the book were NOT in the film. I think the dynamic of what Beane was doing was spot on, but there was much too much focus on Beane the person and not the innovative ideas, and the challenge of incorporating them. I was completely riveted by the first "moneyball" type Draft, where they drafted players nobody wanted and convinced them to take less money. (Wasn't in the film) There was also a much bigger struggle to get Art Howe and some of the players to take more pitches to walk more, and that was absent from the film as well. The Joe Morgan controversy was great too, in that it shows the utter resistance of the establishment to acknowledge success when it is so unconventional and innovative. Am I interested in the wrong things? I thought there was way too much time spent on where billy watches the game from, etc, and not enough detail on the context of his choices. OH, AND LENNY DYKSTRA! I loved that part of the book.

btw, Zaillian wrote the original draft *and* the final draft. And as much as I admire Sorkin's work, it's been annoying to me that when people in the media talk about this movie, they almost invariably call it Sorkin's script. Ricky, you're right about the book. Maybe back in the 70's it could have survived the journey to film more or less intact, but not in today's environment.

pliny, your last point -- "Maybe back in the 70?s it could have survived the journey to film more or less intact, but not in today’s environment" -- is spot on. This was a very hands-on studio movie, antithesis of the spirit and practice of many 70s movies. Three other contributing factors as to why much of what is in the book didn't make it into the movie: * To a screenwriter adapting a book, the choices of what material they choose to omit is almost always more important than what they choose to include. It may seem counterintuitive, but hear and read this point over and over from screenwriters. * In this situation, the particular circumstances -- troubled development and pre-production, plus a studio already very 'pregnant' on the project, so they almost had no choice but to move forward -- would almost by necessity lead everyone involved to find some spine to the story that would allow them to make a coherent, marketable and commercial film. No time to futz around, find a narrative angle, and make that movie. * Brad Pitt wanted to play the role of Billy Beane. I mean really wanted to play it. He is a producer on the project and from everything I've read, when they pulled the plug and dropped Soderbergh, instead of walking, Pitt pushed ahead. In an interview, Miller himself said the movie would not have gotten made without Pitt's passion for it. Therefore it should not be surprising that the story focuses the Plotline and every single subplot around Beane's character. If I'm Brad Pitt and I'm putting my ass on the line, especially for a trouble project, then I go all in and push for a classic hero's journey tale, delving into various layers of the Protagonist's psyche which Pitt knew he could nail as an actor. And he does. It is an outstanding performance. So yes, Hollywood is different today than the 70s and that influences every film that gets produced nowadays. There are also extenuating circumstances that contributed to the creative choices that were made. Against that backdrop and the possibility, indeed probability of how this movie could have been screwed up six ways to Sunday, it's amazing it turned out the way it did. That's a real testament to the filmmakers involved and major kudos to Amy Pascal for persisting in her belief in the project.

Thanks Scott, you don't make it sound so bad, but I despise the "Movie Business" Had it not been for this film being in production, I might not had known this book even existed.

Actually, Ricky, it's movies like Moneyball that restore my faith -- such as it is -- in the movie business. Because even after 6 years of development and pre-production hell, and with the probability of the movie turning to shit at any number of junctures, the fact the movie came out to be a really good one just goes to show that somehow, the system can work. In this case, one of the top reasons why: They had two of the best screenwriters around to work on the script!