the output of a director, writing a script to direct, should not be held to the same standard as a writer, writing to sell his script to a producer.

these days, soderbergh likes to find his movies in editing. that's a valid approach that doesn't necessarily make for a good script read, but could still result in an excellent movie. in such an approach, there are many reasons to write things that you know won't necessarily end up on screen.

Doesn't this concept just seemed doomed to fail? I mean, the importance of STATISTICS? Sure it could be a character movie, indie et al. And with Soderbergh's foray it would seem to be the intention, but this character doesn't seem to be screaming CINEMA. To me, concept seems to be flawed if everyone is having this much trouble getting it off the ground. Perhaps in addition to a concept that seems decidedly non-cinematic, could it simply suggest there is little market for this story? I mean, really? Will they line up in drones to watch this one? Am I off base in thinking this? Does anyone agree that maybe the one-liner simply fails to light fire under anyone's ass, in terms of interest?

Sounds blah to me.

Carpet, here's the problem with that logic from a studio's POV: $56M. It's one thing to 'find the movie' in edit if it's 'Sex, Lies, and Videotape' at $2.1M budget. But if I'm an exec with my ass on the line, and the budget is probably twice what it should be for an arguably iffy project, then the director's script comes in even iff-ier, that's where I side with the studio over the director.

As an A-list producer once told me, "It has to be on the page." Yes, there's actors and editing and whatever that can eventually (possibly) create magic, but if you want the studio to greenlight a project, you -- the screenwriter -- have to put it on the page so they see it.

i agree, this movie sounds like a money-loser any way you look at it. i'm just speaking against the simplistic idea that soderbergh's script sucks. the totality of a visionary director's vision has to be accounted for, and script it just one part of that.

by the way -- i'm an editor, not a screenwriter. although i suppose i get to do the final rewrite, don't i?

speaking of 'editing in the script' isn't "lethal weapon" a great example of that not happening? you could cut out 90% of the first 20 minutes of that movie and it would still make perfect sense. my guess is that a neophyte writer wrote too much, the director shot it all, the editor wanted to cut it out, and the producer said 'no, we've spent $3 million on it, it stays.'

i've thought about re-editing it myself to see what it would look like.