If this feels like it isn’t the first time you’re hearing about Aaron Sorkin maybe possibly writing a Steve Jobs biopic, it’s because it isn’t. The news first hit last month, when Jobs’ corpse was still warm, when Sony paid a million dollars for Walter Isaacson’s Jobs biography. After that, Aaron Sorkin famously told Isaacson that “a million dollars isn’t cool.” Okay, not really, but word was, Sony wanted Aaron Sorkin to adapt Isaacson’s book, presumably because he did such great work on Sony’s boring-ass adaptation of Moneyball. Sorkin hasn’t officially agreed yet, but he recently told an audience that he’s “strongly considering it.” After that, I like to imagine the thick breeze from the entire audience dismissively wanking in unison was enough to fog up Sorkin’s smart-guy glasses.

“Sony has asked me to write the movie and it’s something I’m strongly considering,” Sorkin told E! Online on Monday, Nov. 21 at the P.S. Arts Express Yourself event. “Right now I’m just in the thinking-about-it stages,” he said. “It’s a really big movie and it’s going to be a great movie no matter who writes it.”

“It doesn’t matter who writes it, you could hire a beagle in a tux.” Anyway, this next part of Hollywood Reporter’s piece is neither here nor there, but holy sh*t, you guys.

Following the news of Sony’s acquisition, The Hollywood Reporter asked veteran casting director Sharon Bialy who could embody Jobs in his older and younger years. Her suggestions: Ashton Kutcher, Andrew Garfield or Shia LeBeouf for young Jobs, and Keanu Reeves, Ralf Fiennes or Noah Wyle for older Jobs. [THR]

Let’s just stop and think for a second and try to imagine the world’s foremost visionary computer innovator being portrayed by ASHTON KUTCHER AND KEANU REEVES. I’m glad they identified her as a “veteran casting director,” because I’m pretty sure you could ask a schizophrenic vagrant in the midst of a Thunderbird freakout and get a better answer than Ashton Kutcher and Keanu Reeves. It might not make sense, but it’d make more sense than that.

Read the rest of this entry »

As predicted a few weeks ago based on Sony’s domain name purchases, the 23rd Bond movie will indeed be called “Skyfall,” which was confirmed by EON pictures, Sony, and MGM during a press conference this morning.

The film, from Albert R. Broccoli’s Eon Productions, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Sony Pictures Entertainment, is directed by Academy Award® winner Sam Mendes and stars Daniel Craig, who returns for his third film as James Bond 007. The screenplay is written by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and John Logan. SKYFALL, which goes into production on Monday, November 7th, will begin its worldwide roll-out in the UK and Ireland on October 26th 2012 and in North America on November 9th 2012.
Joining Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli and Director Sam Mendes were members of the cast of SKYFALL, including: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Dame Judi Dench, Naomie Harris and Berenice Marlohe. The filmmakers also announced Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney and Ben Whishaw.
In SKYFALL, Bond’s loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost. [via ComingSoon]

So it seems they went with another vague-sounding, inscrutable title in the vein of Quantum of Solace, which doesn’t exactly bode well. Come on, you can’t just smash some vaguely-related violent words together and call it a day! That’s not a title, at best it’s a failed portmanteau. Why not “Smashwreck” or “Bloodwound” or “Gasfart?” I liked it better when the titles were made out or real words, and gave you the distinct sense that you’d be seeing a James Bond movie. I’d feel much better about this if it was called something catchier, like The Slut Who Jet-packed Me, or The Island of Dr. Velociraptor. License to Skysurf.

Before the 3D re-release of The Lion King came out and topped the box office two weeks running, the talk of the town was a report by Slate showing that 2D film screenings were kicking 3D’s ass in head-to-head showings — meaning many theaters actually stood to lose money by adding 3D showings (and the high-priced equipment). Which, along with some other factors, generally doesn’t bode well for the future of 3D movies.

Luckily, Sony has a plan, and that plan is to stop footing the bill for RealD glasses and make exhibitors pay for them. Wait, what?

Sony Pictures Entertainment has notified theater owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses as of May 1, 2012, marking a major policy shift that many other studios are likely considering.
But the notificiation probably won’t go over well with theater owners, since many feel like they’ve already coughed up enough money in converting their screens to 3D, and that they shouldn’t have to incur the cost of supplying glasses too, according to one source in the exhibition community.
Studios can spend $5 million to $10 million worldwide [on 3D glasses] for a tentpole, but most of the cost is incurred in the North American marketplace (studios pay after the fact, based on how many glasses were actually used).
Glasses for smaller films can cost $1.5 million to $2 million. Translated, 3D glasses account for about 50 cents of a theater ticket.
Sony, along with other studios, is in favor of moving toward an ownership model, requiring moviegoers to buy their 3D glasses at the theater (the studios argue that it could be a new revenue stream for exhibitors).

Who gave Sony the idea that people want to buy 3D glasses? Dammit, this is all V-Nasty’s fault.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sony’s 3D Spider-Man reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man, starring Scarfield and Emma Stone, directed by Marc Webb (HAHA, SPIDER. WEBB. ROFLTWAT.), doesn’t open until NEXT July, but all the nerdiest of nerdlingtons are already mopping their be-dandruffed brows in anticipation of the Comic-Con panel they’ll probably have to wait in line six hours for. No doubt riding that wave of misplaced enthusiasm, Sony has released this new batch of photos to Entertainment Weekly.  At its core, Spider-Man is really a story about a limber young photographer from the city who spends his nights trying to shoot hot webbing on the baddest of bad boys, but within that, there’s plenty of room for minutia. Questions left to be answered. Questions like, what color will his girlfriend’s hair be? Will his web shooters be organic or mechanical? Will he have big hair like a Twilight character? What does his ass look like in the suit? Is it matte finish or glossy? Does he have visible panty line? What color f*ck-me boots? Why am I still typing this?

Read the rest of this entry »

Two years ago, Sony pulled the plug on a Brad Pitt-starring, Steven Soderbergh adaptation of Michael Lewis’ statisticky baseball book, Moneyball, just a few days before it was to begin shooting. Soderbergh had planned to shoot it in an “informal, documentary” style, which kind of makes sense, seeing as how the book is non-fiction.  But studios tend to be terrified of anything unconventional, so they brought in Capote director Bennett Miller and got a rewrite of the script from Aaron Sorkin, who’s brilliant at writing slick Hollywood stuff that’s just entertaining enough that you forgive it for not being very realistic (“How do I know you weren’t studying? Because you go to B.U.!“).  So that’s why now, instead of people talking about statistics like in the book, we see some old guy asking Brad Pitt “Who’s Fabio?” to illustrate how out of touch old baseball scouts are.  Oh well.  At least Sandra Bullock’s not teaching inner city blacks to play football.

"Pie?! There's no pieing in baseball!"

[hat tip: WithLeather]