George Clooney Exits Warner Bros For Sony

COMMENTS (63)

• I almost fell asleep reading these script concepts. No wonder Warners let George. In a personal level, George is warm, sweet guy. I just wish he’d decide to make films that more than three people would want to watch.

  Comment by NeedSpeed — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 12:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• you have got to be kidding me?

  THE CHALLENGE
  Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. An adaptation of Jonathan Mahler’s nonfiction book chronicling the historic Supreme Court case in which two lawyers sued the Bush administration on behalf of accused terrorist Salim Hamdan.

  When will you left wing America haters learn? Is there no positive movie you can make about how this country has engaged with the troglodytes for the last 8 years. The troglodytes that would like to do nothing less than stone every gay person and put women back to slave status. I’m sure America is in the wrong though. We need a new John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart. Clooney makes me ashamed to be an American.

  Comment by enough is enough — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 12:36pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Are you serious? One Clooney hit pays for years of SmokeHouse’s development. Do the math.

  Besides, Nikki, you shouldn’t be the only one making the big bucks…

  Comment by Dixon Steele — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 12:39pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I will tell you why

  any films that clooney is in will eventually make billions, yes that is right billions, he is a classic icon

  end of story

  Comment by mr big — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 12:40pm PDT  Reply to this post

• They look like great films that the ever dumbed-down American public won’t comprehend.

  Maybe if he just produced and starred in comedies about reprehensible, permanently adolescent guys who fart, swear and act homophobic in their quest for nubile anorexic girls he’d make the studio piles of money.

  Comment by nyguy — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 12:45pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Actually, a couple sound like they may have mild box-office potential (the Grisham adaptation, THE TOURIST, and ESCAPE FROM TEHRAN). All of them sound like they could be good little films, the kind the studios used to have as their bread and butter- back before grown-ups stopped going to the movies, and everything became infantalised. (Heck, there’s even a comic-book connection- one of the figures in the real life events ESCAPE FROM TEHRAN are based on was legendary cartoonist Jack Kirby, who basically created Marvel Comics!)

  Comment by cst — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 12:50pm PDT  Reply to this post

• yeah, but he does tend to make and try to make good movies, if that’s worth anything to anyone. For getting so mad at something like Transformers, you think you would like this, or do you care more about a studio’s bottom line than they do? I don’t get why you point your evil eye at this, or do you just not like him?

  Comment by No one — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 12:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Boy am I out of sync. Every one of these loglines describes a movie I would pay to see. Alas, not a tentpole in the bunch (sigh).

  Comment by Santayana — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 1:01pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “BREAKING: CLOONEY TO LOSE MONEY FOR SONY, RATHER THAN WARNER BROS.”

  I appreciate his intellect, it’s important to look smart on “Charlie Rose.” But when will Clooney make a movie that emotionally connects with an audience?

  Comment by Was That Too Mean? — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 1:09pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Nikki, you can’t have it both ways. Clooney makes good movies. Even if they don’t ignite the boxoffice, they’re most often thoughtful and well made. And isn’t it this boffo-BO-based bullshit why movies suck so bad nowadays? I can’t speculate on Amy Pascal’s motives, but I’m happy he’s got a home and I hope to see some of his slate hit the theaters in the near future. Anything’s better than the rehashed generic horror and action-figure based dog squeeze glutting the theaters now.

  Comment by encurtido — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 1:12pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Guess the Warner dudes lost their man crush on Clooney.

  Pascal usually seems so shrewd, but this Clooney deal does seem peculiar.

  Looks like they’re angling for the international audience.

  All the projects have the same flavor, i.e. political, intrigue, etc. Not likely any of them will be a female lead. It’ll probably be the same old suspects – Pitt, Damon, Hanks. Zzzzzzzz…..

  Comment by Pangea — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 1:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Wasn’t the “CIA makes a movie to help hostages” story already made into a movie?? Or has this project been in development hell so long it just feels like it was already made…

  And The Tourist sounds a lot like Clooney’s portion of Syriana.

  Comment by Enrique — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 1:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• What a boys’ club. I guess Smokehouse doesn’t think women can write.

  Comment by truthbetold — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 1:53pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Leatherheads. Need I say more?

  Comment by Observer — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 2:17pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I’ve come up with some more accurate log-lines for the films, based on Clooney’s box office performance…

  THE CHALLENGE

  The real challenge is to get anyone willing to pay to see this film. But there will be a lot of people having intricate conversations as they walk up and down hallways.

  OUR BRAND IS CRISIS

  But our product is failure.

  FARRAGUT NORTH

  But the box office is heading south.

  ESCAPE FROM TEHRAN

  And audiences will be escaping from the theatres. But the mystery will be if they’ll include the Canadian Embassy who made the operation possible.

  THE TOURIST

  If you liked The Bourne movies, you’ll love this, because it’s pretty much the exact same thing.

  THE INNOCENT MAN

  This film will be found guilty.

  Comment by Furious D — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 2:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Wow, is Sony allergic to money? Those projects look like the next bombs in the adult thriller genre that is in the process of meltdown. All topped by Clooney, a magazine star who doesn’t move tickets.

  Amy smartly figures out Moneyball isn’t commercial enough, but then turns around and thinks Clooney will be??

  Comment by Oh Amy — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 2:22pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I don’t know what to say about George Clooney. I’ve never met him. He’s a good actor. He is drawn to smart, interesting material. Some work. Some don’t. How that fits into a system that is expecting him to have the hits outweigh the misses, is clearly reflected in this move.

  Not knowing Clooney, I wonder if, on some level it’s all gravy, as in, “I’m a multi-millionaire – fuck it.”

  Kathrine Hepburn was considered box-office poison. Some of the biggest stars had periods when they could not get a top-level film gig (Sinatra, many others).

  I was disappointed Clooney came out for this contract, that’s for sure. You’d think a guy like him who likes to PLAY complicated heroes would have a moral compass a bit more developed, but, like Tom Hanks, there was some convoluted “things are changing, this contract provides the chance to get back to work” explanation that skirted the issues of new media, and there’s no doubt in my mind, the high profile actors were the cherry on top for the “yes” vote.They brought that turd SPRINTING across the finish line, with 78% approval.

  NOW, I’m told, content will be pushed to new media as quickly as the AMPTP can pull it off, and those terms will apply. I’m told, the AMPTP, in 2011 will consider those terms a “starting point” for negotiation, not, as the “yes” people are certain, “back to square one.”

  It appears the networks and studios are all over the map as to monetizing the internet – no consensus.

  And, the Supreme Court today turned down a request to review an appellate court decision giving Cablevision (4 million customers) the right to provide their OWN DVR service, meaning, with your remote, you can ask Cablevision, from IT’S own HUGE 24/7/365 recording servers, to RE-play that episode of “30 Rock” you MISSED the night before. Right now, DVR’s can only be programmed forward – PAST content is not available.

  The appellate decision said Cablevision was within its rights to do this, and the Supreme Court today said they wouldn’t take the case.

  Now, what that potentially means is: Cablevision, in sending an individual programming request, can fill the 1/2 hour, or hour, or whatever, with IT’S own sold advertising, and NOT pay ONE DIME back to the studios or networks.

  Of course, one assumes networks and studios will simply withhold content from Cablevision, unless Cablevision cuts them in in a significant way on the resulting profit stream to Cablevision.

  Or not.

  As to the individual middle-class SAG actor? Residuals? Even over at Sagwatch, THE pro-”yes” site, their hardest hardcore regulars are being brought up short, and saying things like

  “I’ve said this before,(bullshit) but perhaps we need to re-define residuals in a way we’ve never thought of – outside the box. Residuals were forward thinking in the 50′s, now they don’t work for the new business models and profit streams that are developing” says one Dr. Giggles today – one of THE pro-”yes” voices on Sagwatch.

  Well, how about a gross percentage of WHOEVER MAKES THE MONEY? (distributor, producer – whoever). THAT’S “outside the box” and was continually dismissed by the “yes” leaders, when suggested by people like me MONTHS AND MONTHS ago, along with others. NOT WORTH FIGHTING FOR THEN DR. GIGGLES, WAS IT? NOW? You are SHIT out of luck, you fucking moron.

  And now? Already, of course, we’re seeing the content providers going to war with the content deliverers (Cablevision, etc.)with round one, apparently going to the deliverers, minus Congressional intervention.

  The Supreme Court just said to Cablevision: “go ahead, make content available that, after its FIRST viewing, movies, TV, will be of NO FURTHER PROFIT to the studios and networks.”

  That’s the reality that can be extrapolated from the appelate decision.

  My own core belief, from day fucking one, was, actors needed to man up and go to war to establish a NEW PARADIGM: one which said “all this ‘work for nothing to get it done,’ and ‘scale plus ten,’ and ‘no more quotes,’ and ‘hey, we’re gonna take your residuals away’ BULLSHIT?”

  Needed to be forcefully countered by a union – SAG – that said in no uncertain terms: “look, everything is changing, how fast, how much, when – all those questions and more? We can’t answer – and neither can you. But we will go to war for this: the ACTOR will no longer be considered a smaller, “workable part of the budget” as in “we worked for nothing or next to nothing,” or, “it’s ALL on the screen” or “we couldn’t get this made if the stars didn’t work for scale – hell EVERYBODY- all the actors did.”

  I truly believe, if screen and TV and now, new media acting is going to survive as a viable profession, we need to redefine our place in the equation – and that place needs to be one of PARTNERSHIP, as in WE GET PAID. SMALL FILM? You can’t PAY a decent wage, P&H, and residuals? SORRY – no SAG actors. Internet project? You can’t do the same? Sorry, no SAG actors. Movies, TV? The ACTORS are right up there at the TOP of your priorities, in terms of your budgeting.

  The NEW “NEW” had better become “ACTORS GET PAID, get P&H AND GET RESIDUALS.” Period. No exceptions.

  The projects that can’t hack that formula? Sorry. Next!

  Do we want to value ourselves so that, we, such an INTEGRAL part of the process are NEVER de-prioritized in terms of budget, salary, P&H, residuals – OR – do we want to let SAG die on the vine, as it is currently doing?

  Watch and see and mark my words. He was NOT my favorite politician, I was too young to be fully aware of him, and he stood for some God-awful crap in his day, but he’s starting to be looked at in a whole new light by historians – even liberal ones – and, in the words of Barry Goldwater:

  “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

  SAG? You better get your shit together.

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 2:26pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Nevertheless, The Smokehouse remains across the street from Warners.

  Comment by World's Greatest Garlic Cheese Bread — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 3:12pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Geez, Matt, did your meds wear off? Seriously, you got your ass kicked. Learn how to lose with grace. The vast majority of your guild felt that the New Media numbers weren’t worth going to war over now, during a horrible recession, and that they’d rather wait a few years when they could point to real numbers. Not that complicated, babe.

  Seriously, ditch the bitterness. Time to move on.

  Comment by Dixon Steele — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 3:26pm PDT  Reply to this post

• How this stiff ever gets movies made is laugh. He’s a creative dud, but boy can he play the politics of Hollywood. What a hack.

  Comment by jefCostello — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 3:31pm PDT  Reply to this post

• You hit the nail on the head. Clooney as an A-list superstar is Hollywood’s biggest fraud. He can’t open a picture (drama, rom/com, or action), and his politics have completely clouded his artistic judgement. If he had any integrity, he’d quit acting and just produce and direct vanity pics (though he’s not really good behind the camera, either). But he likes being on the cover of GQ and Italian villas, so he keeps forcing over-priced pseudo-art on an uninterested public. Hopefully, this indicates the studios are FINALLY wising up to his failure. Not only does this emperor have no clothes, but they’re the most expensive non-existent threads in the history of the biz.

  Comment by johnny Marshall — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 3:34pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Clooney’s concepts really suck, I was bored reading them. This is so disappointing…

  Comment by JS — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 4:26pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Why is a bad thing to try to make GOOD, INTERESTING, SMART films? That is what George Clooney is trying to do. Who cares if they don’t make $100 million at the box office? That’s what the tent-poles are for.

  It’s almost impossible to get smart movies greenlit in this town nowadays. And the ones that do get made are unsupported, unmarketed, then slapped into 4 theaters for a week (gee, I wonder why they don’t make money?).

  Thank God someone with power like Clooney is still trying to make good films. I wish there were more like him out there.

  Comment by good film is dying — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 4:49pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Here’s a Mad Libs Clooney Project:

  Based on the acclaimed (novel/NYT article/documentary/life rights) about a (spy/hostage/terrorist/campaign manager) who was (prosecuted/persecuted/found out) during the (Iraq War/Iranian Revolution/Boar War), the film has a screenplay by (writer who was hot ten years ago and now has an expensive divorce to pay for) and will be directed by (Clooney/Heslov/Potsie) and executive produced by Jerry Weintraub.

  I’ll take Will Smith’s stuff over this dull crap any day.

  Comment by Interested Observer — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 4:51pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I like George Clooney. His films may not be hits…..after all, they are directed at adults, and I’m an adult. Even his misses (except for Leatherheads) are more interesting than the crap playing now. Unfortunately, the bottom line has become the holy grail. In the old studio days, they made movies they knew wouldn’t make money, but they wanted to make them because they felt they were important and had something to say. I miss that.

  I’ll take Clooney over Transformers every time!

  Comment by independent producer — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 4:58pm PDT  Reply to this post