Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
Very Crowded Memorial Weekend Kick-Off: ‘Hangover … 
Shareholders Quiz Time Warner Chief On Political Ties And … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
EXCLUSIVE: Fresh from their Golden Globe win for The Social Network, producers Scott Rudin, Michael De Luca and Dana Brunetti have made a deal at Sony Pictures to collaborate again on Sex on the Moon, the next book by Ben Mezrich. The book is about a NASA employee who steals moon rocks to dazzle his girlfriend. Mezrich’s Accidental Billionaires was the basis for the script that Aaron Sorkin wrote for The Social Network. Mezrich also wrote Bringing Down the House, the book that formed the basis for the film 21.
Loading ...
Love the title.
Let me guess. Aaron Sorkin’s gonna scribe this, and the girlfriend is going to be a slut, a groupie, Asian, or all of the above.
Love how in his Golden Globes speech Sorkin tried to deflect the criticism of the anti-woman bias in “Social Network” by bashing Sarah Palin (“I want my daughters to aspire to elitism and not listen to the women who bash elitism!” Uh, whoEVER could he be talking about?).
And then he further made not-much-sense with the blatant brown-nosing towards all the “brilliant women” in the room — because when I think of industries that aren’t totally riven with rampant sexism and objectification of women problems, I definitely think Hollywood!
Hollywood = a totally healthy place for women to work (at least women between the ages of 18 and 25 who are supermodels and well-connected. Acting lessons optional.)
Don’t worry. People were openly mocking Sorkin’s speech. So transparent.
Sorkin’s speech was so pathetic I almost puked a little. One of the most self-indulgent PR moves ever. Pure affectation, zero sincerity. If Sorkin can’t take the criticism about the misogyny in his films, he shouldn’t have written it that way. I think it’s so stupid how he talks about his fictional film as if it’s a documentary, but when addressed about the girls and misogyny he reminds us it’s pure fiction. Which is it, Sorkin? The saddest part of the speech was when he quoted a line from the film in which Erica Albright says to Zuckerburg that girls won’t hate him because he’s a nerd but because he’s an asshole and then Sorkin goes on to tell the real-life Zuckerberg how not true that was. WTF? I have no words for this… someone else please finish for me…
Which is it? Well it’s both. I have to kiss Zuck’s ass now that the movie is a big hit and everyone loves it. I want Mark to friend me on Facebook. I want Mark to like me. I want to be loved wherever I go by everyone. The women in Mark’s life were portrayed accurately he was a misogynist he just wanted hot chicks to like him but they didn’t so he created a website to rate them. That’s the movie I want to do next I’m going to write and direct The Hot or Not Network.
Oh look, the negative campaigning has begun. How cute.
It’s nice to see ya Harvey.
Relax, it was a movie. The only truth to it was the lack of women involved in the development of FB. and if you know anyone in the know in Silicon Valley or at Harvard (and no, not your smart cousin who went there and went on to write for Friends — i mean real blue bloods who wouldn’t talk to your cousin) you’d know the type of women depicted actually exist. yes, Harvard Groupies, yes, Silicon Valley groupies — just like in professional sports. oh my God, there are women out there who flock to rich and future rich guys? shocking. boo hoo that he didn’t show other types of women who actually exist as well. it didn’t serve his purpose which was to write a good movie. which, btw he did, which is why it’s going to win an Academy Award for adapted screenplay.
as far as his apology to Zuckerberg, when he wrote the script FB wasn’t was it became even in the second half of 2010 and Mark hadn’t pledged to give away half of his fortune. that’s what, half of 16 billion dollars if he gave it away today?! he deserved the apology even if Sorkin didn’t have to give it to him on live television. it actually showed some class. the guy’s not perfect but he’s a great fucking writer. but i do love you all!
Was there sexism in “The West Wing”, “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” or “Sports Night”? (Serious question…)
I find it odd how aside from the fact that his voice gives me a headache, Sorkin has never said anything remotely interesting or witty in an interview. He just keeps saying the same exact thing in every interview for that matter, like he has to stay on message, when we want to hear something interesting out of him. But never a single witty thing. Usually, good writers come up with stuff off the cuff all the time, and I don’t mean pro writers, just like, kids who are 25 and such.
And yes, let’s all kiss Zuck’s butt now that audience response in screenings was that the guy was a hero, but we have no problem just making a movie that makes the guy out to be something he’s not. Forget about all the stuff with girls that was inaccurate.
Guarantee they change the title.
Sounds like something horrible that A list people will sign up to do but still fail because people will want the charm of Social Network back.
I’m surprised the Deadline team isn’t pointing out the weirdness of this whole Social Network movie phenom. Rudin says, “Thanks to Mark Z for allowing us to make this movie…” WTF? Since when is “not suing” equal to “allowing”? It’s a beautifully made movie. But I can’t ever remember another movie that claims to be “a fictionalization” of real events (not a dramatization, there’s a huge difference). Especially when it ends with the on-screen text facts about all the real participants and uses everyone’s real name. Sorkin basically apologizes to Zuckerberg as he accepts his award, for writing him out to be such a mega a-hole, admiting he’s a visionary altruist… And since when do we need a Facebook movie made by old men? Movie was a wolf in sheeps clothing. All it takes is snappy dialogue, an orange filter and great music… and it’s going to win an oscar?
Oh gawd. I would’ve hated to see a movie made about Facebook (which ‘The Social Network’ is not about; or rather is about in the loosest of ways) from younger people. That would’ve been a total trainwreck. A movie about “the power of youth” told amidst second rate Seth Rogen stoner and party comedy. (What is second rate of second rate comedy anyway?)
I agree. Any movie about the reality of Facebook seems like a bad idea. The Social Network was a bad idea. If they wanted to make a fiction, they should have changed the names, of course, then no one would see it.
You seem to be operating under the impression that the majority of biopics and “true stories” aren’t fictionalized accounts of real events. The point they were trying to make with that comment was that it wasn’t a documentary.
Actually, you’re wrong. The “fictionalizations” have never been denied by the filmmakers or the writer of the book, “The Accidental Billionaires” on which the film was based. The author, Ben Mezrich, is known for creating scenes out of his imagination. He doesn’t deny it. He wrote a book about Zuckerberg even though he hadn’t met him or interviewed him, but since Z was the main character in the book, he had to make up tons of scenes and situations. This is a big cash grab, a second rate made for TV story jazzed up to pseudo art by some of the best in the business who are cashing in on their own success as well as Facebook’s.
Young does not have to be stupid. Jason Reitman could have written this better.
If he had to stick to the facts, it just wouldn’t have been interesting. But he would have at least made the central character more human. Sorkin’s so great at writing assholes, so he really had to hit that up in his version of Zuckerberg… it’s all he does well.
I agree that young doesn’t have to be stupid. Unfortunately, the industry tends not to agree. I can’t say whether Reitman would’ve made a good film or not. Personally, I thought Sorkin’s and Fincher’s film was a triumph.
Green filter.
Thanks… failed cinematography 101.
The better moon project is about the guy who sold real estate on the moon and the federal government tried stopping him and failed.
Awesome book. A true story. I forget who is adapting it for Anarchy Mgmt or they’re shopping it? Just loved it when the book came in.
Why is Rudin allowing those other producers to ride his historic coat-tails? He’s the real brains behind the film…
If he was “the real brains behind the film” as you say then they wouldn’t keep Brunetti and Deluca around “riding his historic coat-tails”.
I think you asked and answered your own question there.
Ok, so let me just use this post about Rudun and co. to explain to everyone my qualms with them. First, the fact that Social Network is getting this much attention just because Rudin knows how to run a great Oscar campaign is such horseshit. That movie is simply forgettable. Doesn’t challenge anything and doesn’t contain any sort of timeless nature that usually makes up an award winning film. And we will all watch as Rudin, Sorkin, Fincher, and all those bloated big heads go up to the stage and accept the Oscar for Best Picture. We all know it’s going to happen.
The thing that pisses me off about the whole thing is (1) how much of a prick Aaron Sorkin is and (2) how much of a sellout David Fincher, myself, is. Fincher has made 3 good films – “Se7en,” “The Game,” and “Fight Club” (and I’m stretching with that one). His career as of late has been pathetic. What a hack. All of the guys in his category the other night… O. Russell, Aronofsky, Nolan… they’re all eons better than Fincher. They take more challenging films that are taken from original screenplays and they administer their style. Social Network is a bunch of close-ups in low key lighting. The boring direction is hidden behind the great score by Reznor and the wonderful editing. He is a hack. Hackety hack hack.
And don’t let me get started on Sorkin. Are we all forgetting Studio 60? Shit. And wow does he come off as such a douche bag in his speech at the globes.
It’s so sad that a movie like this is going to win Best Picture in the most celebrated and traditional award show in show business history.
oh please,reitman is overrated.
The Social Network will probably win the Oscar and probably deserves to. I don’t know what movie last year was better. Don’t say True Grit I thought it was true shit. Sorkin is a jerk in a lot of ways, but he certainly has a rat-a-tat-tat voice that is compelling. His characters do all sound the same, but so many writers in this town suck and so a good one does stand out. GG speech was totally kiss-ass, but how many people in this biz are sincere? I can think of a small handful of people I work with on a regular basis who I like as people and the rest I just learn to tolerate. As to the misogyny issue, I have spent time in many hyper-competitive male arenas– I think the behavior seemed accurate if not admirable.
Misogynistic behavior as “admirable”?
I won’t waste any more words with your type.
Great that they changed the title. I hope that this will turn into one of the best movie this year.
Reitman is a fantastic director, but he is NOT a writer.
Ever heard of Up in the Air or Thank You for Smoking, hmm?
I’m surprised that the producers of The Social Network didn’t find the misogyny and the stereotyping in the script to be just a cheap technique of adding shock value… or at least care enough to request Sorkin to make serious changes/edits. I mean these are the big studio honchos who ultimately have creative say over development, right? Seems they got off on the flak while Sorkin took the full brunt (not that Sorkin’s any better).
Harsh!!! I’m probably younger than all of y’all so I’m not gonna pretend to be smarter than you, but I think that if you don’t like the movie, fine. Is it fake? Totally. But there’s no reason to trash talk these people who worked super hard. Even if this was the worst thing you’ve ever seen in your life, you should at least keep your mean comments to yourself. Unless you can do better, don’t criticize. I for one thought it was beatifully filmed. I loved the contrast between the glamourous settings and the college kids who have no idea what to do. I loved Jesse eisenberg’s portrayal of mark. Even though it’s made up from imagination and unlike the mark we’ve seen in interviews, he’s funny, bold, and brash, and I think he makes a great antagonist turned protagonist. And sorkin basically admits in an article in wired that he told eisenberg to do whatever to make the movie fun. It’s not exactly supposed to be true. They’re saying it’s based on a true story. And it is. Some of it has happened. Mark said in a sixty minutes interview that it’s 10% truth.
As for the misogyny, I’m fine with it. I’m a girl, and I think that for the movie, golddigging sluts are fun. They make the movie glamourous, and dramatic and entertaining for people who usually aren’t into this computer nerd stuff.