Deadline article May 31 2015 about Tomorrowland and George's choices

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Bart & Fleming: ‘Tomorrowland’ Mistakes; George Clooney’s Career; Cameron Crowe Wronged; Chris Pratt’s Star Movements

FLEMING: Movie misfires are all too common, but some merit a closer look. Tomorrowland is one of those films. A $180 million budget; the Disney marketing machine hyping a film that flogs an attraction at its venerable theme park; George Clooney; big brained architects in screenwriter Damon Lindelof (of World War Z, Star Trek and Prometheus fame), and Brad Bird, the Iron Giant helmer who transitioned seamlessly to live action with the thrilling Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol. Rather than soar, Tomorrowland is an early summer casualty. Surrounded by sequels, superheroes and escapism, is it just too difficult to try launching challenging themes in the summer?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]BART: My problem with Tomorrowland, Mike, is that it’s a movie with a theme in search of a protagonist. Further, its emotional core is oddly alienating rather than engaging. Having said this, it’s disturbing to criticize a movie when I respect its filmmakers and also the motivation for making it. Brad Bird wanted to present a vision of the future that was positive, not dystopian. Cool idea. And he wanted to show us a super-world, not a superhero. He ended up making an oddly cold movie with a built-in trap. The only way to warm up the story would be to warm up the relationship between the central character, played by George Clooney, and the female lead. But the female lead is a very young girl and there’s no place you can take it without hitting the self-destruct button. So while I admire the film, I would shoot myself if I had to sell it. Sure, I could put Clooney in a trailer telling audiences, “Here’s a really smart movie that will encourage you to use your imagination and think positively about the contribution you can make to the future.” Let’s get real: it’s easier to sell a superhero picture that will blast your imagination into a state of numbness. That’s why I have never been in marketing.

FLEMING: I feel similar to Tomorrowland as I do about Aloha, the new Cameron Crowe movie that was fed through a wood chipper in those stolen Sony emails when studio higher-ups were trying to fix it, putting a stink on the picture it could never shake. I love Crowe’s movies, even We Bought A Zoo, and especially Jerry Maguire, Say Anything, Almost Famous and Fast Times At Ridgemont High, which he wrote. I want to see him touch the stars and take big swings, and drop in lines that could seem spectacularly corny, but which worked so well in Jerry Maguire. Likewise, Tomorrowland was teeming with noble ambitions and big ideas, but it just didn’t work as a film because you didn’t have enough reason to care about the characters. I liked the look back at the 1964 World’s Fair (one of my own earliest memories), and the idea that the future was so bright back then, and now it’s dire and all about droughts, political and religious unrest and global warming with kids distracted by video games and other digital overload. I like the movie’s challenge to young people to become aware, pay attention in school and think about fixing the mess we are leaving them. The film reminded me of Interstellar, so complex that it was confusing, but what Christopher Nolan’s movie had that this didn’t was a fully grounded relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter. That kept me in the game even when I had no idea what was going on (why was he in that bookcase, again?) Like you, I think it’s too simplistic to say you can’t launch original IP in summer, but you need a handle to sell it. That conversation should have been had with Lindelof and Bird before they got underway. Who wants to make an ambitious movie only to find there’s no way to sell it, or even properly describe it in a couple sentences? There is a scene where the lead girl (Britt Robertson) travels to a sci-fi collector store and gets into a wild battle with two strange alien-like proprietors played by Keegan-Michael Key and Kathryn Hahn. I went to see this movie to see what went wrong. I remember when the musical Pippin first played Broadway and it was failing because it was hard to market and they ran TV ads simply saying, Here’s a minute of Pippin, and the exuberant Ben Vereen song and dance number–which did nothing to explain the premise–saved the show. This Tomorrowland scene was so over the top and cinematic, that it might have brought kids in had they just shown it and said, there’s more where that came from. Sue Kroll at Warner Bros did something similar with Nolan’s Inception; she didn’t even try to explain an unexplainable movie; instead she made it must-see, just showing mind-bending footage no one had seen before. What Disney did instead in its trailers was hinge the whole thing on the star power of Clooney. Trouble is, he plays a dour, beaten man who doesn’t arrive until an hour in, really. He is also the guy who, after Batman & Robin, deliberately stepped off the blockbuster path and therefore has little currency with the young demo this movie is aimed at.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]BART: All of this also makes we wonder about the career choices of Clooney, who is just about the smartest actor I know, and Bryan Lourd, his agent, who is the savviest dealmaker I know. Why did Clooney decide to play the non-character in Tomorrowland? I vividly remember Clooney in Good Night, and Good Luck, but I’m worried that he’s run out of the good luck. Anyone can have a miscue like Monuments Men, which tried to inject comedy into a somber plot line. But I’d expect someone as nimble as Clooney to follow that with a winner. Now, I understand Clooney’s dilemma. In interviews, he has reiterated his determination to avoid the pitfalls of conventional leading man roles. He wants to make interesting films with interesting filmmakers – or to focus on his own film making career. In Tomorrowland, however, Clooney has set himself back. He plays a character who always looks uncomfortable about being in a particular place at a particular time. And that’s beginning to seem like Clooney in most of his films.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]FLEMING: I think he drank the Kool-Aid here and signed on early because the film’s premise and the lofty goals and enthusiasm of Lindelof and Bird made him think the film could make a positive global statement. I once sat in his office at Warner Bros and asked him why the only photo on the wall was him, in the Batmask. He said it was there as a reminder to not make career choices for the wrong reasons. He has made so many good movies based on that hard lesson—Out of Sight, Syriana, Michael Clayton, Good Night And Good Luck, Three Kings, Up in the Air, The Descendants—that he has nothing to regret. I see media reports contrasting him to Dwayne Johnson. Both are guys I love being around, but they are running on completely different career tracks. Johnson, who opened this weekend in San Andreas, is so intent on filling the Arnold Schwarzenegger role by making the most blatant commercial choices, including joining pre-existing and already successful franchises and referring to himself as “franchise Viagra.” I wonder if he would be taken seriously if he tried to turn in a real actor performance in, say, a movie about Hawaiian King Kamehameha, which at one time was his dream. I admire Clooney’s career, how he has worked for discount to get worthy movies made, how he saved Gravity after Robert Downey Jr walked, taking a role that offered little to a male star because it so deferred to Sandra Bullock. He did that because he admired the script and the director and recalling that hit’s rocky origins, I’m not sure that picture gets made without him. I want to see how he does, adapting the British tabloid scandal Hack Attack, a tough subject because it lands at the doorstep of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
BART: In Hollywood, top stars have always resisted their true persona — and hence went on suspension. Gable didn’t like being Gable or Bogart being Bogart. In the case of Clooney, my wife always says, ‘he’s Cary Grant. Why won’t he give us a Cary Grant movie?” The answer is that he doesn’t want to. Shucks.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]FLEMING: It is so hard to create new stars I’m beginning to think you can’t, anymore. When he got Star Trek and Jack Ryan, Chris Pine seemed poised to be the next Major Star. Jack Ryan flopped, and Pine just made a deal to play the boyfriend of Wonder Woman in the DC Comics Warner Bros movie. So the one time next Major Star is now holding Wonder Woman’s pocketbook? The truth is, you go through that hype period, try not to say anything dumb in endless press interviews around the world. Maybe you have a string of hits that propels you to super-stardom, but more likely you learn to satisfy yourself with quality of work, like Clooney has done. The audience is too fickle and studios no longer believe in the star system. When first dollar gross legacies like Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise hang it up, the bankable star might go the way of the dinosaur.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The next guy to make that assault on super-stardom is Chris Pratt, who came out of nowhere to establish himself as a funny, engaging star of the surprise Marvel hit Guardians of the Galaxy. Steven Spielberg tapped him to star in Jurassic World, and wants him for Indiana Jones. As he set out to promote that film, Pratt, formerly a paunchy journeyman TV actor who has aerobicized himself into leading man form–his move from CAA to UTA with defecting agent Jason Heyman was potentially the most lucrative part of that drama–seems quite an engaging character. In this era of gotcha press junkets, Pratt did a funny thing by apologizing in advance on his Facebook page for all the dumb things he would inevitably say. Pratt wrote: “I want to make a heartfelt apology for whatever it is I end up accidentally saying during the forthcoming ‪#‎JurassicWorld‬ press tour. I hope you understand it was never my intention to offend anyone and I am truly sorry. I swear. I’m the nicest guy in the world. And I fully regret what I (accidentally will have) said in (the upcoming foreign and domestic) interview(s). I am not in the business of making excuses. I am just dumb. Plain and simple. I try. I REALLY try! When I do (potentially) commit the offensive act for which I am now (pre) apologizing you must understand I (will likely have been) tired and exhausted when I (potentially) said that thing I (will have had) said that (will have had) crossed the line. Those rooms can get stuffy and the hardworking crews putting these junkets together need some entertainment! (Likely) that is who I was trying to crack up when I (will have had) made that tasteless and unprofessional comment. Trust me. I know you can’t say that anymore. In fact in my opinion it was never right to say the thing I definitely don’t want to but probably will have said. To those I (will have) offended please understand how truly sorry I already am. I am fully aware that the subject matter of my imminent forthcoming mistake, a blunder (possibly to be) dubbed “JurassicGate” is (most likely) in no way a laughing matter. To those I (will likely have had) offended rest assured I will do everything in my power to make sure this doesn’t happen (again).” Priceless.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]BART: I am not ready to endorse the idea of pre-emptive apologies. We are all being smothered in political correctness these days and hence are too ready to apologize for everything we say. But if there’s anyone who deserves apologies, it is the aforementioned Cameron Crowe. I saw Aloha last night and, with all its flaws (and its over-stuffed plot) it is a delightful movie. It is also the movie everyone loves to bash – those Sony executives in their gibberish ‘notes” (albeit hacked), the bitchy critics, the daft bloggers. But Crowe has given us some daring ideas, some brilliant dialogue (delivered by a great cast), a marvelous score – and one weird scene which, I assume, he didn’t know how to write so his characters simply stare at each other and Crowe shows us subtitles. OK, Cameron didn’t quite get it together this time but he deserves a pat on the back, not extinction.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]FLEMING: Pratt will undoubtedly gain polish after stumping for a few of these blockbusters, but he showed a lot of unvarnished candor in his GQ cover story. He noted how for years, he held the purse of his actress wife Anna Faris and swallowed hard while actors and deal makers blatantly hit on her, right in front of him, disrespectfully treating Pratt like he was invisible. The same people are now telling him they knew all along he’d be a big star, and Pratt says he remembers every slight. His preemptive Facebook apology was probably smart as he veered into a discussion of how road rage helps his acting, and admitted he and actor pals Adam Scott and Nick Offerman trade email photos of their bowel movements. Like when, on Offerman’s birthday, Pratt sent one with the note, “You guys have the same birthday.” Let’s hope he limits this bizarre bonding ritual to his small circle of friends. Spielberg might have ordained Pratt as his next Indiana Jones, but I doubt the director wants to bond with a close encounter of the turd kind.

I haven't seen Tomorrowland yet, but I agree with their point that it wasn't marketed well.  From the commercials I saw, I couldn't tell you a thing about the film.  All the details  I found here, and most people aren't invested enough to go searching for articles and forums about a film that's not a franchise.  

It's interesting to me that he was working on Tomorrowland and MM practically simultaneously, and they've both turned out to be disappointments.  It seems that was just a bad patch for him, and I'd expect at least Money Monster to be a return to form for him.  I worry about Hack Attack, though. It could be so great, but there's also such a high chance of him getting "son of a newsman" preachy in the script.  Fingers crossed he lets someone else write it.

it was weird marketing...didn't they have toys (dolls and one of those pins) that kids could buy?  never heard anything more about that.  very strange.

Oh I'm so relieved that George doesn't want to make
"Cary Grant type movies" 

 

If they could put together a really solid Cary Grant style romantic comedy, with the meet-cute and the banter, I'd line up days before to see George in it. Doesn't seem possible to make a good one anymore, though.

"Judy, Judy, Judy" 

He he heeeeee

melbert wrote:"Judy, Judy, Judy" 

Oh YESSSS......but did he ever say that ???

Was it in Some like it Hot ?
Oh they don't make 'em like that any more !!

Sigh

He has Anthony McCarten (The Theory of Everything) writing the script of Hack Attack.

I'm pleased about that. There are so many recent events involved. Such a hot potato! People like Andy Coulson are still in ongoing court cases etc etc

Missa wrote:I haven't seen Tomorrowland yet, but I agree with their point that it wasn't marketed well.  From the commercials I saw, I couldn't tell you a thing about the film.  All the details  I found here, and most people aren't invested enough to go searching for articles and forums about a film that's not a franchise.  

It's interesting to me that he was working on Tomorrowland and MM practically simultaneously, and they've both turned out to be disappointments.  It seems that was just a bad patch for him, and I'd expect at least Money Monster to be a return to form for him.  I worry about Hack Attack, though. It could be so great, but there's also such a high chance of him getting "son of a newsman" preachy in the script.  Fingers crossed he lets someone else write it.

Missa, he's got Anthony McCarten who wrote "The Theory of Everything" to adapt the Hack Attack book for him. Good choice.

George. The Last Movie Star.  Wasn't that the title of a Time piece done a few years ago?  And Fleming says its so hard to create new stars.  I would be surprised if there is another real movie star. At least in my lifetime.  The movie business has changed so much.  And stars like Grant, Bogart and Gable just had that certain something. Something that can't be created by a studio, a certain charisma.  George has it too. Not sure who is around who could be added to this list.

Tomorrowland - I have to agree with what Fleming and Bart said about the lack of emotional feeling for the characters.  I liked them enough but I didn't really feel fully invested in them emotionally.  For me I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat worrying about what was going to happen to Casey, Frank or Athena.

And the marketing.  Bart and Fleming see that it was not handled well at all.  Putting George out front was probably a mistake.  Especially if you're trying to sell it to kids.

big movie big message
but I agree on confused about the target
anyway my skill in  movies doesn't allow me to say something really meaningful
I would only add, as I already said, it can start a new "thread" about mixing environment's care and family fun
possible?

and
the hope issue is the hardest to handle
kudos to Bird

Missa wrote:If they could put together a really solid Cary Grant style romantic comedy, with the meet-cute and the banter, I'd line up days before to see George in it. Doesn't seem possible to make a good one anymore, though.

Didn't he already do that--wasn't it called Leatherheads?  (only sorta tongue in cheek)

Nice post IM. 


Am I really the only one here who Liked Leatherheads ?
Surely not ?

Hey Ho. 

Joanna wrote:Nice post IM. 


Am I really the only one here who Liked Leatherheads ?
Surely not ?

Hey Ho. 

Joanna, I liked Leatherheads.  I liked the banter between George and Renee.  I'm a fan of John Krazinski too and thought he was well cast as the college football star.  The acting was a bit over the top.  It was supposed to be but I'm not sure it was as convincing as it should have been.  It was a cute movie and IMO not one of George's better efforts but I always enjoy pulling the DVD out once a year to watch it again.

I don't see any movie that George has made in the style of Cary Grant.  I think George's style is unique to him.  Leatherheads is a nod to the old style romantic comedy but George style.  

Jo -  I'm a "Leatherheads" fan, too. It wasn't a great movie, but it was fun to watch. I was trying to figure out why some of his films seem to just miss the mark (ie. Leatherheads, MM, Confessions, etc.) and it struck me that two things could be happening.
     1. George is trying to find his feet behind the camera and, in trying his hand at a variety of genres, hasn't spent enough time on any one to get really good at it. (One of the benefits of the old studio system was that if you were good at something you got to do it a lot - whether you wanted to or not (a downside of the system).)
     2. George is trying to prove that he has gravitas and is a "real actor" and not just a "star" constantly playing himself in all his roles or trying to be Cary Grant. ( The "Oceans" trilogy was as close to Cary Grant as you can get.)  He often refers to his behind the camera work to explain how he is different from Grant. To me he sounds a little defensive. He might be insecure about the comparison. - Whatever, he seems to be deliberately avoiding playing to his strengths.

It would seem to follow that the two most impactful films he's made, in my opinion, are usually the ones that come from passionate beliefs.

And I'm talking about GNGL and Michael Clayton here. Oh, and Up in the Air

But he really likes to mix it up as well doesn't he? - Gravity, Tomorrowland, The Descendants, Coens for fun.

Certainly not interested in being typecast - and I really can't see him wanting to do a romance (One Fine Day type thing) now..........

Wonder how much Disney paid him.........

Donna & Lizzy....Glad to learn I'm not the only one then 
to like Leatherheads. 
I agree some of the scenes were "over the top" but 
we're meant to be that way.
For me it was good to watch a George film without 
having to concentrate too hard on a multy layered 
story.
And anyway....I like Renee. 

Rocks Alert from our Melbert !

PAN - From what he's been saying lately, I think HE thinks he's too old to play a romantic lead anymore. Besides, those romantic comedies are too "fluffy" for his present-day image - unless there's some sort of message attached. I think he's starting to see himself as some sort of senior statesman of Hollywood. - Maybe marrying Amal is making him feel old.

I think most of George's movies will stand the test of time.  I think he doesn't like to typecast himself in roles or in the movies he directs/produces.  And I think from early on he wasn't interested in playing in romance type roles.  He has interests, passions and political points of view that he has/wants to explore.

There's a richness in so many of the movies he's been involved with.  Michael Clayton, GNGL, Confessions, The American, Up in the Air, Decscendants, Syriana.  And those that were fun likes the Oceans trilogy and the Coens, Three Kings.  Those are standouts for me.  
I think I'm echoing what PAN said here.  

George has had a couple of stumbles with MM and now Tomorrowland .  Well I really can't fault him too much as I think he did a fine job in the role of Frank.  His stumble may have been taking the part to begin with but I think he did it for all the right reasons.

Donnamarie - No argument. George has made a boatload of really great movies that will definitely stand the test of time. IMO, he's a better actor than he gets credit for. I agree he did a good job in Tomorrowland. It's not his fault the movie isn't doing well.

My point was that he's looking at his career differently now. I think he's trying to make all the "statements" he can while he still has the keys to the toybox, as he likes to say.

The absolute worst movies that George has made -- since becoming THE George Clooney -- are, in my opinion, 'Leatherheads,' 'Ocean's 13,' and 'The Men Who Stare at Goats.' And yet, each of those was a creative risk worth taking, I think. And, as bad as they were (again, to me), each of them was more watchable than 80% of the movies out there.

Well, maybe not 'O13.' I barely made it through that one. I didn't know who was going to fall asleep first, me or Brad Pitt.

Way2Old - Agree completely that George's worst films are better than most of what's out there and were risks worth taking, if only for what he learned from them. I don't think Ocean's 13 was that bad (I thought "12" was worse), but I do agree completely about "Goats". That has to be my least favorite of all his films.

It just puzzles me that as hard as he works and as smart as he is, for some reason the films he and Grant make aren't better than they are. They're good, but almost always seem to just miss the mark and leave you a little disappointed.

Oh yea Men Who Stare At Goats.  Forgot about that one.  For a reason.  I really didn't like it.  But it was original.

Tho all three Ocean's movies made good box office they should have just left it at 11.  Think its always better to leave the audience wanting for more but not giving it to them.  Generally sequels are not as good as the original.  Can hardly think of one other than The Godfather that succeeded at it.

HLizzyNY wrote:Way2Old - Agree completely that George's worst films are better than most of what's out there and were risks worth taking, if only for what he learned from them. I don't think Ocean's 13 was that bad (I thought "12" was worse), but I do agree completely about "Goats". That has to be my least favorite of all his films.

It just puzzles me that as hard as he works and as smart as he is, for some reason the films he and Grant make aren't better than they are. They're good, but almost always seem to just miss the mark and leave you a little disappointed.

IMO George and grant need to make a few movies they have not written themselves.  With the exception of gngl, I don't always agree with their tone/writing choices and they should see what happens if they make a movie with a great writer.  I think visually, casting, etc.  their films are there, so that is the element I feel is missing.

Fava - I agree their failure is in the writing. It isn't as tight as it could be and the pacing is often uneven. What puzzles me is why they don't see it when they're editing. Or do they only see it when it's too late to fix it?

I agree Goats and Batman are his worst films and I really liked TOMORROWLAND. it's funnier&better in general than Monuments Men and Leatherheads a lot in my eyes. Actually TOMORROWLAND is only not as good as his awards season types.
Again, all the problems with his worse films are with the scripts. So glad he learns from his lessons and has hired a great writer to pen "Hack Attack." George should just focus on directing and producing. He has a real good chance here on this project!

I've wondered if their issue is that because George and Grant write and produce and direct the films, they're too close to the material to suss out the problem when they can still be fixed. That's why I'm excited to hear there'll be someone else writing Hack Attack. More sets of eyes are more likely to find problems early.

It may also be his need to make "message" movies that's causing a bit of a rough patch. If he could just make a couple of solid, entertaining films, he'd get his feet back under him. Money Monster might be the one to do it. There's probably a lesson about media responsibility in there somewhere, but it seems like it's wrapped in a great 70s era thriller.

George and Grant, I think, are a bit too sympatico and comfortable with each other, and lack the creative tension it takes to elevate decent work to good or great. It would be different if they were natural-born writers, but they're not; they are actors and filmmakers who learned to write. It's a bit like proofreading your own work. You miss the mistakes because you read with your heart instead of your brain, seeing what you know you meant to be there. They're so close that they read with the same heart. 

I also think that the 'GNGL' Oscar reinforced their positions as creative hyphenates, and they've been trying to catch that lightning in a bottle ever since. Contrast that with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, who wrote 'Good Will Hunting'  to give themselves their first major acting roles. They know they are actors first. Their Oscar jumpstarted their careers. George and Grant' s Oscar cemented established careers, and brought them a lot of creative control, which they have wielded (mostly) well. But they are not writing-is-in-my-blood writers, which I think you have to be to do it consistently well.

My perspective, anyway.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:George and Grant, I think, are a bit too sympatico and comfortable with each other, and lack the creative tension it takes to elevate decent work to good or great. It would be different if they were natural-born writers, but they're not; they are actors and filmmakers who learned to write. It's a bit like proofreading your own work. You miss the mistakes because you read with your heart instead of your brain, seeing what you know you meant to be there. They're so close that they read with the same heart. 
. But they are not writing-is-in-my-blood writers, which I think you have to be to do it consistently well.

My perspective, anyway.

Everything you say makes sense, especially the fact that they are actors/filmmakers who learned to write. It isn't that they don't do it well. I think they have a good ear for dialogue and are pretty good at setting the tone of the piece. Where I think they fall down is in organising the tight, well acted scenes into a well paced, cohesive whole.

Maybe the problem is that their writing isn't bad enough. If it were worse than it is maybe the faults would be more obvious and they might figure out how to correct them.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I also think that the 'GNGL' Oscar reinforced their positions as creative hyphenates, and they've been trying to catch that lightning in a bottle ever since. Contrast that with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, who wrote 'Good Will Hunting'  to give themselves their first major acting roles. They know they are actors first. Their Oscar jumpstarted their careers. George and Grant' s Oscar cemented established careers, and brought them a lot of creative control, which they have wielded (mostly) well. But they are not writing-is-in-my-blood writers, which I think you have to be to do it consistently well.

Point of clarification:

2006	Won Oscar	Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role Syriana (2005)
	Nominated Oscar	Best Achievement in Directing Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
		Best Writing, Original Screenplay Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005) Shared with:

Thanks, Mel. What was I thinking? My Old Timers Disease is kicking in.

But I think my point may still be valid. Maybe not. I'm apparently senile.

You're in good company then Way2!!!!!!

Way2Old - We're all victims of CRS on occasion. That doesn't mean your point isn't valid. 

I think the more awards and nominations they get, the less likely anyone is to point out flaws in their work at a time and in a way that would be helpful -(constructive criticism during filming and editing) and the less likely they are to listen to or seek other opinions.

I know most filmmakers have their own vision of what they want their film to be, but when you're learning as you go it seems to me you would seek out the opinions of people you respect before you wrap the project and put it out in the world. IMO, reviews in the media shouldn't be the first time you hear that your project isn't quite working.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:George and Grant, I think, are a bit too sympatico and comfortable with each other, and lack the creative tension it takes to elevate decent work to good or great. It would be different if they were natural-born writers, but they're not; they are actors and filmmakers who learned to write. It's a bit like proofreading your own work. You miss the mistakes because you read with your heart instead of your brain, seeing what you know you meant to be there. They're so close that they read with the same heart.

Yep, plus the fact that if it were easy to spot mistakes in a film from the script, all films would be great.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  George and Grant wrote GNGL, Ides of March and Monuments Men.  GNGL was a slam dunk, Ides of March was pretty solid writing (Beau Willimon also credited on that screenplay) and MM writing was weak.  So that's not a bad record as far as I can see. George and Grant are smart men in the business of movie making. I do think they play it a bit too safe sometimes in their storytelling. I think the biggest mistakes made with MM was a lesson for them both.

 I think George on the whole has a very clear vision of what he wants his movies to be.  Sometimes that may not gel with the audience or critics' tastes.  But first and foremost a writer/director has to be true to the art they create. Then try to find a balance between satisfying their vision and satisfying the public.  I've seen many films made by good directors that I just didn't like.  Doesn't mean they aren't good films but I didn't appreciate the story and the way in which it was told. 

You know George's record is really pretty damn good.  He got nominations for his roles in Up In the Air and The Descendants and was really good in Gravity.  And then there was Argo. Then MM, his big budget film didn't do very well and now Tomorrowland isn't doing well and all of a sudden he's a has-been.  I think those critics who are ready to quit him are just full of themselves.  I think George will continue to be true to himself and make those small films that mean something special to him.  His audience may not be huge but hopefully it will appreciate his storytelling.

Donnamarie - I don't think George is anywhere near a has-been in the movie industry. He's a very good actor and it seems the more acting he does, the better he gets. And the movies he writes/directs are pretty good, too. He finally grew up and decided what he wants to be - a filmmaker. Not just an actor, but a writer, director and producer, too. That's pretty ambitious, especially for someone who only really trained to act. I think he'll keep acting to fund the movies he wants to produce but he will move behind the camera more and more. Hopefully he and Grant will improve their writing skills in the same way George improved his acting skills over time.

Donnamarie wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  George and Grant wrote GNGL, Ides of March and Monuments Men.  GNGL was a slam dunk, Ides of March was pretty solid writing (Beau Willimon also credited on that screenplay) and MM writing was weak.  So that's not a bad record as far as I can see. George and Grant are smart men in the business of movie making. I do think they play it a bit too safe sometimes in their storytelling. I think the biggest mistakes made with MM was a lesson for them both.

 I think George on the whole has a very clear vision of what he wants his movies to be.  Sometimes that may not gel with the audience or critics' tastes.  But first and foremost a writer/director has to be true to the art they create. Then try to find a balance between satisfying their vision and satisfying the public.  I've seen many films made by good directors that I just didn't like.  Doesn't mean they aren't good films but I didn't appreciate the story and the way in which it was told. 

You know George's record is really pretty damn good.  He got nominations for his roles in Up In the Air and The Descendants and was really good in Gravity.  And then there was Argo. Then MM, his big budget film didn't do very well and now Tomorrowland isn't doing well and all of a sudden he's a has-been.  I think those critics who are ready to quit him are just full of themselves.  I think George will continue to be true to himself and make those small films that mean something special to him.  His audience may not be huge but hopefully it will appreciate his storytelling.

Wasn't  there also some sort of kerfluffle over the writing credits for Leatherheads and George quit the Writer's Guild because he wasn't given a credit?

Yes.

George didn't quit the WGA entirely. He's a fi-core (financial core) member, which means he pays dues and is covered by the guild agreements, but he can't vote on issues or in elections, or hold a guild office.

The 'Leatherheads' script had been circling Hollywood for years as a drama about the early years of the NFL. It couldn't get financing or even much talent attachment interest. George read the script, liked the idea, but decided to do it as a comedy. The money and distribution deal came with his involvement. And even though he changed the genre, and added new characters, which basically required a page-one rewrite, the WGA arbitration denied him a writing credit. Which I don't understand, because the original writers would not have been denied credit; George would have been added as a writer, and additional 'story by' credit would have been given to the original writers as well.

Under the circumstances, I would done the same thing George did with the guild.

Right I remember that.  As it stands only Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly are given credit as writers ... according to IMBd.

Sometimes I think George and Grant's love of movies, movie history works against their writing.  They seem to start with an idea like "let's make a movie where The Front Page meets the early days of football" or "a WWII caper movie" or "a 70s style movie about disillusionment with political candidates" and then they try and shoehorn the story into that preconceived mold. 

With GNGL they had did not seem to do this and they had the good forutune of having a lot of the actual--and very powerful-- words spoken by Murrow.

fava - I'm not sure you can say that, since much of their work is based on other people's ideas - Leatherheads, Ides of March, Confessions... and more. I think the concepts are there already, whether in book or script form, and G&G choose to film them because they like the story and think they can make a good movie out of it.

Beau Willimon worked on the screenplay of Ides with George and Grant.  Beau originally did the play.  I think the writing was good.  It was a pretty traditional political story.  But I think it could have gone further. Beau also has worked on House of Cards.  I would liked to have seen Ides darker ... a bit more sinister. The critics didn't fawn over this movie but overall it was received well enough.  I think the critics thought it was a story that had been told too many times before.  My biggest issue is with MM which we all have talked about quite a bit.

Bottom line in my very unprofessional point of view is that I think George and Grant need to take more chances in their storytelling.  Both MM (especially) and Ides could have been more compelling.

Donnamarie - Agreed that both movies could have been more compelling. They're not bad, they just don't quite hit the mark. Both George and Grant know a good movie when they see one so I have to wonder if the problem lies in not being to see the whole while still working on the parts - that they don't see the problems until the final edit, when it's probably too late to fix it. I think that's part of the problem with Tomorrowland, too - although that's certainly got nothing to do with George - luckily, he didn't write or direct it.

Lizzy what you describe about George and Grant maybe not being able to step back enough to see how all the parts fit together is a possibility.  This is a challenge in filmmaking for all directors. I just don't know.  I'm ill equipped to really adequately judge the process G&G go through to create and produce their films.

I have heard often from actors who work with George as a director that they are always so impressed with his ability to know exactly what he wants. He has a clear vision.  Which makes its easier for the actors of course.  They say he's incredibly smart.  They say he's incredibly generous to work with and he is very efficient when filming.  Not a lot of takes of a scene. He's got a lot going for him.  

George has admitted (well to Sony) that MM wasn't what it should have been.  I just wonder how he feels about other movies he's directed.  Maybe he sees them successful from his point of view ... that he accomplished what he set out  to do and damn the critics.

I personally would like to see George direct edgier stories .. along the lines of Confessions.  I thought that was a great first attempt at directing for George.  He took chances.  It was dark, funny and thought provoking.

I apologize for being so damn wordy.   It's hard for me to get my point across succinctly.  I appreciate those  who take the time to read through all of this.

I still think COADM was George's best film as a director.  Maybe we have Charlie Kaufman to thank for that?

Having said that, I don't think George had much input in Tomorrowland so it's hard to know why its so-called failure can be laid at his door. He delivered the performance as requested.

Katie - I think he's getting all the flak because Disney has put him front and center as the "star" of the film (although it really was more the girls' story) and as the pitchman for the film. He's been everywhere opening the movie and he has carried every interview I've seen where he's been present with other members of the company. If the movie ends up being a total failure it won't be George's fault. He couldn't have pushed it any harder. Too bad Disney's publicity people couldn't do the same.

Yes, one (of many) mistakes that Disney's marketing made was not playing up the young female leads more. An adventurous science geek and a kickass humanoid...? That should be a marketer's dream. But they chose to feature the Hollywood A-lister, whose audience skews 'older,' in the promos. Not that George shouldn't have top billing, but the trailers and promos are a different matter.

I noticed that the most recent trailer is focused on the two girls. Might be too little too late.

I think Disney hugely misjudged the audience for this film. Yeah, George's and Hugh Laurie's fans would probably have come out if the reviews were better. But bottom line, this was a kids movie aimed at elementary and middle school kids who wouldn't know George or Hugh if they bit them on the butt.

I think Disney missed a golden opportunity with this movie. So much wasted potential makes me really, really sad.