Exclusive: All-Female ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ In The Works Starring Sandra Bullock, With Gary Ross Directing

Wow!! Again, who knew??

Maybe I should have read all the Sony hack articles.........

Wow is right.  Another surprise.  Don't know how I feel about this project.  I'm not a big fan of remakes.  They don't usually play as well as the original.  One exception was in fact the Oceans 11 remake (with George). The original with Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin was not half as successful.  I like the concept with an all female cast.  
But a remake of a remake.  Hmmm.  But George obviously sees promise in this.

Why, are there no new ideas in Hollywood this is getting annoying. A lot of the remakes are horrible it makes no sense it was good why try to top it.

Well, I know I'd go to this even as we talk about the possibilities. I think it'll be  easy to sell it to the studio bosses.

I can envisage it now - a great script, cast, stunts, locations, plot, music. And throw in the sentimental thought of it being Jerry Weintraub's last big idea......... 

Have a feeling people will be falling over themselves to get involved

I hope you're right PAN.  I would love to be wrong on this one.  We will stay tuned.  The film should be dedicated to Jerry for sure 

I definely want to watch this one in cinema. Love to see George playing the only male role in this version. Should be a blast!

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

Exclusive: All-Female ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ In The Works Starring Sandra Bullock, With Gary Ross Directing

The burgeoning creative partnership between George Clooney and Sandra Bullock that yielded this weekend's "Our Brand Is Crisis" (in which Bullock stars, Clooney produces, and David Gordon Green directs), is set to kick up a notch in the near future. A new "Ocean's Eleven" film is in the works, only this time, in line with the recent Hollywood gender-swapping trend, it's due to feature an all female line-up, with Bullock in the lead, and Gary Ross ("The Hunger Games," "Seabiscuit," "Pleasantville") directing.
The project was initiated last year by the power trio of late producer Jerry Weintraub, ‘Ocean’s’ trilogy director Steven Soderbergh, and the franchise's main star, Clooney. Olivia Milch (“Queen & Country,” “Little Women”), who has become a go-to screenwriter for female-centric projects, has been working on the screenplay for months.
A project we’ve been tracking for much of the year, the female ‘Ocean’s’ has actually been quietly gestating since at least fall 2014, but we worried that it hit a major snag recently when the legendary Weintraub passed away this past summer (his memorial was held last month in New York and the aforementioned key players were all there). But sources close to the project tell The Playlist that the movie is still definitely in the works, and Milch has handed in a draft of the screenplay. Ross is a longtime Soderbergh friend and ally, and as she mentions in this recent press conference, Bullock has been close with her "Gravity" co-star Clooney for a long time now.
Weintraub, Clooney, and Soderbergh clearly became tight during the Section 8 and ‘Ocean’s’ trilogy years, and it seems like Bullock has  joined that extended family. Her role in “Our Brand Is Crisis” was originally written for Clooney, so a Bullock-led 'Ocean's' would not be the first time she's stepped directly into Clooney's shoes. It's unclear how directly connected (or not) this remake/reboot/sequel/spinoff will be to the Soderbergh pictures, but everyone is keen on this new ‘Ocean’s’ project, and sources tell us Clooney may even cameo as Danny Ocean.
Somehow, this not-quite-so-tightly kept secret has not properly broken until now, but traces of it have been on the Internet for a few months — Amy Pascal alluded to the existence of this new ‘Ocean’s’ film in the notorious Sony leak from last year. The then Sony chief urgerd her team to move faster on her all-female “Ghostbusters” project when she got wind of the competing gender-swap ensemble film in the works (we referenced this a few months back).
The female 'Ocean’s' film is expected to be Ross’ next movie after he finishes up with “The Free State Of Jones” starring Matthew McConaughey, which was, in a show of confidence, recently bumped up to a prime May 13, 2016 release date. Plot details on the new 'Ocean's' project are being held under wraps for now. — reporting by Rodrigo Perez

I'd probably go to see this out of curiosity and to see George reprise Danny Ocean, but my first reaction was "Oh, for Pete's sake!". Is this going to be the only way women can get good roles? Remaking movies originally starring men? Phooey! The gimmick will get old fast.

If they insist on reworking old movies for women to star in, why don't they remake some of the really great old movies that starred women to begin with? Barbara Stanwyk, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Joan Crawford and many more women made wonderful female-driven movies. Why don't they update the plots of those movies instead?

Food for thought ......

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

Well, the one thing she got right is that  we don't need another re-make of Ocean's 11 - or any other successful male-centric film. We need more well written films that provide good parts for both women and men, written, directed and produced by both women and men. The success of one should not come at the expense of the other. That isn't progress, it's revenge!

I think the women doing remakes is simply them being patted on the head , here you go this was a hit so you  do it . I think they need to take control and write direct and produce what they want . Why can't they start small and show the heads of studios what they can do.

The movie will also have to appeal to men as well as women.

I think that it can be fun to watch a movie where a man had been the lead before, but it shouldn't be an automatism. Sometimes it might be fun, but to me the danger is that - if the movie is successful, people might say: "That's just because the previous movie with... (male actor) has succeeded" and don't recognize the achievement of this cast. And to say that a female cast, writer, director and producer makes it a better movie automatically doesn't work as well IMO.

But women in leading positions often critizise that men don't see them as equal, pay them less, and there's always the 'danger' that a woman might get pregnant. And at least in my country (Germany) it's very difficult to have a fulltime day care for children...
I remember one situation: My (male) boss who's in his 30s once got a phone call that one of his four little kids was sick and needed to be picked up from pre-school. He was in a meeting and wanted to finish to do so but all the other older men told him to call his wife to do so. He answered that his wife was working that day out of town that day so he finished the meeting and left. After that the discussion started that that's inappropriate and that she as the mother of four kids shouldn't work and should be at home to look after her children. 
She has had the same education and the same university studies as her husband but because she's a woman - and even worse, a mother - she has no right for a career
PLUS: She's working although her husband earns enough money so it's sort of unethical to take a job a man or a single woman need more for living... Welcome to the 1950s!

carolhathawa wrote:
She has had the same education and the same university studies as her husband but because she's a woman - and even worse, a mother - she has no right for a career
PLUS: She's working although her husband earns enough money so it's sort of unethical to take a job a man or a single woman need more for living... Welcome to the 1950s!

I agree with everything you said in your post. Sadly, things aren't any different here in the US than they are in Germany and most of the rest of the world. Sometimes I think change will only come when  men are the ones who get pregnant and have to get fat for 9 months and then squeeze a bowling ball through a keyhole!

looool 

right !!!

We do have 10 companies that offer fathers maternity leave so slowly things are changing in the U.S.

Annemarie,
in Germany mothers stay at home six weeks before and eight weeks after the birth of their child and get full salary by their employers. Then they have the right to stay at home and look after their child until its 3rd birthday and get money from the government as a sort of compensation for the salary (but it's much less than their salary). Within this time their job is protected, but they don't have the right to get the same functiin as before. They may also return to their job after 24 months (or earlier) and save 12 months to stay home when the child starts school. 
It doesn't have to be the mother who stays at home but usually it's what happens. The fathers also have the right to stay at home for two months during the first time and get a comprehension by the government because they don't get any salary.
I think I got at least most of the basics right because it was very different when my kids were born 14 years ago...
But that's why it's much easier to employ a man - although I think that these laws are very essential for our society.

Lizzy,
I guess you're right about that!
I just read a book called 'Single mom, with husband'. A woman wrote down how everything in her relationship changed after their first child was born. That suddenly after a long partnership she became the housewife she and her husband had always laughed about. That he stayed at the office longer every night, and when he came home had no idea why she was embarrassed to stay at home with the kids. (I remember that during this time I sometimes when my husband came home just said: "I need to go to the supermarket" and left because I had the feeling that I would explode to stay home any longer.)
She described how shd felt when he made dinner about once in three months and emptied the dustbin but then told everybody that they shared the housework 50:50 (and really believed it!), and everybody else admired him for being such a perfect husband. Or that he came home on Friday and told her that he had already been to the supermarket and had done all shopping: he had bought 2 litres of milk which would last two days!
(That reminds me about the last time I took my husband to the supermarked (he had offered it) to buy everything for our kids' birthday brunch in summer. After that he straight went to bed and slept for 2 hours because he was completely exhausted ).
And last year he said hs would organize the food for his birthday party "and you don't need to prepare anything, not even pudding!". When I went to the caterer to pick it up I realized that it just wasn't enough, so I went to the butcher and the supermarket afterwards to buy food to add it - and then started to cook although I hadn't scheduled it. This year he asked me how much we would need...

My brother says if men had to have babies the planet would be empty he would simply refuse lol.

annemarie wrote:My brother says if men had to have babies the planet would be empty he would simply refuse lol.

Annemarie,
I guess most men would refuse it - at least they would deny having a second or third child...

OMFG....Two of the biggest female stars are linked with this! and George definitely needs to show up for Danny Ocean's sister! Thrilled for this reboot!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Then again this...even if JLaw isn't available, at least we'll know about the basic plots.

I'm confused. Is George even still connected to this project? Rotten Tomatoes still lists him as producer but Tracking Board lists Larger Than Life Productions as the producer of the movie. Unless George has started a  new company, that isn't him. Or is he taking a secondary producing role - or a small part in the film but no producing credit? Like I said, confused!

The Independent


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

The original trilogy was slick and smart - none of the "What Happens In Vegas" infantile humor. Whoever ends up in this, I hope they go the Tina Fey/Amy Poehler intelligent humor route instead of the Melissa McCarthy/Amy Schumer route of trying to out-stupid the men. We've had enough immature, crass buddy movies to last several lifetimes. Hopefully the women can elevate the genre at least a little. If this turns out to be another "Bridesmaids" I'll puke.

Sounds like George isn't involved at all. I'm thinking that's a good thing, so if it bombs they can't blame him. I'm tired of everyone forgetting it takes dozens, if not hundreds of people to make a movie - not just one.

On the other hand, he can't take the credit if it's going to be a hit. 

But I think you're right, Lizzy: George is always called responsible if a movie bombs, like 'Tomorrowland', and he was just acting in that. The only thing I would blame him for was to take that role. But the idea was great, it was just the realization which didn't work.

Carolhathaway - Exactly. And why didn't the media say it was a Hugh Laurie flop? He starred in it, too. And why wasn't "Hail Caesar" a Channing Tatum flop? Or a Coen brothers flop? It seems like whenever George has anything to do with a film everyone forgets there is anyone else involved.

That is the nature of the beast he is one of the worlds's biggest stars so gets the blame even though those of us with
common sense know it is not his fault.

George worked to reach the point in his career where any movie he's in is a 'George Clooney movie.' That's one of the perks/costs of the status he enjoys. Not saying it's fair. It just is.

I'm still on the fence as to whether I'm liking the idea of this "remake". Even with an all women cast, which I applaud, I would prefer to see Bullock and Blanchett tackle original material for the screen.

Are studios that insecure as to what audiences will like that they go back to tried and true movies and "reinvent" them?

Way2Old - I know you're right, but it annoys me just the same. They always seem so surprised when he does good work - as if their pet poodle just sat up and spoke French. They're slow to give him credit for films he carries well, but seem quite happy to blame him for his "failures", whether they're really his fault or not.

O.K. All done. Rant over!
PS - Hope you get to see Hamilton before Lin Manuel Miranda leaves!

Donnamarie - Yes!

Don't think 'Hail Caesar' was a flop, was it? The worldwide figures are pretty good - tho I note that Money Monster is very near to catching it up already........

Interesting that most of the 'flop' headlines are sometimes the opinion just one or two writers who then gets the article syndicated so that you see it everywhere....

So Cate and Sandra Bullock - cameo maybe - but both friends of George. Wonder if Amy Schumer's going to be in the mix.............

I don't understand are there no good stories being written, why are they rebooting everything that has ever been made.
And let's not forget sequels to movies that came out so many years ago you barely remember them I just read they are making a beetle juice sequel.

Agree annemarie.  But I will keep an open mind

PAN, I don't see Hail Caesar as a flop.  It did about $63 mil worldwide.  It did on par with Fargo worldwide.
It was generally well received by the critics.  A few blasted it but lots of good reviews. However audiences (at least domestic) were not as keen on it overall .  But I think over time this movie will be seen as a classic Coens' film, showcasing their bent on old Hollywood during McCarthy era of blacklisting.

As of this weekend Money Monster has made approx $54 mil worldwide.

There is a long-held belief in Hollywood that women cannot carry a big movie. Yes, that despite Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthy, Tina Fey, Amy Schumer... But a female-led movie has to get twice the audience of one directed at the young male demographic because women go to see 'male' movies, but those young men don't go to 'female' movies. Women-centric pictures are always considered a higher risk. The conglomerates that own the studios don't like risk.

So one answer to that is to go with proven material that played well with the desired demographic. Thus the remakes/gender switch movies. Another thing is that a female actor may have to agree to a studio project in order to get something else (smaller, less commercial) made or distributed. So if, for instance, a Cate Blanchette wants to keep doing movies like 'Carol,' she may have to do an 'Ocean's' gig along the way. Not saying that's the case; just an example.

And yes, there are plenty of good original stories out there. But the system is insular to the point of being impenetrable to the people who write them. They represent risk. Risk bad. Sure money good.

Way2Old -Totally agree with your point that the studios don't like risk, but I don't think it's only women who have to make deals in order to get smaller movies made. I've heard the same thing from a lot of actors and directors. Even George has often spoken about doing "one for them (the studios) and one for us".

I can't help but think how different things were before the studio system fell apart. Back then there were so many intelligent films, many carried by women like Hepburn, Davis, Stanwyck and many others. I know the changes gave people on the creative side of the business more freedom, but I'm not so sure the industry as a whole benefited from the changes.

All this women I love.Movie just need one man character George Clooney.

LizzyNY, I'll take your point a step further to reinforce mine.

The movies that a woman would be involved in for that tradeoff, both the 'one for them' and the 'one for her,' will be smaller than those for men. A woman is not going to be offered the lead (super)hero role in a tentpole franchise, and, as I said, she can't count on crossover appeal to bring in big numbers on a small-ish film. So she is never going to be in the position to say, "My last project brought in 800 million dollars, so here's what you're going to do for me." And the studios will always be able to say that women can't/don't carry big movies.

Charlize Theron has an Oscar, killed it in 'Mad Max,' and runs her own production company. What is she doing? The villain in the next 'Fast and Furious.' No studios jump to distribute the movies she produces.

Sandra Bullock - honored, admired, popular - has several projects originated by her own company. Which projects for her get backing first? 'Our Brand is Crisis' and 'Ocean's.'

At the other end of the spectrum, Emily Blunt, the only woman in 'Sicario,' played a layered, nuanced central character in a smaller movie that was critically acclaimed. The two male leads were stock, one-note characters; well-played, but still. Blunt's character had the most compelling foundation for further exploration. But guess what. There's a follow-up movie coming, and she's not even in it. Benecio Del Toro and Josh Brolin will reprise their tough-guy roles, though. 

There's no reward for doing good original work, even if you can find it. So women will always be a step behind, and having to choose between leftovers or hand-me-downs.

Oh jeez Louweez .  

Way2,
your last post was really interesting. I'm trying to remember if it's any different to the film industry in Germany, and guess what? It's not.
It's always the men who are in the lead, who are able to choose the projects, set up their wages. Quite depressing, actually.

I don't know if it was always like that. Of course I mnow there were times when Katharine Hepburn etc. were around,  but I don't know if they were in the same position as the male cast. And if they wanted kids, it's always women who have to step back. A male actor is able to work until his child is born and get back to work the next day. His physical appearance doesn't change (well, it often does), and if his child is sick, it's mostly the mother who's expected to stay at home. Maybe, if you look at Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts, they decided to have children and step back, and so they knew that their careers wouldn't continue  in the same way as before.
But I guess that's never going to change...

When newborns will DANGEROUSLY lower down in number 
I guess something will change

Mm, Jennifer Lawrence might be the exception, but then her priorities are not the same as, say Emily Blunt, or Charlize Theron who have small children and/or are about to have another.

In Emily Blunt's case, I also think she prefers variety anyway if you look at her body of work. Next stop: Mary Poppins 2018.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Charlize Theron runs her own production company.  No studios jump to distribute the movies she produces.

(Sorry for the edit - saving space )

I think that's the core of the problem - distribution and publicity. Many independent movies do get made without studio funding, but they have little or no access to audiences on any significant scale. When the studio system was in effect there were thousands of theaters thirsting for product so movies were being released at breakneck speed. Not all of them were good, but all kinds of movies were made.

 All that changed when corporations took over and made movies just another product in their arsenal alongside soap and tractors - anything that makes money and don't bother to be creative if it doesn't guarantee a huge profit. That's the only thing they want to create. I assume it hasn't occurred to them that the more each movie costs to make the higher the ticket prices get and the smaller the audience becomes. IMO, if the corporate studios are counting on other media platforms to sell their product they're shooting themselves in the foot - tentpoles don't play nearly as well on a tv screen.

I don't think it has anything to do with having children--although men may use that old trope to justify the sexism.  Women in leading roles and in production are discounted just as women as the movie going audience are discounted.  As a woman, I am only interested in going to a small fraction of the movies that are released.  Yet, I could afford to go pretty often.  You would think there would be a lot of money to be made (which probably matters more to Hollywood than the stories that get told).

Here's an interesting article on this very subject from January of this year ....

The Female Takeover of Hollywood? Soon, But Not Yet

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

So an update from Lainey gossip today:


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

.........so NYC in the Spring around Met Gala time.

What chance a cameo from Anna Wintour?.......

Spring definitely seems to be time of choice to be in NYC for some.........

PAN - Spring and fall are the best times to be in NYC. The rest of the year it's either too hot, too cold or too wet.

I have a very uneasy feeling about this movie. I hope it's smart and stylish and not one of those infantile buddy movies where the girls try to out-drink/fart/vomit the boys. I've had all I can take of junior high style gross-out humor.