I just skimmed this. I was surprised that they showed so much Beane/DePodesta vs furniture violence, but didn't show the infamous Bonderman chair throw. I was also surprised at the given reason for the Mabry/Giambi trade, which is far less serious than the rumors that generally circulated.

It's not as bad as people thought it might be, but it wasn't really interesting either. Beane comes off as very unlikeable, and James isn't much better. I just can't imagine who the target audience is.

Target audience == us. I have to admit, I would probably see this movie, if only out of curiosity.

The script is actually pretty good.

The GM Trade stuff starts on page 89. I wonder who would be doing the voices?

I know it's supposed to be Beane and his side kick against the ignorant baseball traditionalists, but they cover the entire 2002 season barely mentioning Zito (Cy Young), Tejada (MVP), Chavez, Hudson and Mulder. Reading that script you could reasonably believe Chad Bradford was the key pitcher on the team. Nothing about steroids either, though that wasn't in the book but years later those A's seemed to have benefited as much as anybody from them. As a baseball guy, I thought it was a little eh.

From a purely entertainment POV I thought it read decent.

I'm 50 pages in and it reads pretty well so far. In a way, this feels a bit like a sports version of "All The President's Men," in that you're getting shown the inner workings of something a lot of people are familiar with (or think they are). It's a film about "process" and at that, so far, it's succeeding, though I do have a quibble or two with it...

My main one: Was the Yankees comeback against the A's in 2001 really the first time a team had come back from being down 2-0 in a Division Series? Didn't the Mariners do this in 1995 against the Yankees? (A quick check of Baseball-Reference.com reveals YES!) Couldn't someone have checked this? To have such an obvious error in the script's first 5 pages really stuck in my craw; you'd think for a few million Steve Zaillian could have spent 5 minutes on the web to discover that what he wrote was factually wrong.

you'd think for a few million Steve Zaillian could have spent 5 minutes on the web to discover that what he wrote was factually wrong.

Um ... it's a draft ... ?

This is the script that was approved back in December, not the new one. I'm 35 pages in, and it has done little to assuage my skepticism about the project. It's also bizarrely written, with character showing up and talking despite never having been introduced in the action, which is far from usual.

My main one: Was the Yankees comeback against the A's in 2001 really the first time a team had come back from being down 2-0 in a Division Series?

You answered your own question, but I think the 2001 series was the first time a team had lost games 1 and 2 at home, and then recovered to win the next three. Might be what they were thinking of.

I'm liking it quite a bit.

I've never read a screenplay before, I don't think. I'm surprised that it at times reads more like a novel rather than any hint of what would actually be shown in a movie. I'm thinking especially of the reference to stigmata. Is this done just to somehow impress studio folks who read it?

It turns out okay, I guess, a bit better than I would have anticipated. SPOILER ALERT: they lose.

Rook, yes, that's generally atypical in screenplays. Steve Zaillian can get away with that because he's Steve Zaillian. You and I can't.

Agreed with Frank. This reads a lot easier than I thought it would. I'm liking it.

[Paul Depodesta] has made a detour to take in a GreenJAckets game, specifically to have a look at his man-crush Greek God of Walks - Kevin Youkilis - in the flesh. We're used to it by now but still can't quite get over how Youkilis shakes his ample butt at the plate

Um ... okay.

Just read it. Steve Zaillian is a very good writer here, obviously his credentials are great. I'd see it, for sure.....not just because it is baseball either. In fact, I can't think of a single baseball movie, other than Major League, I have see in the theater. Most of them are "gay" love stories.

*I remember seeing Field of Dreams in the theater.

Obviously Hollywood takes creative license here, but B Beane seems to be a womanizer in this. Embellishment or truth?

Also, Paul DePodesta comes off looking like Nickola Tesla in this.

Who cares if Beane can really pull em in, they didn't hire Brad Pitt to be an arrogant #### and not spend the night with countless women.


Also, that was a good movie.

edit: Yeah, there's parts that're gonna make you go \"#### was never like that," but it was a good movie. Wonder what Soderbergh did to it.

I can't think of a single baseball movie, other than Major League, I have see in the theater.

Only Field of Dreams for me too, which I didn't care for. I wanted to see Sugar, but missed its run...

Wonder what Soderbergh did to it.

There was one link here where it was reported that he would make the Bill James character animated. That James in this version comes off as being too god-like, and he didn't like that. Given that the movie seems like a typical Hollywood drama, that must have been a somewhat jarring change.

Just finished reading it, & I can kinda see why the studio was stoked & why Soderbergh made changes. As is, the Zaillian draft reads like a po-faced rewrite of Major League, which no doubt appeals to folks looking at trying to sell this as a movie. But the script's pretty paunchy (and that's not including Zaillian's overwritten captions) -- there's a serious disconnect between trying to actually establish a narrative & trying to shoehorn all the book's characters in, the jumps between Beane's past and present are awkward, and while the omniscient James narration is an interesting idea in theory, it's not executed all that well here. The character-drama stuff comes off as ham-fisted, and the baseball stuff comes off halfassed & cliched. & FFS instead of ending on some Animal Housey where-are-they-now crap montage, end with footage of Youkilis celebrating with the Red Sox after one of their World Series victories -- it combines the one-that-got-away wistfulness of the Youk chase w/ substantiation that Beane's against-the-grain approach to valuation could (and has) worked.

But do they have "Put a Milo on it"?

instead of ending on some Animal Housey where-are-they-now crap montage, end with footage of Youkilis celebrating with the Red Sox after one of their World Series victories -- it combines the one-that-got-away wistfulness of the Youk chase w/ substantiation that Beane's against-the-grain approach to valuation could (and has) worked.

Agreed 100%.

I read almost the entire script but I skipped over the James stuff; I really didn't like that.

Also find it amusing just how cliched and ridiculous the 12-11 game is. If I didn't know that it actually happened as described I would be rolling my eyes.

I also think it's written great for Pitt.

I've never heard of this Zaillian, but I'm not a film guy.

I have to say that I like this script so far (i'm only on page 11), if only because it includes the words \"####### Yankees", a great addition to any production of the stage or screen.

I've never heard of this Zaillian, but I'm not a film guy.

I'm a film guy and I hadn't heard of him. Unless he's a director as well (like Tarantino) or ridiculously original and inventive (like Charlie Kaufman), most people don't know screenwriters. In any case, he was the scribe for Schindler's List.

Anyway, I just finished reading the script and I agree with a lot of Essex; there's a lot of clunk and clutter since it tries to cram in everything from the book into the movie. But there's some great moments as well, albeit probably fictional.

1) Billy Beane and Ron Washington crashing Scott Hatteberg's house after midnight on Christmas to court his services.

2) Dave Justice trying to get a soda from the vending machine until Miguel Tejada tells him he has to put a dollar in it.

3) Billy Beane putting Justice in his place by pointing out the Yankees are paying him to play against them.

Oh, it also includes the words \"#### Steinbrenner" (page 18), another fine addition to any movie.


I wonder what the changes were...

I'm a film guy and I hadn't heard of him.

This makes me feel better. The Hatteburg story reminds me of when the Red Sox wooed Curt Schilling.

The Bill James stuff didn't particularly work for me, either, and a lot of the character moments (particularly the Hatteberg plot) felt a little forced. My guess is that Soderbergh moved it in a more documentary direction, eschewing the classical character arc structure that just seems kind of imposed on this draft. But that's just a guess, as I haven't seen the draft that caused Amy Pascal to put the thing in turnaround.

I am partway through it and I like it. I'm not sure if its actually any good, but I like it.

Anyway, I just finished reading the script and I agree with a lot of Essex; there's a lot of clunk and clutter since it tries to cram in everything from the book into the movie. But there's some great moments as well, albeit probably fictional.

3) Billy Beane putting Justice in his place by pointing out the Yankees are paying him to play against them.

Doesn't the last one have to be fictional? Ignore Billy Beane threatening to send Miguel Tejada and David Justice to AAA if they don't walk once per ten plate appearances, the Yankees weren't (as far as I know) paying the A's any money for Justice. The Yanks traded him to the Mets for Ventura straight-up, and the Mets then traded Justice and the cash to the A's a week later for two players. The only money involved (at least according to the news reports)came from the Mets.

Edit:
This makes me feel better. The Hatteburg story reminds me of when the Red Sox wooed Curt Schilling.

That's what it reminded me of. All I could think was "c'mon, there's no way that this actually happened, especially with Washington accompanying Beane."

I finished the script. It's probably close to as good as it could be without deviating too much from real life or the events of the book. (Movies that it reminds me of are Thank You for Smoking and Charlie Wilson's War... though I don't think it's as good as either, and I didn't particularly love Charlie Wilson's War). Bits of it are fun -- Beane makes for a fun character on the page, and Pitt is probably really well cast in the role -- but I really can't imagine this being worth the investment from the studio -- although I would have thought it was not worth it before investing a ton of money into development. I just don't find the story particularly interesting -- I'm not excited to see the end result -- I don't care how the movie ends. As a theoretical script reader for the studio, I'd pass on the script but recommend the writer. *shrugs* Your mileage may vary.

The line where DePo doesn't want to send Carlos Pena to AAA because he's "on a pace to be Rookie of the Year" struck me as a strange assertion. Pena was hitting 218/305/419 at the time. I can see what Zaillian was thinking -- "Ooh, that will make Beane look like a maverick, but if you actually know about Pena, you just go "No", and if you don't, I think it's just confusing.

Dave Justice trying to get a soda from the vending machine until Miguel Tejada tells him he has to put a dollar in it.

"Welcome to Oakland." Great line. Also liked the followup, where Frankie Cat gets on First and says to Pena: "What's with the ####### soda machines?"

The Pena comment stood out to me as odd too. There were a few things like that.

Another one was them getting all upset about losing to the Blue Jays. The Blue Jays it says, as if they are the Detroit Lions. In reality, they'd been around .500 for like 5 years.

But these are the kinds of things that most of the audience probably won't notice ("Yeah, Carlos Pena's a good player!, yeah the Blue Jays haven't made the playoffs in 16 years...who's david justice?"

The line where DePo doesn't want to send Carlos Pena to AAA because he's "on a pace to be Rookie of the Year" struck me as a strange assertion. Pena was hitting 218/305/419 at the time. I can see what Zaillian was thinking -- "Ooh, that will make Beane look like a maverick, but if you actually know about Pena, you just go "No", and if you don't, I think it's just confusing.

I noticed the same thing. Also, Izzy is mentioned as trade bait but wasn't he an impending free agent like Damon and Giambi?

And there is an error where they say Bradford is in AA playing for the Charlotte Knights, when Charlotte is a AAA club, although that could be a case of a "intentional unintentional error" meant to show that a character is human.

Doesn't the last one have to be fictional? Ignore Billy Beane threatening to send Miguel Tejada and David Justice to AAA if they don't walk once per ten plate appearances, the Yankees weren't (as far as I know) paying the A's any money for Justice. The Yanks traded him to the Mets for Ventura straight-up, and the Mets then traded Justice and the cash to the A's a week later for two players. The only money involved (at least according to the news reports)came from the Mets.

I actually didn't know he was traded from the Mets. Good call; you're right.

Still, I have to think Justice read a copy before he said yes, and I can't help but think he's a bit of a good sport for agreeing to do this.

It also seems to paint the picture that Bradford was making his MLB debut with the A's, when in reality he had pitched in the last three seasons for the White Sox. I also think they go to far with the "no-one has ever heard of Hatteberg." I mean yeah he wasn't a household name, but he'd gotten like 1500 PA's with the Red Sox (and put up very good numbers for a catcher,) so I don't think he could have been as anonymous as portrayed.

Of course, these things are going to be taken as far as possible to make the book/movie interesting.

I don't remember how many of these things were from the book, I'll have to look when I get home.

Oh.... Joe Morgan shows up at the end!


It's okay, pacing is a bit wacky (not surprising) and I have this feeling that the Bill James segments would have been a bit over people's heads. It also lacks the Chair Throw, which is a travesty (I'm also disappointed at the lack of "Put a Milo on Him", but hey, what are you gonna do). However, it definitely had it's moments and I definitely could see Pitt doing well with it. I wonder if/when the "rejected" copy will be leaked.

I've never read a screenplay before, I don't think.

Who let the studio executives in here?

I still remain unconvinced that this isn't a joke someone is playing on us.

I will remain skeptical when I'm watching the movie on opening night. When the lights go up after the (supposed) movie, I will then wait for the sociologists who cooked this up to herd us into concentrated locations to make their appearance and explain what they are attempting to learn from us.

I still remain unconvinced that this isn't a joke someone is playing on us.

I will remain skeptical when I'm watching the movie on opening night. When the lights go up after the (supposed) movie, I will then wait for the sociologists who cooked this up to herd us into concentrated locations to make their appearance and explain what they are attempting to learn from us.

I felt this way after Hollywood Homicide. A large group of us went (I have no idea why), and probably 6 of the 10 of us were incredibly baked. I did not get that movie. Not "I didn't like it", I didn't get it. I couldn't follow the plot as it made no sense to me, characters seemed to have arbitrary and rapidly changing motives, personalities, and looks. That movie and I had a fundamental misunderstanding of one another. I was expecting a straightforward buddy cop/fish out of water action comedy, a neo-Tango and Cash or something. The movie steadfastly refused to meet any of society's established standards for, well, anything.

I leaned over to a friend halfway through and said "What is going on here?" He responded, "I have no idea." 20 minutes later, I hear a whispered "Why is that cop selling real estate and the other cop being an actor?" A salient question. And lest you think it was the devil weed, that was our natural state of movie-going back then. I would have been inestimably relieved if, at the end of the movie, the lights went up and people with clipboards were there to ask us questions. Sociopsychological research study on the sly makes more sense than someone with a working knowledge of English making that movie.

I felt this way after Hollywood Homicide. A large group of us went (I have no idea why), and probably 6 of the 10 of us were incredibly baked. I did not get that movie. Not "I didn't like it", I didn't get it. I couldn't follow the plot as it made no sense to me, characters seemed to have arbitrary and rapidly changing motives, personalities, and looks. That movie and I had a fundamental misunderstanding of one another. I was expecting a straightforward buddy cop/fish out of water action comedy, a neo-Tango and Cash or something. The movie steadfastly refused to meet any of society's established standards for, well, anything.

I leaned over to a friend halfway through and said "What is going on here?" He responded, "I have no idea." 20 minutes later, I hear a whispered "Why is that cop selling real estate and the other cop being an actor?" A salient question. And lest you think it was the devil weed, that was our natural state of movie-going back then. I would have been inestimably relieved if, at the end of the movie, the lights went up and people with clipboards were there to ask us questions. Sociopsychological research study on the sly makes more sense than someone with a working knowledge of English making that movie.

Heh -- I've done movies like that. One of the reasons I didn't really enjoy Event Horizon was because during the time I should have been enjoying the effects and Lawrence Fishbourne, I was still trying to piece together exactly how the black hole drive worked. Suddenly, half the cast was dead and I was asking my buddy where character A, B, and C went.... to which my also baked buddy replied, "Dude, didn't you see the guy fold the paper and a poke two holes through it with a pencil? Let it go."