I agree with your skepticism - Hollywood will want it to ultimately end with 'and then they fell hopelessly in love and lived happily ever after.'

I just wonder if the fact that it is a smaller production company, headed by Maguire, will give it some shelter from those big studio 'lets get rid of the sad cancer' type choices (in this case, the realism where she's looking for a friend she can deal with and count on rather than a movie romance). Toby's production credits include 25th Hour (2002), Whatever We Do (2003), and Seabiscuit (2003)... and there seems to be some indie layering to him (life beyond Spiderman).

It has potential in the right hands.

The article is offensive (although, according to her I cannot argue with anything she says because I'm either in denial or lying to myself). So unless they turn this into a movie to mock the woman who wrote it, I wouldn't watch it.

I thought the article was funny...it was definitely a different/nonconventional perspective on the single game. It will be very interesting to see how it will be translated to the big screen.

was this supposed to be a serious article or tongue-in-cheek?

There is a HUGE space between having unrealistic expectations in a relationship and settling. I hope the producers understand the point I think the writer was trying to make because it can be taken the wrong way. I read the article a week ago and it took me a few days to get over my initial over-reaction to the "settling" comments.

The directors need to make a big point about the lead woman being in love with a semi-flawed man she would not have innitially described as her perfect man (and not just "settling") - but I would say that their chances of doing that are pretty slim. We will see. Maybe it could be like the movie Hitch from the perspective of Allegra Cole?

dude, there is no way they can turn this article into anything more than the self-loathing female-misogynist drivel it already is. one more reason why i'm stickin' to netflix.

This article is pathetic. Not every woman wants to get married, first of all, and those who do shouldn't settle for Mr. So-So. I don't think you have to find the perfect man, but who wants to "settle" just to be married? Let's hope the movie is more modern.

Wow that article was depressing. I do not want to be a 40 year old single woman (because I do want to be married, and not settling for anyone).

Skeptical, too, but curious... A single mom learns how to love herself. When she sees her own flaws, at last, she's ready to fall in love with a man who's flawed, too. Together, they become a loving, flawed family.

I thought this article was really interesting. I do think today's society encourages women to look for an ideal guy who doesnt exist. There are so many choices available in our world (not just in the men department) that sometimes it's hard to pick anything even as basic as a sunscreen. Shows like Sex and the city and friends (even though i love these shows) do encourage people to hold out for a guy you feel fireworks for, even if in reality they wouldn't make good husbands or fathers. So this lady does have a realistic outlook...it is important to look past a guy's flaws because guys who like you are looking past yours. Ok it's dumb to marry someone you are allergic to, or don't want to even peck on the cheek because that'll just ruin the relationship anyways...but if he doesn't give you butterflies doesn't mean he won't be able to make you happy. That's all she's saying so I don't think the article is half bad. It's realisitc, even if it is boardering on skeptical. I think alot of women are in denial, and this denial is only escalated thanks to tv shows about so called empowered women and self help books that tell you your fabulous and you shouldn't settle for less.

I don't think that this article is offensive; however, it is a really sensitive issue that she seems somewhat flippant about.

Her basic argument is that love and marriage are not the same thing, and that a woman is probably going to have to choose one over the other. She's trying to work against both a) "seventies feminism" that would push women to reject love and marriage in order to pursue career and politics and B) "nineties feminism" that would insist that women can and should have it all. I think (and I'm not sure here, but I got to thinking about this from reading BellaSugar's comment above) that she's trying to "take back" marriage, and redefine it as a kind of feminist move.

In other words, she obviously fancies herself a feminist, but she thinks that the exact form of her feminism is not working for her. For her, the paradox of "settling" is that it's actually going to liberate her from her work schedule. In the worst sense of this, she's willing to use a man as a second income in order to secure more time with her child. In the best sense of this, she wants a father figure for her child to help create a loving, balanced family environment. She wants to redefine marriage in a way that gives women more agency: we shouldn't marry because we are looking for some sort of confirmation about our own identity (this seems to be in the back ground of her argument), but because it's useful to us as we raise children.

Either way, it's really sad how much she empties the feelings of the other out of the marriage. She doesn't really consider the thoughts or the feelings of the spouse at all. I'm recently engaged, and it made me sad to read such a jaded opinion of marriage. I happen to feel like I'm not settling at all. In fact, part of what made me fall in love with my finance was seeing how good he is with children. It's like she never even considers that possibility.