|
Post by CrisisOver on Sept 9, 2012 16:03:59 GMT -5
The Oscar contenders are usually divided between the "critic's movies" and the "Fan Movies". Les Mis may be in the enviable position of a movie that fans have been waiting for forever and critic's will love because it is so different that any film recently seen. At least I truly hope so. I haven't paid much attention to the particulars of these upcoming films, but does anyone think re-makes of Anna Karenina and Wuthering Heights will have any impact on Les Miserables? Any chance audiences and critics will suffer overload from so many literary classics being released in one season?
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Sept 9, 2012 17:33:09 GMT -5
I haven't paid much attention to the particulars of these upcoming films, but does anyone think re-makes of Anna Karenina and Wuthering Heights will have any impact on Les Miserables? Any chance audiences and critics will suffer overload from so many literary classics being released in one season? I doubt it. Les Miserables is the only wide release of the lot and the only musical. It's certainly not a problem in the UK, as Wuthering Heights was last year, Anna Karenina is now and Les Miserables isn't until January.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 12, 2012 9:04:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Sept 12, 2012 9:23:41 GMT -5
All I know is, if Hugh doesn't get nominated, I'm ditching this fandom until at least next spring, because I don't want to read the "he was robbed" whining that I know will happen. This is all assuming his performance in Les Mis is fantastic and he gets overlooked, of course. Then again, if he does get nominated and he doesn't win, I'll be back next fall, LOL. Because that whining will be out of control. Bet on it. And I'm not just talking about this board, either.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 12, 2012 9:37:57 GMT -5
All I know is, if Hugh doesn't get nominated, I'm ditching this fandom until at least next spring, because I don't want to read the "he was robbed" whining that I know will happen. This is all assuming his performance in Les Mis is fantastic and he gets overlooked, of course. Then again, if he does get nominated and he doesn't win, I'll be back next fall, LOL. Because that whining will be out of control. Bet on it. And I'm not just talking about this board, either. Oh you know there really will be the "he was robbed" posts either way! I'm not really expecting a win, but with all the hoopla surrounding this I'm hoping for/expecting a nomination at least. But haven't we been down that road before....
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Sept 12, 2012 9:59:44 GMT -5
All I know is, if Hugh doesn't get nominated, I'm ditching this fandom until at least next spring, because I don't want to read the "he was robbed" whining that I know will happen. This is all assuming his performance in Les Mis is fantastic and he gets overlooked, of course. Then again, if he does get nominated and he doesn't win, I'll be back next fall, LOL. Because that whining will be out of control. Bet on it. And I'm not just talking about this board, either. Oh you know there really will be the "he was robbed" posts either way! I'm not really expecting a win, but with all the hoopla surrounding this I'm hoping for/expecting a nomination at least. But haven't we been down that road before.... Well, I don't think anybody likes being disappointed, so I'm still sticking with my "I hope the film is really great" and leaving it at that without expecting anything more than critical acclaim for the film and Hugh's performance in it. Anything else is icing on the cake, but not expected. Things have a way of doing not what you expect, and I think it's better for my own psyche to just wait and be surprised. If he has the ability to knock anything out of the park, this is probably it, but we won't know for like 3 months if that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by klenotka on Sept 12, 2012 11:08:36 GMT -5
I think even the fact that he is mentioned on "nomination lists" and is connected with a project that gets a lots of positive, Oscar buzz is a good thing. He goes into "Prisoners" after Wolverine, which is also a script followed with positive reactions.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 13, 2012 19:22:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Sept 13, 2012 19:58:35 GMT -5
HA! I like the one about Lincoln being married to Forrest Gump's mother. Mary Todd Lincoln was a complete nutcake after two of her sons died, then her husband and another son. She's ultimately really kind of tragic.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 13, 2012 20:01:34 GMT -5
HA! I like the one about Lincoln being married to Forrest Gump's mother. Yeah I thought that one was pretty funny! Another one said it looked like it belonged on the History Channel and that thought crossed my mind. The trailer was a little light on DDL I thought.
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Sept 13, 2012 22:38:49 GMT -5
It amuses me that people can get in a total twist about a trailer. They've decided the movie's success or failure from a few clips. They perhaps can judge whether it's good marketing and will contribute to its box office success, but they analyze an entire movie based on 2 minutes of clips. Seems silly to get all wound up about it. I know I'll see it; looks interesting to me.
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Sept 14, 2012 1:17:34 GMT -5
I didn't like the trailer, but then I realised it wasn't really aimed at me. It seemed a bit heavy-handed.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 14, 2012 5:10:33 GMT -5
It amuses me that people can get in a total twist about a trailer. They've decided the movie's success or failure from a few clips. They perhaps can judge whether it's good marketing and will contribute to its box office success, but they analyze an entire movie based on 2 minutes of clips. Seems silly to get all wound up about it. I know I'll see it; looks interesting to me. I guess that's the purpose of trailers - to get people interested to see a movie. If they don't like the trailer, many won't see the movie. I love historical stuff so I will see it.
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Sept 14, 2012 5:43:09 GMT -5
It amuses me that people can get in a total twist about a trailer. They've decided the movie's success or failure from a few clips. They perhaps can judge whether it's good marketing and will contribute to its box office success, but they analyze an entire movie based on 2 minutes of clips. Seems silly to get all wound up about it. I know I'll see it; looks interesting to me. I always say that - the notion that a trailer is 30 seconds to a minute of a film, so let's completely judge it by that, which makes absolutely no sense; however, the trailers are supposed to pull you in and interest you and if that doesn't work, then people might not want to see it. It looks fine to me, and honestly, I read the book it's based on - so I want to see it. Then again, I'm a history nerd, and the Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches in American history - so much said in 2-minute, 10-line speech, a dedication at a cemetary, given while Lincoln was suffering from smallpox and had to sit through Edward Everett's 2+ hour speech first.
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Sept 14, 2012 6:47:19 GMT -5
It will probably be a good film but I don't think the trailer sold it well. All those fades to black were jarring (35 in a 2:20 trailer), the music was "serious, important" and there was little to show what the film is about. (Obviously, I don't have the grounding in american history that most americans will have and even when I look things up, it doesn't have the same emotional impact).
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Sept 14, 2012 7:56:15 GMT -5
It will probably be a good film but I don't think the trailer sold it well. All those fades to black were jarring (35 in a 2:20 trailer), the music was "serious, important" and there was little to show what the film is about. (Obviously, I don't have the grounding in american history that most americans will have and even when I look things up, it doesn't have the same emotional impact). Oh, I'm with you there, the trailer and it's distracting fades was not appealing. The thing is, and not being American, I can also understand the lack of interest on your part as well, but Lincoln was probably the best president we've ever had. Simply because as president, he understood that only as one nation, working together, can we survive and prosper. He knew the importance of that. He was the first "republican" president here, and I put that in quotes because most people don't understand the shift beteween the progressive or dare I say, liberal, republicans of Lincoln's time to the ultra-conservative republicans of Reagan's time. FDR, a democrat, who is also regarded as one of the best US presidents, had more in common with the progressive way of Lincoln's governing than complete liberal shift to the democratic party of Obama, Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy. In the study of history, most historians point to "watershed" moments - practically all of Lincoln's presidency was a watershed moment. He knew his job was to uphold the liberties afforded all Americans by the declaration of independence, but knew it wouldn't work unless the country was one country. His election caused the south to succeed; they knew he would abolish slavery and they didn't want that, so right from the beginning, he was a catalyst for change, good and bad. You know, Britain was actually on the side of the south - they were trying to decide whether or not to get involved, as they did rely on the cotton provided by the south. Since they had only recently abolished slavery themselves (France was also in this same boat) they didn't want to take the side of a country that refused to abolish slavery - but they were convinced the south would win the war, and with good reason, because they were winning it. Then the south imploded on itself - their supply lines were cut off, shipping of cotton was embargoed, they were printing worthless money that caused horrible inflation (What would have cost $1 in gold in 1860 cost $1200 by the end of the war in 1865), and Jefferson Davis refused to do anything to help the poor and middle class people in the south, favoring the rich instead. Ultimately, the tide turned and Britain and France were able to stay out of it completely, but both countries were contemplating getting involved. Ugh. I'm getting nerdy again. Ignore me.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 14, 2012 8:01:50 GMT -5
It amuses me that people can get in a total twist about a trailer. They've decided the movie's success or failure from a few clips. They perhaps can judge whether it's good marketing and will contribute to its box office success, but they analyze an entire movie based on 2 minutes of clips. Seems silly to get all wound up about it. I know I'll see it; looks interesting to me. I always say that - the notion that a trailer is 30 seconds to a minute of a film, so let's completely judge it by that, which makes absolutely no sense; however, the trailers are supposed to pull you in and interest you and if that doesn't work, then people might not want to see it. It looks fine to me, and honestly, I read the book it's based on - so I want to see it. Then again, I'm a history nerd, and the Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches in American history - so much said in 2-minute, 10-line speech, a dedication at a cemetary, given while Lincoln was suffering from smallpox and had to sit through Edward Everett's 2+ hour speech first. If you want chills, go to Gettysburg and tour the battlefield/cemetery/stand in the spot where Lincoln gave his Gettysburg address. Entertainment Weekly gives a nice history lesson attached to the trailer: insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/14/lincoln-trailer-daniel-day-lewis-deep-dive/
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Sept 14, 2012 9:06:59 GMT -5
You know, I have the book the film is based on. I should go read it. I find it interesting that Jefferson Davis isn't even listed as a character - but then again, I don't. He rarely left his "White House of the Confederacy" in Richmond, Virginia during the war. I see that they have Jackie Earle Haley (Heh - He's always going to be Kelly Leak from the Bad News Bears to me) as Alexander Stephens - again, because Davis never left his stupid house.
My suggestion to anybody who wants to know about the civil war - watch Ken Burns' The Civil War. Fabulous documentary. Makes you wonder how anybody won, and then you realize the problems Lincoln had - he didn't want to issue the emancipation proclimation until the north actually had a real victory, but then had to do it before that anyway (He thought it would be Antietam, but that didn't work out the way he wanted it to, it was basically a draw, with an edge to the north because they drove the south from Maryland), that the emancipation proclimation didn't actually free a whole lot of people when it was issued - the slaves in the south lived in a different country, so it didn't apply to them, and the former slaves in the north were already free. Also, Lincoln had problems with most of his generals - especially George McClellan, and didn't really have a leader until U.S. Grant, while the south had Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee (until Jackson was shot by one of his own men and then died of pneumonia). The north also used the technology at the time (Railroads!) to help them win the war, that the south did not have.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 14, 2012 9:09:18 GMT -5
You know, I have the book the film is based on. I should go read it. I find it interesting that Jefferson Davis isn't even listed as a character - but then again, I don't. He rarely left his "White House of the Confederacy" in Richmond, Virginia during the war. I see that they have Jackie Earle Haley (Heh - He's always going to be Kelly Leak from the Bad News Bears to me) as Alexander Stephens - again, because Davis never left his stupid house. I've been to the "White House of the Confederacy" - love all that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Sept 14, 2012 9:48:54 GMT -5
|
|