AniNate Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I'm in the exact opposite boat. It seems there's everything going for it and it has Weinstein. Wasn't The Company Men also Weinstein? I'm just not seeing a reason to give it the benefit of the doubt right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I don't really guarantee the DGA win, but I absolutely guarantee the DGA nomination. It's basically a no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) Les Miserables is so boring or poorly made at times, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathway and Eddie Redmayne make it worth watching. Edited March 23, 2013 by Jack Nevada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Wasn't The Company Men also Weinstein? I'm just not seeing a reason to give it the benefit of the doubt right now. Company Men starred Ben Affleck.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Granted after the guild screening weekend, it was hard to conceive of anything else winning. There were tears and ovations in New York. There were tears and ovations in Los Angeles. There were tears and ovations in Britain. Then the media came in and took a huge shit on it and killed its chances. Funny thing is, it does seem like media pressured guilds and AMPAS into dropping the ball on Les Miz. However, they really wanted to crown ZDT and everyone jumped on Affleck and Argo bandwaggon instead. So bloggers and other media ended up pissed off again. remember that ridiculous ZDT and Bigelow circle jerk by critics well before anyone but few chosen ones saw the movie? That`s where everything started...to go in Affleck/Argo favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsc1312 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Wasn't The Company Men also Weinstein? I'm just not seeing a reason to give it the benefit of the doubt right now.Tracy letts writing, the outstanding cast that company men could never dream of having. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Funny thing is, it does seem like media pressured guilds and AMPAS into dropping the ball on Les Miz. However, they really wanted to crown ZDT and everyone jumped on Affleck and Argo bandwaggon instead. So bloggers and other media ended up pissed off again. remember that ridiculous ZDT and Bigelow circle jerk by critics well before anyone but few chosen ones saw the movie? That`s where everything started...to go in Affleck/Argo favor.Yeah. The Media seems to be playing a bigger role every year. They should ban all reporting one year, or lock the voters in a room after the nominations were announced to see what they'd vote for if they weren't pressured by the media. It's infuriating that some people were probably shamed out of voting for Les Miserables. Though I suppose without media pressure Lawrwnce would've walked away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I think Hooper's mind-numbing direction is what did Les Mis in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Some reviews pretty much said "shame on you if you vote for Les Miz". The movie could have been better but it was far from a trainwreck. Yet critics and bloggers who can post on RT were out for blood. Even ADF admitted they were ganging up on Les Miz in order to smear its rep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) I think Hooper's mind-numbing direction is what did Les Mis in. Close-up didn`t do his movie much favor but some attacks on the movie were ridiculous, clearly meant for dropping its META so it doesn`t feature in Oscar race. Edited March 23, 2013 by fishnets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) I think Hooper's mind-numbing direction is what did Les Mis in. It wasn't a huge detrimental factor to Les Miserables until all the critics took a shit on it. I know that there are people who changed their votes because of what the critics said, and what practically the entire armchair critics community said about it. You could tell that the RT reviews were designed to trash it beyond what was justifiable based on their objections. They tried the write the worst reviews they could for the movie so that it would do badly at the Oscars, and so it did. Just think about how you guys all robbed poor Eddie of a nod, and then feel ashamed of yourselves. Edited March 23, 2013 by riczhang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 It wasn't a huge detrimental factor to Les Miserables until all the critics took a shit on it. I thought they were right about it, so I had no problem with the critical "takedown". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I thought they were right about it, so I had no problem with the critical "takedown". It doesn't matter if the critics were right or not. I don't feel that it's in very good taste, nor is it very ethical, that the critics decided they must impose their views on the film on the Academy. I'm not saying that Les Miserable would've won BP or BD if the critics didn't decide to write those super trashy reviews and intentionally damage a film's chances, but I have no doubt that it would've done better. Probably an extra acting nod, a directing nod, cinematography nod, editing nod, and those things. There's something, whether or not they're right about the direction, that's very foul, and morally wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 The critic high command decided to impose their views on voters? Look, the voter needs to see the movie for themselves. If he or she is powerless to being swayed that much, that's their problem. I like to think 5,000 voters were smart enough to not reward with anything it didn't deserve. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 If anything deserved more noms/wins, it was Zero Dark Thirty 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 The critic high command decided to impose their views on voters? Look, the voter needs to see the movie for themselves. If he or she is powerless to being swayed that much, that's their problem. I like to think 5,000 voters were smart enough to not reward with anything it didn't deserve. Have you read the reviews? Some of them literally read, vote for Les Miserables you're a bloody idiot, vote for Les miserables shame on you. That's just ridiculous. That's overstepping a line. And I'd like to hope the 5000 voters would just vote with their hearts like they have for so long, but it is the increasing reality that the media, Harvey Weinstein, Other campaigns, and etc. try to ( and succeed) in swinging votes in their favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsc1312 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Lol it was just the critical failure that did les Mis in? It was a 3 hour waste of talent. Different direction and cinematography could've won it best picture. It was hyped up to be the second coming and simply didn't deliver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 If anything deserved more noms/wins, it was Zero Dark Thirty AMOUR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Lol it was just the critical failure that did les Mis in? It was a 3 hour waste of talent. Different direction and cinematography could've won it best picture. It was hyped up to be the second coming and simply didn't deliver. I'm not saying that it was just critical trashing, I'm not saying that Les Miserables would've won BP without it. But, I'm saying that it would've done better than the 8 noms it got, and probably could've maybe won a few more Oscars had the critics decided not to trash an actually decently received film (it's above 60% on RT) like never before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 If anything deserved more noms/wins, it was Zero Dark Thirty Not after THL undeserved win. It`s sad that ZDT had to pay but Bigelow and boytoy are not worthy of 2 wins in a row or 2 wins period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
