85th Annual Academy Awards (2013)

[Schlosser85]

I'd be shocked if Anne Hathaway doesn't get a Best Supporting Actress nomination for Les Mis, and I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't get other nods as well, possibly even a Best Picture nomination.

I don't think it will (or should) get noms in any other categories, but Prometheus may get an effects nod, and though it's a long shot, I'd kind of like Michael Fassbender to get a nod.

The Oscars like Javier Bardem, so he might get an Oscar nomination for Skyfall. Possibly Judi Dench too, as her eyesight is deteriorating and her career may be on its way out.

Daniel Day-Lewis is probably a lock for an Oscar nomination for Lincoln. The Oscars love him, and he's had lots of Oscar buzz this year. So have Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones, so wouldn't be surprised to see them pick noms for Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor. Spielberg may also get a Best Director nomination, and Lincoln may be nominated for Best Picture.

The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit may be nominated in some technical categories, but I doubt anything else.

 

[grout]

This is the only musical film version of Les Mis, so saying "it's been done to death" is absurd, at least film-wise.

Not trying to be absurd, just dont see how singing it makes the world of difference IMO. I was talking about the plays and dramatic film.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Not trying to be absurd, just dont see how singing it makes the world of difference IMO.

A Christmas Carol has been done to death, so have many others...

BUT this has only ONE film, ONE obscure mini-series (stating that because it only aired in France), and this. So complaining about this being done to death yet forgetting Christmas Carol, Peter Pan, Moby Dick, Frankenstein, Dracula, Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, MANY other based on classic literature is kinda absurd.

I'd highly call one dramatic film and one musical version "done to death" when that would apply to so many more and different films instead.

Hell, Les Mis has less films than any trilogy. So really, it's one of the least done cinematically titles unless you count films and franchises which only have ONE film to its name.

 

[grout]

okay look its just my opinion as I said im glad for the people that enjoyed it. I loved the play and the film. Just burned out to go back and see the musical on film

 

[Ultimatehero]

That doesn't mean it's been "done to death" - it just means you're not interested, but it can't be "done to death" since that would imply that like all other classic pieces of literature it has been done at the very least more than three times. When it's only been done twice, both times differently. Also having seen the Liam Neeson version this is like comparing Spider-Man 1 with The Amazing Spider-Man. As said, not interested is stating one thing - but technically only having one film prior and this? It can't technically be "done to death" unless you'd say all trilogies are "way beyond done to death." I'm not correcting opinion, neither is Schlosser I don't believe rather odd terminology.

 

[grout]

yes it means im not interested... books, plays, dramatic film....now a musical film on the same subject. Sorry I have no interest as I said... Musical or not its the same subject, I agree with you although it has not been done as much as allot of the classics just proves what im getting at.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm pretty sure there's just one book?

As said, Schlosser and I were just calling out terminology rather than opinion. Out of everything out there, especially among old literature being done, this one is the least made one of the pack. Well known, yes. As retold as all of the others? Barely. As retold as Spider-Man? Not even close. As re-told as Iron Man? Not even close. As retold as Evil Dead? Not even close. As retold as Carrie? Not even close. Hell, as redone as Green Arrow? Not even close. Kinda stretching it to say it's been done way too many times. Now, if you were talking Jekyll and Hyde? okay. That has about six comics, fifteen films, one play, and one musical. Christmas Carol? Alrighty. But, here? As said, terminology wide it's technically impossible for it to be "done to death" and today's franchises have already been told way way way more times. You'd be discounting franchises and brands altogether as being "done to death" if you'd say this one was that's how little it's actually been done. Well known yes, done many times - hardly.

 

[grout]

I'm pretty sure there's just one book?

As said, Schlosser and I were just calling out terminology rather than opinion. Out of everything out there, especially among old literature being done, this one is the least made one of the pack. Well known, yes. As retold as all of the others? Barely. As retold as Spider-Man? Not even close. As re-told as Iron Man? Not even close. As retold as Evil Dead? Not even close. Kinda stretching it to say it's been done way too many times. Now, if you were talking Jekyll and Hyde? okay. That has about six comics, fifteen films, one play, and one musical. Christmas Carol? Alrighty. But, here? As said, terminology wide it's technically impossible for it to be "done to death."

"this one is the least made one of the pack"

what i guess I dont get is,, are you saying it needs to be redone "that" many times before I can say I feel its been done to death? Wouldnt we both be a matter of opinion on that?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Would you call franchises done more than twice done to death? I'd call them sophomores, ESPECIALLY in the film realm.

Plays and broadway musicals that the masses probably don't or didn't have a chance to see.

Thus, two adaptations for the masses. As said, would you call Iron Man done to death? Because going by your terminology - Iron Man 2 was way too much already.

One film, one cartoon run, one cartoon way back in the day, and comics. Iron Man 2 was way way way too much Iron Man! There should just be one Iron Man film, more than that? God forbid, that's too much Iron Man.

Sound logical or does it sound kind of like an absurd way to say one isn't interested?

 

[grout]

No I would call Iron man 1 "the musical" too much though. Anyways Im really not trying to argue or anything.. Im glad for the people that enjoyed. It was just my opinion

 

[Ultimatehero]

You'd be like the fanboys not wanting to see superhero musicals then.

A more equivalent example, do you see Avengers as one too many? Or hell, Iron Man 3?

Also the film skipped a lot of what I imagine was in the book - or the story, was only half substance wise of what is in the musical.

Is Carrie too much? (one mass-produced mini-series, and now two films... wow, way way way too much Carrie). As said - technically impossible for it to have been done to death. Well known? Yes. But in the same way Cujo is and that's only had one film and one book, doesn't mean Cujo's been "done to death" just that many know of it. Literary wise it's like comparing the original Frankenstein film with the later Robert DeNiro Frankenstein film and saying they're the same thing - that's kinda how different the Liam Neeson film was (and the ending was RADICALLY different).

 

[Schlosser85]

Move on.

 

[grout]

No your missing the point... You feel because the story of the "same subject matter" that is now a musical on film I guess is orginal. I have seen the dramatc film, seen the play and have no interest to see the same thing in musical form on film. Your getting at sequels and stuff... my response was is if Iron Man 1 came back out as a musical film,,,i would have no interest in seeing it.

 

[grout]

Move on.

Fine by me

 

[Ultimatehero]

It would be original to around 75% of the masses. So, you're just not interested by seeing it more times than the average American movie-goer. I'm getting at how many times something is told. To you, it may have been 'many.' But to most? It's basically just two films if they're old enough to remember the one with Liam Neeson. I can count on more than fifty hands properties that have been told more times. That's what I'm getting at. To say not interested is one thing, but technically "done to death" - pretty sure you'd need to be told more than everything else out there - and in comparison? It's still just a child, albeit just a well known child (but everything can be well known, hell somebody doesn't need to see Children of the Corn to get that mentioned referenced). Then move on, technically as said - it's not worded correctly, just not interested. I should note I've only seen the musical film once (top seven, but not top five), don't really think it deserves best adapted screenplay (because of how musicals are translated to screen, I think the original writers deserve credit - but I may be wrong and the film is radically different), and only saw the Liam Nesson movie - so I'm just talking wording here.

 

[DDS]

This been posted yet?

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/01/04/james-bond-oscars-to-feature-special-50th-anniversary-tribute/

James Bond: Oscars to feature special 50th anniversary tribute


007 has a new reason to put on a tux.


Skyfall is the James Bond franchise’s strongest-ever shot at an Oscar for best picture, but whether the movie gets a nod or not, the 23-film spy series will be the subject of a special tribute at this year’s ceremony.


The producers of the Academy Awards announced today that the Feb. 24 telecast will take time for a look back at the legacy of the shaken-not-stirred superspy.


“We are very happy to include a special sequence on our show saluting the Bond films on their 50th birthday,” producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron said in a joint statement. “Starting with Dr. No back in 1962, the 007 movies have become the longest-running motion picture franchise in history and a beloved global phenomenon.”


That announcement in and of itself was an unusual move, since most past producers have kept such tributes top secret until the presentation of the show. Zadan and Meron, whose filmography includes Chicago, Hairspray, and The Bucket List among a host of TV credits, have shown an awareness that more people will tune in if you let them know a little about what to expect.


Meron and Zadan didn’t reveal much else about the 007 portion of the show, so there will still be surprises. When the nominations are announced next Thursday, we’ll find out if Bond’s latest outing, Skyfall, ends up getting a best picture nomination, which seems increasingly possible after it received the Producers Guild Nomination this week.


Oscar voting closes today, and the Sam Mendes-directed movie is already likely to get a Best Song nod for Adele’s moody theme. A Best Cinematography bid for Roger Deakins is also good bet, while Javier Bardem’s mutilated, vengeful ex-agent (which earned him a Screen Actors Guild nomination) could also land him in the supporting actor category at the Oscars.


After 50 years with little to no love, Bond may have finally found a way to seduce the Academy.

 

[grout]

It would be original to around 75% of the masses. So, you're just not interested by seeing it more times than the average American movie-goer. I'm getting at how many times something is told. To you, it may have been 'many.' But to most? It's basically just two films if they're old enough to remember the one with Liam Neeson. I can count on more than fifty hands properties that have been told more times. That's what I'm getting at. To say not interested is one thing, but technically "done to death" - pretty sure you'd need to be told more than everything else out there - and in comparison? It's still just a child, albeit just a well known child (but everything is well known, hell somebody doesn't need to see Children of the Corn to get that mentioned referenced). Then move on, technically as said - it's not worded correctly, just not interested.

i really have nothing more to say about it

 

[Ultimatehero]

That makes sense.

----

And from a writing perspective, to those who have seen the musical on stage - how different is the film from what is on the stage? Is it just the technical aspects or is it more than that? Just asking because I don't understand how it could really run for best adapted screenplay because it seems like it's just an exact copy more or less just with taking different cues into mind. To me a musical film is about completely capturing what's on the screen rather than shaking it up to make it fit the structure of a film like you would when adapting other properties. Having adapted both, it is an extremely different form of adaptation. With other properties, you have to be more mindful to the film structure whereas with musicals you're aiming to make it a replica of what is on stage for those who didn't get to see it on stage.

 

[grout]

Is it just me or did the Moderator say "Move On"

 

[Ultimatehero]

Is it just me or did the Moderator say "Move On"

So, move on. I didn't say anything about what you brought up. All I did was ask a question about the writing. It makes perfect sense to move on, so move on.

Now, to repeat and end on this switching things over (as I tried to do above):

And from a writing perspective, to those who have seen the musical on stage - how different is the film from what is on the stage? Is it just the technical aspects or is it more than that? Just asking because I don't understand how it could really run for best adapted screenplay because it seems like it's just an exact copy more or less just with taking different cues into mind. To me a musical film is about completely capturing what's on the screen rather than shaking it up to make it fit the structure of a film like you would when adapting other properties. Having adapted both, it is an extremely different form of adaptation. With other properties, you have to be more mindful to the film structure whereas with musicals you're aiming to make it a replica of what is on stage for those who didn't get to see it on stage.

 

[grout]

you respond when I have said " i really have nothing more to say" ....stop bringing it up move on

 

[Ultimatehero]

you respond when I have said " i really have nothing more to say" ....stop bringing it up move on

Dude, as anyone can tell you my post has absolutely nothing to do with you and is a technical question about the technicalities of the script and wondering why some people think it's a contender for best adapted screenplay when the process of adaptation is entirely different. Because for a musical it's more of a straight-rip, whereas with every other source other things have to come to mind to fit the narrative form of a film and thus are changed. Thus, personally, while I think it could be nominated for best picture I don't really think it deserves best adapted screenplay since the adaptation process (usually) makes it more of just copying it entirely over with only the visual cues in mind whereas adapting anything else calls into question the narrative structure of film. Basically making it a much freer and easier process of adapting a musical than any other source. So, basically is it a straight-rip or have things other than placing correct cinematic visual cues radically changed?

If you have nothing to say about this, I don't see why you are responding since this is in no way directed to you.

 

[grout]

Dude, as anyone can tell you my post has absolutely nothing to do with you and is a technical question about the technicalities of the script and wondering why some people think it's a contender for best adapted screenplay when the process of adaptation is entirely different. Because for a musical it's more of a straight-rip, whereas with every other source other things have to come to mind to fit the narrative form of a film and thus are changed.

If you have nothing to say about this, I don't see why you are responding since this is in no way directed to you.

Your last response when I said I have nothing more to say (before you made your edit) was "that makes sense". Stop throwing the jab then edit it out and make yourself look peachy.. I have said numerous times it was my opinion and I really dont care to argue.. Moderator said "move on" i said fine by me. you respond,, I said I have nothing more to say,, you respond.

Pretty please with sugar on the top lets just drop it.

 

[Superhero 101]

This been posted yet?

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/01/04/james-bond-oscars-to-feature-special-50th-anniversary-tribute/

It'd be nice to have all the previous bonds together

 

[Ultimatehero]

Your last response when I said I have nothing more to say (before you made your edit) was "that makes sense". Stop throwing the jab then edit it out and make yourself look peachy.. I have said numerous times it was my opinion and I really dont care to argue.. Moderator said "move on" i said fine by me. you respond,, I said I have nothing more to say,, you respond.

Pretty please with sugar on the top lets just drop it.

Dude, then drop it. And nothing's been edited out. As I said, "that makes perfect sense" to drop it. Don't get overly emotional dude. Now, please let the people trying to move on talk about the merits of the script itself and leave it be. I've had this question before you even appeared on here.

---

Is the movie a straight-rip from broadway with just increased visual cues or have things dramatically changed, as in changing and shifting things around like others would need to do in adapting other sources? Musicals just seem to be the easiest form to translate because the same narrative restrictions aren't placed on it that are placed onto other sources. Most of it is already there other than exact visual cues. Really difficult to explain lol, and unsure if I'm doing it right. Just having adapted a musical and a novel, the musical was straight-forward whereas the novel was bound to certain structural changes.

And yes, this has been edited - but for reasons of me being a wording perfectionist below the "---"