|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 12, 2017 1:03:06 GMT
There were a few comments by both of them about TIG when it was screened. By whom? Weinstein was much more "sincere" with it so maybe that time he really trusted in the movie. Well, the general audience liked TIG. Anyway, I remember many people (critics for instance) who although they shouldn't have commented, they did. There was that guy from Chicago Festival who hated that it was voted as the best film by the audience. Something, good or not, they may say. Now that I think of I should return to my other twitter account which I abandoned because I followed only critics. Then there is the guy from AW who said he read the script and commented (after knowing about the screening) that it coulkdn't be worse than Downsizing. I was talking about a test screening or preview like this one before the festivals. They showed it and a few people commented including a BC fan, a Twitter user and blogger who always talk about award baity movies and a guy from IMDB who was known for going to these things and being sincere. All of them liked it with maybe a few critical comments. The year before when A:OC was screened there were also a lot of much more positive comments but they were for even more random group of people on Twitter who if you searched you can see they always absolutely loved all Weinstein movies. I think he stopped used them after that year, tho. but I'm not sure! Downsizing? The New Alexander Payne movie? He watched it? It will be released also in December. I just read the small letters and they said it's banned to talk about it on social media. I don't know if they will apply the rule. Weinstein liked to create/fabricate waves in the past but the company is clearly changing their methods. Probably more interesting, they said it's unrated but probably it will get "R". Again I don't know if they always said that or not!
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Jun 12, 2017 2:35:12 GMT
Yikes! I wonder why? The possible animal abuse scenes maybe? I would think an "R" could really cut into their box office and likelihood for awards.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 12, 2017 2:36:38 GMT
There are some people on AW who are going to try to go to the screening. They called for a ticket but they don't have the invitation so they don't know if they are going to get in.
Downsizing: I don't know if he saw the movie or just read the script. It doesn't seem awards material?
He said that he thinks TCW will be liked especially BC and Waterston but it is not going to be sufficient for awards.
Today I heard for the first time about The death of Stalin. I think I'll love it.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 12, 2017 11:41:01 GMT
Magda, I have the script! It's an early version. I haven't finished it yet but until now it's good. I think it will be R because the language. Edison is very foul mouthed! The elephant scene is the first one but is not explicit Clearly Edison is the best character. Both he and Westinghouse are protagonists. And interesting enough there is a third line story about the life of the first man who was executed by the electric chair . Edison is funny, playful, charismatic and an extrovert. Very different to Alan Turing! He is beginning to show his darker side. The guy from AW clearly read the script but I don't have any idea why he compared it to Johnny Depp's characters. Maybe he become a drunk pirate in the last scenes! Until now it reminds me to HBO's Pirates of Silicon Valley mixed to Spielberg's Lincoln. That's my crazy comparison! I won't post the script here but I can send it to anyone who want it. I will go to my work now but I can do it in a few hours!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 12, 2017 16:03:27 GMT
I finished it. It's very solid. Much better than The Rockefeller one. It's logic that Steve Zaillan wanted to produce it because it's on his style. Specifically around the lines of his 90s movies: straightforward but not necessarily 100% conventional, funny, dramatic, even cruel, and moving. Probably it's a little redundant in a few scenes like Hollywood scripts tend to be but nothing extreme. There are also a few invented scenes in which characters who weren't there in real life are there so I can see purists getting angry about it. One of the last Edison scenes is a little incredible and melodramatic but it somehow works. At least I really would want to see BC doing it! He is for much the most interesting character. A very conflicted man: charismatic, loved by everyone but also vindictive, nasty and prideful. He is a celebrity and showman who successfully disguises his worst instincts to the general public and he has a lot! We will see what Gomez-Rejón do with it. He is a very talented visual director. Very academic in that regard. That's why his very conventional teen movie was well received by the NYT and The New Yorker critics. People can argue that he has some problem with making the story his own. Maybe that's because he worked for years on TV helping to the creator of the series vision. The more aggressive criticism against his movie was by the young politically correct online critics who were offended by the most conventional aspects of the story: the death of a girl as a catalyst for the growing up of a white male kid and the black poor kid as the sidekick. Both aspects integral part of the script and book he was putting on screen. There are actually at least two women dying here (and two men) but those events are from real life and just for that they are presented in a much more realistic and complex way here. Having said that I can't guarantee people on Internet being offended by…something. They always find things to be offended! My point is this script seems much more solid so I hope he can do something even better this time! Edison kills a LOT of animals. Maybe that would be the controversial part here that would send Internet kids to frenzy! The script actually calls for the use of the real elephant footage in the last scene!
Also Tom Holland character (surely that's his character!) has another name in the script! So that's a change from the early draft
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Jun 12, 2017 21:02:26 GMT
How did you find the script Sgev? But well done! And yes, I'd love to read it, if you could be so extremely kind as to send me a copy.
"Solid" sounds good, if not necessarily inspiring. "Solid" in the right hands could be turned into something inspiring. I did go to look at the Awardswatch board to see what was being said about the script after it was mentioned here, but I somehow missed the comment quoted that it couldn't be worse than "Downsizing". That only reflected badly re "Downsizing" anyway, but other references to it which didn't sound too bad, even if not very specific. It'll be interesting to see what those guys who are going to try to see the screening (if they can get in from phoning without the paper invite) have to say about it (if they do). But I must admit that I also thought the date the film was given was a sign that Weinstein didn't think TWC was going to be his no 1 pony (it wasn't the "prime" November slot that TIG had), as was repeatedly mentioned there. That decision could only have been based on presumption and some rushes, at best, though, because filming hadn't even finished at that point.
I'm particularly wondering what weight they give to J P Morgan's influence in the events. Edison certainly went along with it, but it was J P Morgan who instigated using the animal electrocutions to effect to start with.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 12, 2017 21:45:21 GMT
I said "solid" in a very positive way. It's really good but of course it's not finished yet and not just because it's an early draft but because it's not complete until the work of the director.
It's not sordid (although it do have a few ugly scenes with yes, animals but also a few gruesome human deaths. I don't know how they will portrayed them on screen) nor solemn like a lot of modern awarded movies are. That's why I compared it to Zaillian's 90s movies. In that regard it's an old school script but with some cruel scenes and a slightly strong language. There is a lot of funny scenes and Edison is a very funny guy.
I don't know about awards. I think it's crazy to guess based just in the script. It has the potential to be a very good movie, Edison is a great character and he is the selling point, Margarita is indeed a strong will woman (much more than his husband who is very noble but hey, it's played by Shannon!) but she would only happen just if the movie sweep with nominations (like Kidman and Patel last year) but as you said it depends of Weinstein and co. at the end of the day. They did an awful work last year with the Michael Keaton movie which was actually well received by critics. We will see!
Morgan is a very important character in the script but he is not presented like the one with the idea of killing animals. There is a few historical inaccuracies there but that's normal for any fictional work. I can see a few Tesla fans being angry that the character is just in a very few scenes and presented just as a weirdo (IMHO probably one of the weakest characters in the script).
Also I think someone with Gomez–Rejón visual style has the potential of raise the material beyond a well-made period movie and a good script about mature themes like this one can help him to consolidate himself. I hope I'm not wrong!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Jun 12, 2017 22:54:02 GMT
Just read your post in response to Dreams and had some ideas to contribute. :-) I said "solid" in a very positive way. It's really good but of course it's not finished yet and not just because it's an early draft but because it's not complete until the work of the director... Couldn't agree with you more on this statement. Writing is paramount to me when it comes to movies but trying to assess or even speculate as to the quality of a film based on just a script (especially an early draft) is is tantamount to deciding whether a painting will be considered a masterpiece by the artist's early sketches. Not something I would ever suggest is a good path to take. The director's contribution is something that can make a solid, interesting script into a classic. Movies are very definitely a director's medium afterall. I think it is downright ludicrous to talk about awards based on an early script. I don't see how anyone on AW could do this with any credibility frankly. They might as well draw lots - it would have just as much verisimilitude. Really? You actually thought that movie had enough substance to be a commercial success? I think if HW did abandon it, he was probably correct in that assessment. The subject matter seemed entirely distasteful and any criticisms I saw of that film (and I read a number of them that had harsh words to say about the theme of the movie,regardless of the praise of the acting of MK) seemed very spot on IMO. I am pretty easy going about a normal amount of artistic license being taken to tell a story on the screen too. After all, when structuring a narrative for a film there are many factors to consider than might have to be sacrificed on occasion. I think they have to achieve a balance to make the story and the history work. TIG was pretty good in that respect I think. As for the Tessa fans being upset... there are always going to be some folks who are going to get their panties in a twist about something they don't like - look at TJLC types and what lengths they are willing to go to just because their "ship" didn't happen! I hope no legitimate story-teller ever succumbs to that sort of thing. The nattering nabobs of negativity are always going to wag their tongues about something so just make your vision and be damned! :-))
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 12, 2017 23:06:37 GMT
I did go to look at the Awardswatch board to see what was being said about the script after it was mentioned here, but I somehow missed the comment quoted that it couldn't be worse than "Downsizing". It is the same guy from AW who posts on another proboards forum where some people from Movie Awards Imdb board migrated. movie-awards-redux.freeforums.net/post/39883/thread
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 12, 2017 23:13:14 GMT
I haven't watched The Founder but I read a few very positive reviews. Film Comment was very complementary not just to Keaton's performance but the theme. They called the most anti-capitalist movie ever made by the Weinsteins. I thought that was intriguing! (Why it's distasteful? Again I haven't watched it) Anyway that's not the only good, well-received or even acclaimed movie abandoned by Weinstein. He also discard a lot of bad movies, of course! But he is doing less movies than a few years ago so it will be interesting to see what they will do.
I just read they just changed the release date of one of their movies, The Six Billion Dollar Man with Mark Whalberg. Yes, it's based in the series and apparently the Weinsteins announced a few years ago they will released it at the same date TCW was programmed early this year. Now they changed of mind. Probably because it hasn't been shoot yet!
|
|