I would like to know yours and dreamisincolor opinions!
Thinking about people predicting based on scripts reminds me to Richard Brody article saying great scripts doesn't make really great movies. Of course that's not always truth but there are a lot of acclaimed scripts that just didn't work on screen: Passengers, Transcendence are just two recent examples! Even TIG which was very well-received had a very acclaimed script and the adaptation was faithful but somehow something was missing: the script just was very smart in a short story kind of way that it was very difficult if not impossible to present on screen. Maybe because the author is a novelist. That's the advantage I see with this script: it feels like a movie. Maybe because the author is a play writer.
When I read that column my ears pricked up especially since he mentioned right off the bat the other films that the director Hancock had been responsible for before making The Founder (Saving Mr. Banks and The Blind Side). Saving Mr. Banks was sort of entertaining but ultimately I found the overall arc of the movie disappointing and when I really started to consider all the deeper implications of it, that disappointment turned into a sourness. And The Blind Side was so shallow and at its core an adulation of exploitativeness that it just drains away any moral centre it supposedly has. I really disliked that movie. It was a purposely manipulative movie that almost made me angry.
So I guess the combination of not finding anything positive in the trailer and then reading Brody's review, which just confirmed all my suspicions (and gave me even more reasons not to like it - seeing how I felt about the previous works of the director).
Perhaps some day I will see it - who knows, sometimes I have been completely blown away by movies I had considered unwatchable or completely disinterested in prior to seeing them (The Social Network is one of those). Minds can be changed.
"You're going into the water... short-arse!" - Sherlock
He said that he thinks TCW will be liked especially BC and Waterston but it is not going to be sufficient for awards.
I still think that doing that kind of predictions based only in the script is very silly but that wouldn't be a bad result at all! If the movie is good, receive positive feedback by critics and it's not send to die with an early next year release at last minute by the Weinsteins, it could actually work in the box office without big awards. Period movies aren't the most obvious box office hits but people forget that there is a section of the audience that is hungry for adult themed movies. That's why The Butler, Bridge of Spies or Sully were very solid hits even when they were almost ignored by the Academy. Now I know BC is not Tom Hanks but even his own TIG was a huge hit with that segment of the public (its strongest demographic wasn't the cliched crazy fan girls from Tumblr but mature people from big cities). People always forget or ignore how powerful that movie was in the box office ($227 M with a $14 M budget) and IMHO that was beyond awards. The Theory of Everything was considered a hit but it did "only" $122M around the world and just one third of what TIG did in North America! Both were British movies about mathematicians.