Les Miserables Film Script Released (?)- Page 4

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 10:40pm

Anybody save it before it went down?

Edited to add: Apparently Google is useful for other things than searching... seems they automatically generate HTML versions of documents as they crawl the web. Save it, folks. You don't know when you'll see it again...

HTML

Updated On: 10/19/12 at 10:40 PM

[jo]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 10:59pm

Sorry, it doesn't seem to work either.

[jo]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 10:59pm

Double post.

Updated On: 10/19/12 at 10:59 PM

[lissa8178]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:20pm

omg just read it and now i am even more excited. but ill be on a cruise for xmas so ill have to wait till i get back

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 12:03am

Okay, apparently the entire thread on the IMDB forum in which the screenplay was being discussed (over 100 posts) has been deleted. I'm wondering if the same thing will happen to this thread? If Universal didn't want the script to be accessible to the general public, they should not have put it on the internet. Even sending it to voters via email would be risking a leak.

I thought it was odd that it was available at first, but from what I've seen, the screenplay has generated a lot of positive buzz for this film and is unlikely to make any dent to the box office. For any other film, sure. But it's different for a long-anticipated adaptation of a musical. People will still want to hear the music, see the cinematography, and see the story unfold even after reading the script.


Updated On: 10/20/12 at 12:03 AM

[jo]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 12:18am

The discussions on IMDB were nearing 200 posts - ironically all quite positive about the screenplay, including the changes from the musical and the additions from the novel. As someone pointed out, the discussions could have been insightful to Universal for purposes of getting an audience feedback, albeit they were based only on the screenplay. Almost like a rough test screening!

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 12:24am

I am glad I saved before it got taken down, I was only half way through it when I called away from my computer earlier today.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 12:35am

Now I'm worried it's because the screenplay doesn't represent what we'll see in December (as in, they've cut a lot out during editing, or a lot of it didn't get filmed). That would be a huge disappointment.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 12:43am

It was the "blue" script. So it wasn't the final one anyway.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 12:50am

I have a copy.

It's still a pretty damn good script, blue or otherwise.

[jo]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 12:52am

But if it was meant for the award bodies and guilds, why send out a screenplay that would be too far off from the final cut? They could have waited for when the movie had neared completion ( if it is still in the edit room).

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 1:45am

It was removed because it was not meant to be seen by the general public, leaking it to the public breaks various confidentiality agreements, and reposting it is technically copyright infringement. That is why it was taken down, and not for any of the reasons you are worrying about.

[sueb1863]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 6:25am

But if the public wasn't supposed to get our grubby little mittens on it, why post it to a public website?? Put it on a restricted site that only Academy members can access via passwords or something.

It's pretty much too late now, the screenplay was downloaded countless times, the link was posted on Twitter and to a lot of tumblr sites and such. It's out there.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 11:34am

I would guess it was not yet supposed to have been on the public website. The other films on universalpicturesawards.com have already been released, which is why their screenplays are still available to download.

[sueb1863]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 2:30pm

I've still got my copy, too, I don't think you could read it unless you downloaded it as a pdf file.

But the thing was up for days, and that link was everywhere, on Twitter and a lot of Tumblr sites and there were even some articles about it with links. If someone wanted a copy they probably wouldn't have to go far to find it.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 3:43pm

It's a fantastic read and the imagery is magnificent! The storytelling is so concise and I like the new order; you don't learn anything before you need to know it (IDAD placement right on). Eponine fleshed out, each Student more fully realized [imho], the Marius-Valjean relationship stronger (that rescue scene!). And I do believe the audience will take the leap of faith (literally) to welcome the ghosts at the end. As you've surmised, I'm all over this thing.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 5:07pm

I read it this week, and I have to say that there were some things I liked and some things I didn't. I did like most of the structural changes. I have always loved Do You Hear the People Sing, but placing it immediately after Red and Black is redundant. Also, in its new spot, it creates a stronger parallel to the new ending as both times, it is sung just before the fighting begins.

However, I didn't love all of the changes. While I have always thought that I Dreamed a Dream would make more sense after Lovely Ladies, seeing it on the page doesn't thrill me as much as I thought it would. I think we need the time to really hear Fantine's story before we see what measures she goes to. It felt too rushed, like Fantine ran straight from the factory to that alley without giving it the slightest thought. Hopefully, that won't occur to me in the movie.

I appreciated some of the cuts made to streamline the story (especially considering how much was added), but I wish more of the passages that were meant to be sung directly to the audience were cut. For example, I don't like how the "How do you do? My name's Gavroche" part is now directed at another person in the film. I think it's too blatantly expository too work in this context. They did this sort of thing with a lot of material, and I just don't see it working very well.

That said, there were some beautiful parts (I particularly love the new epilogue) that I'm sure will make me overlook the lesser parts. From what we've actually seen from the film, I'm sure it will be wonderful.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 7:00pm

Yeah, I think they need a "montage" of Fantine trying to find work and then not being able to or something.

[jpbran]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 8:08pm

"This Is 40" still has its screenplay posted and doesn't open 'til 4 days before "Les Miserables."

[PattyO'Furniture]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 8:24pm

Here is a clip in which you may find some interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXIsH8zMOfk&feature=g-vrec

It looks so wonderful.

[jo]

Posted: 10/20/12 at 9:42pm

That was a papparazzi clip that was posted early on - it was one of the earliest scenes filmed. At that time, we could not fathom why the scene did not seem to dovetail with the stage musical finale, but now it all makes sense because of the revised finale in the screenplay.

But a recent interview with Cameron Mackintosh puts the new finale not just as a continuation of the French historical context but also to reference what is happening in contemporary times --

http://entertainment.inquirer.net/63810/mackintosh-miss-saigon-film-depends-on-les-miz

>>“Nobody’s really thinking about the story of ‘Les Miserables’ in the context of the 1830 counter revolution—that it could come from today’s headlines everywhere,”<<<

[My Oh My]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 8:16pm

I agree with both Eponine72 and StageManager2. I also strongly disagree with points they've both made, mainly, that there have been major improvements and that the restructuring ruins the tale.

If that sounds convoluted, don't blame me, blame people who don't get it. That the film is an adaptation of the stage musical and the vast majority of stuff added that are not in the stage version wouldn't work on stage anyway. A lot of what they left behind of the stage version wouldn't work on film anyway. I know in today's competition obsessed culture, the immediate impulse is to declare something or someone a "winner." Please resist that urge. Approaching this with a "this is sooo much better than that lacking stage musical" only makes you out to look more foolish than Cammack when he goes on about how his new production of Les Mis is so much better than his original. Foolishness wouldn't even be a part of the equation had the stage version not been the unquestionably mega success it has been. In all my years as a fan, there have been close to no complaints on the song order or events, staging, designs, or anything about the original. I've always been intrigued by how universally pleasing that production has been, so suggesting it is a bomb that did not ring true or calling it a dated, creaky relic just makes you appear to be extremely foolish and desperate.

The stage version works perfectly well for a stage presentation. It isn't at all lacking anything. We get it, because it has something of substance to give, and it does it all without spelling it out. Stuffing the stage piece with all the added material of the film would weigh the show down horribly. "I Dreamed a Dream" is absolutely perfect where it is in the stage version. Thinking of placing it after "Lovely Ladies" on stage is the worst idea ever. It's a lie that it doesn't ring true where it has always been, ask the millions who have seen the show. I can confidently bet everything that an overwhelming majority would not claim the number doesn't ring true before "Lovely Ladies."

With that, I agree and disagree with both for unlikely reasons. Eponine72 was right on in his/her thoughts about how the song works in the stage version. I do somewhat disagree that that is her breaking point, but in a way, it is a major point of change, and those who understand theatre know intuitively how that makes the placement of this song before the worst comes more effective. I agree with StageManager2 that the placement after she has hit rock bottom in the film is a tad more effective than having it after she gets fired. Obviously, I disagree with the desperate assertion that the number never rang true in the stage version. Um, yes, it did.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 11:24pm

Hon, it's your opinion that the stage placement of IDAD worked. Maybe a shared opinion (I share it), but an opinion nonetheless. Opinions are not unimpeachable...

Updated On: 10/21/12 at 11:24 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 11:38pm

Approaching this with a "this is sooo much better than that lacking stage musical" only makes you out to look more foolish than Cammack when he goes on about how his new production of Les Mis is so much better than his original.

I'm so done.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 11:55pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. (what the eff does that stand for? lol), I know that. I don't recall ever telling everyone that I'm right and that all my posts should be taken as gospel. But if the tone of my posts gives that impression, then it's unintentional. I'm not about to infect my posts with the tired "it's MY opinion folks!" I'm too opinionated!

Lizzie, you've been "done" with it like, 20, 30 times before. Across the internets. Under various identities. Are you really done now? Cos I'm not.