Inside the Fight to Bring Les Mis to the Screen - Hollywood Reporter

[Fan2]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 4:36pm

Hollywood Reporter

[binau]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 4:47pm

Wtf. Sweeney Todd is certainly not a "failed collaboration". An R rated Academy award winning musical that made its investment back (x3) and was critically praised is an outstanding success.

Updated On: 12/5/12 at 04:47 PM

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 5:17pm

Plus this article doesn't say much. What major Hollywood studio spends millions a huge international film without running financial models? This isn't abnormal. Sure, maybe the studio had some extra reservations, but I don't see any evidence of a "fight" that distinguishes the situation from any other movie.

[kidbroadway2]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 5:46pm

The Academy Award was for Best Art Direction. Still I wouldn't call it a "failed collaboration". Just didn't live up to its full potential.



Updated On: 12/5/12 at 05:46 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 5:52pm

Art Direction is a major award. And Depp was also nominated.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 6:24pm

Seeing as it was Sweeney freaking Todd, it's not unfair to have expected the movie to be marvelous rather than merely mostly good. But yeah, I wouldn't call it a failed collaboration. Except, I guess, it didn't make as much money as the godawful Alice in Wonderland, which so far as I know is its nearest Depp/Burton contemporary.

Sweeney is actually one of my favorite movie musicals of the post-Chicago era. It's just not as good as it could have been.

[kidbroadway2]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 11:27pm

No one goes out to the movie theater because a movie won an Oscar for Art Direction.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 11:35pm

Actually, art direction is a big one for me. People notice pretty looking art direction in trailers all the time and want to see movies because of it. The main thing that attracts me to The Life of Pi is the art direction.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 11:57pm

One of the elevator operators at the AMC Empire 25 asked me what film I had seen. I told him I saw LIFE OF PI. He responded "Oh man, that movie is supposed to have better graphics than AVATAR! I can't wait to check it out!"

I will never forget that. His excitement was based purely on word of mouth about the film's "graphics" being better than another's. It was a sad day for storytelling.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 12:45am

I like big movies on the big screen. Small, character based, and plot driven movies I enjoy more in the intimacy of my living room on the tv.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 2:51am

Yeah, for a magazine like Hollywood Reporter, you'd think they'd realize that Sweeney was a tough sell, and performed better than expectations... I'm mixed ont he actual film, but it certainly did better than I expected.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 11:17am

Domestically, SWEENEY TODD pretty much bombed, and even if it cost $50 to make an it ended making $150 worldwide, the original budget doesn't include marketing costs, which probably put the budget closer to $80. This is also a movie that was supposed to be a big player at the Oscars, it got nominated for major prizes at the Globes but ended up disappointing once Oscar nominations came out. I don't think they are incorrect in saying that the film (At least domestically and in terms of major awards--and no, Art Direction is not considered a "major award," which is different from saying it isn't a significant or even an impressive award to get) was a failure. It's also one of those movies that is good and has great moments, but that never realizes its potential.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 11:37am

Count me as someone who thinks that the Sweeney Todd movie is absolutely wonderful. As an adaptation, it's not definitive, but as a movie it's pretty fantastic. I personally feel that there could be about 4 or 5 different ways that Sweeney Todd could have been effectively adapted to film and Burton just did one of the four.

In terms of its reception/box office gross, I would count Sweeney as a moderate success. It actually received the best reviews for a movie musical since Chicago (some critics actually like it MORE than Chicago) and though it didn't receive a ton of Oscar love, it was still a major presence on the awards circuit that season.

Box office wise, yes it was a bust in the US making just about $50 million, but thanks to a much better reception from audiences overseas and a modest $50 million budget (I highly doubt that Warner Bros. spent $30 million on marketing, I would venture to say it was $20 million or less) the movie did break even.

In terms of its artistic success, that's up for personal interpretation. But when taking into account worldwide box office and reviews from movie critics as well as nominations and awards received (not just Oscars), I don't think it can be said that the movie was a failure.