Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 16, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: As speculated in the Weekend Wrap Up, Gangster Squad probably took a big hit when the shooting happened in Colorado. I am not sure there is much that could have been done to save the product from that point in time. The odd thing is, I can remember seeing a preview for it, surprised by the violence and setting of the movie theater shoot out. It was interesting, and even though I only saw that trailer once, it stuck with me. Then the shootings happened, and everything changed. Warner Bros. made the only decision they could, moving the film and redoing that particular scene, but by that time the damage was done. I don't think there was a thing in the world they could have done to save the project. $75 million is not a huge budget against some of the other ones we have seen, but once everything went down, just releasing this movie seemed like something Warner Bros. didn't really want to do. Going to see it becomes that much less interesting, like doing chores on a Sunday night before going back to work for a full week. I doubt many people will be drawn to Gangster Squad from here on out and it will leave the top 10 pretty quickly.
Edwin Davies: The Aurora shooting absolutely had an impact on Gangster Squad since it was the film most associated with the tragedy, albeit in an unfortunate and tangential way, with the obvious exception of The Dark Knight Rises. The news that it was being pulled and that scenes were being reshot further hurt the perception of the film, and the fact that it got moved to January and out of potential awards contention - because at one point it was being primed as a real contender - suggested that Warner Bros. was resigned to releasing the film because they had to, rather than because they wanted to.
Aside from that, though, I think the film would have been a tough sell since these period crime dramas always are. With a few notable exceptions, namely The Untouchables and L.A. Confidential, gangster pictures tend not to resonate with audiences, possibly because they tend to look old-fashioned and a little quaint (two things that could not be said about the two examples I cited, which may explain their relative success). Gangster Squad looked a little cartoonish to be a series drama, but also had the air of an awards contender, which is pretty untenable combination. Factor in the fact that it's not terribly good, and you've got a project that had a great deal of potential but which seems to have become unstuck through factors of its own making and ones that were out of its control.
Felix Quinonez: Like most people I think that the change in release date had a big impact on the box office performance. But I also think that it didn't really have great marketing. It almost felt like the studio just gave up on the movie. Maybe if the movie was better there would have been a bigger push but it seemed like they knew they had a turkey on their hands. Another factor that shouldn't be ignored is the awards season. Right now every one is focused on the nominees and not too many people care about a movie that was pushed back from a September release date and has terrible reviews.
Brett Ballard-Beach: I don't want to understate the impact of the shootings on the decision to refilm the ending and by extension, WB's decision to market it differently, but my feeling is that you have a gangster film from the director of Zombieland and that it walks a very thin line between homage and parody (the violence is apparently set to overkill). That is never audience friendly (although the cast is, considerably so). Perhaps WB took a look at and realized they weren't going to be able to make back that $75 million so easily. I credit Gosling and Stone for a lot of this total. Do they do another Dirty Dancing move in the bedroom?
Max Braden: Clearly nobody wanted to listen to Sean Penn talk like The Penguin.
Reagen Sulewski: As disappointing as this result seems, it's not all that many worlds away from Public Enemies, which had a much more reliable lead. If you want to say Aurora took something away from this film, I won't argue with you too much, but what were you honestly expecting a gangster film with Sean Penn auditioning for Dick Tracy 2 to do?
David Mumpower: I think Reagen's point is valid in that I find myself wondering why someone signed off on a budget this size. Hollywood talent frequently vents about the modeling system studios use when they consider new projects. That system should have triggered loud sirens over the idea of a violent gangster film stylized as a B movie. Everything about Gangster Squad felt out of place, almost as if the movie were being made to make fun of itself. That's not a viable tactic to create a blockbuster. A straight comedy with some action elements a la Zombieland would have been the savvier move.
Kim Hollis: What are your thoughts on the Oscar nominations, as well as the results of the Golden Globes?
Edwin Davies: The Golden Globe results were slightly more surprising than the Oscar nominations, but both seem pretty predictable given how the season has played out so far. The only major - and very pleasant - surprise for me was the way that Amour managed to somehow crash the party and get nominated in four of the five major categories in addition to picking up an expected nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. It's rare for a foreign language film to break out of the ghetto that the Oscars force them into by dint of having a separate category, so seeing one do so well is great. Anyone familiar with Michael Haneke's work will also find it strange since he's avoided the mainstream pretty aggressively over his long career, so to see him honored in such a high-profile way is startling, to say the least.
I was genuinely surprised to see Argo win at the Golden Globes since I was expecting Lincoln to sweep the board. This is no mark against the film, which I like a lot, but I liked probably 20 or 30 films more and four of them were nominated against it at the Golden Globes. The lack of a directing nomination at the Oscars probably means Argo will get shut out in favour of Lincoln, but that relatively minor upset was the most surprising thing about the ceremony, with the exception of too little Tina Fey and Amy Poehler and Jodie Foster's inscrutable monologue.
Felix Quinonez: I think for the most part the Oscar nominations are what I expected. Of course there were a couple of surprises and disappointments for me. I'm probably going to be the only one to say it but I can't believe The Dark Knight Rises got NOTHING. Not even one nomination. I was very let down by that.
Another thing that bothered me was that Ben Affleck got no love in the directing category. Argo was one of my favorite movies of the year. I would have been happy if it (Or Django Unchained) was the big winner at the Oscars. Unfortunately this means it's pretty much out of the running in the best picture category. Also, no Best Director nomination for Tarantino? COME ON!
But like I said, I wasn't surprised by too much else. As for the Golden Globes winners I was very happy to see that Argo was a big winner.
Brett Ballard-Beach: I always like to look at how many films got multiple nods vs how many only got one. This year there were 15 with two or more and 14 with only one (and that's with counting all five animated features). I think there was a good breadth of selection, but because there were some very good films that got excluded (or were included but other areas were not included), a lot of people get jaded. First off, I don't think the directors voting to nominate this year's crop (which is how each field except Best Picture works) were giving Bigelow or Affleck the high hat. It weren't no deliberate fuck you. For all we know, Haneke and Zeitlin received a single more vote than the pair of them. And I am excited that the directors took a little risktaking and looked further afield. It used to be people said, "why don't the Best Pictures and directors ever match up?" My answer for that is above. Now that there can be anywhere from five to 10 Best Picture nominees, the odds that the directors will correspond with five of the Best Picture nominees is greater, but yes, that means some directors "lose out."
I think the Best Actress race features five stellar nominees. Jennifer Lawrence already has two noms by age 22. She's on her way to being the American Kate Winslet, but starring in a lot more blockbusters.
I am sad Moonrise Kingdom couldn't sneak in for the 10th slot.
I don't have a vested interest in Picture A beating Picture B like some years used to be, but think this is an interesting repeat of 1998, in which a historical Spielberg epic (Private Ryan/Lincoln) faces its greatest challenge from an offbeat romantic comedy courtesy of the Brothers Weinstein (Shakespeare in Love/Silver Linings Playbook). And I agree with all four of the lead actors getting noms, and with David O. Russell's two nods. He has quietly become one of the best directors of hysterically funny American comedies (Three Kings and The Fighter included).
Max Braden: The first thing I notice is an absence: I was pretty surprised that Flight did not make the Best Picture list. I thought it was a better movie than Django, Life of Pi, Argo, and even Silver Linings Playbook. Another one I would have automatically added as a nominee would be Prometheus for Best Cinematography (even though I really disliked the movie) over Skyfall. I think Life of Pi should win that category but given the presence of Lincoln it may not. I wouldn't take the Golden Globes as an indicator for the Oscar awards; I can't see Tarantino winning Screenplay over Zero Dark Thirty or Flight. And although Chastain already deserves a a lifetime achievement award, I think Jennifer Lawrence is still the strongest contender for Best Actress. Aside from her, I think the easiest nominations this year were Daniel Day-Lewis and Anne Hathaway. A couple weeks ago, I had formed a theory that Les Mis would win Best Picture over Lincoln because it features a lot of the topics from this year's presidential campaigns (poverty and class issues, etc). I'm starting to waiver on that, but I might play it for the odds.
Reagen Sulewski: I enjoy the element of unpredictability in the results this year. OK, there's a couple of the acting awards that are basically wrapped up, but in the past few years we've had coronations, and that's boring as a viewer. Perhaps there're be a conventional wisdom that coalesces closer to the ceremony date, but for now we've got a nice bit of uncertainty. As far as Argo winning the Globes goes - well, the Globes are the Globes, although they've tried to predict the Oscars lately. I do think it's funny that it's the third best of Ben Affleck's films that is getting all the award recognition, but perhaps it just took people time to acclimate themselves to the idea of Ben Affleck, All-Star Director.
Kim Hollis: I'm a little surprised that not one person has mentioned Beasts of the Southern Wild's Best Picture and Best Director nominations as a shock. While I can't say that I find the Best Picture nomination entirely unexpected, I would never ever ever have imagined that Benh Zeitlin would have gotten the Best Director nod.
Like Brett, I am also disappointed that Moonrise Kingdom couldn't sneak in for that 10th Best Picture spot.
While my hunch was that Silver Linings Playbook would get a lot of accolades, I'm still really happy to see it getting all the attention that it has. It's my favorite of the Best Picture nominees that I've seen (though to be fair I still need to see Lincoln, Django Unchained, Les Miserables and Amour) and I actually wonder if the Academy might not just decide it's David O. Russell's time when it comes to direction.
The Golden Globes were a glorious, sloppy mess and that's the way we like them. Argo/Affleck were huge surprises, I think. Mostly, I just enjoyed watching and trying to decide how drunk the various people were. I think Quentin Tarantino wins the prize for drunkest acceptance speech of the evening.