Guys, guys. That LA Times columnist has been dissing Interstellar all along. He's a buddy of asshole Jeff Wells (in one of the reviews another reviewer referred to Wells as 'gasbag blowhard' - I love it!) He doesn't say who the person was who complained. He could be involved with another picture in the Oscar race.
The NY Times review is ENORMOUS. The most influential reviewers are Variety (a rave), Hollywood Reporter (positive), Time (a rave), NY Times YES... just LA Times to go. EW used to be influential but Interstellar was reviewed by some idiot who wrote how come Nolan didn't show the "Freudian" relationship between McC and MacK. Huh?? Some people called him on it in the comments. His review is so stupid it's totally meaningless.
Maybe the fact that the jerk columnist at the LA Times is dissing Interstellar is because the critic (Turan and Sharkey) hates Interstellar?? Sharkey LOVES McC so if she gets the gig, we're in with a chance!
P.S. He said McC was in LA at the Academy screening on Saturday???? McC was in Paris at the premiere, non?? Did Nolan clone him?
lcbaseball22 wrote:That article is discouraging, but these reports of Academy screening reaction have proven to be overblown in the past. They provably need a second viewing as many have advised...
Many of them do not have time for that.
If it's nominated there will be additional screenings
To get nominated in major categories you have to make a very positive first impression. It'll get some technical nominations but no major category nominations.
Aili wrote:Guys, guys. That LA Times columnist has been dissing Interstellar all along. He's a buddy of asshole Jeff Wells (in one of the reviews another reviewer referred to Wells as 'gasbag blowhard' - I love it!) He doesn't say who the person was who complained. He could be involved with another picture in the Oscar race.
The NY Times review is ENORMOUS. The most influential reviewers are Variety (a rave), Hollywood Reporter (positive), Time (a rave), NY Times YES... just LA Times to go. EW used to be influential but Interstellar was reviewed by some idiot who wrote how come Nolan didn't show the "Freudian" relationship between McC and MacK. Huh?? Some people called him on it in the comments. His review is so stupid it's totally meaningless.
Maybe the fact that the jerk columnist at the LA Times is dissing Interstellar is because the critic (Turan and Sharkey) hates Interstellar?? Sharkey LOVES McC so if she gets the gig, we're in with a chance!
P.S. He said McC was in LA at the Academy screening on Saturday???? McC was in Paris at the premiere, non?? Did Nolan clone him?
They are an absolute joke now. Just listen to their Sirius XM shows. They are terrible.
redfirebird2008 wrote:
To get nominated in major categories you have to make a very positive first impression. It'll get some technical nominations but no major category nominations.
That's not true, the nomination rules changed to where you just need a bit of passionate support; only 5 percent need to put it first on their ballot. This is how films like The Tree of Life and Incredibly Loud made the best pic lineup despite divisive or not so great of reviews
lcbaseball22 wrote:
That's not true, the nomination rules changed to where you just need a bit of passionate support; only 5 percent need to put it first on their ballot. This is how films like The Tree of Life and Incredibly Loud made the best pic lineup despite divisive or not so great of reviews
I agree. This movie will still be nominated for Big Picture. The competition is not very strong this year and if they are going with the 9 nominated films then I would think this has to be one of them.
Guys, that's just one screening and a response from one Academy member. Remember Pete Hammond's account from last week after a screening with a bunch of Academy voters?
The film started screening in earnest last week with a Wednesday night “tastemaker” showing at the California Science Center IMAX that was heavily attended by Oscar voters (just as it had been in NYC a couple of nights earlier).
I remember a tweet from him after that screening, to which he claimed the reaction was "very positive" or something (tweet is now deleted). Anyway, the point is, this LA Times-cited Academy screening was for the old farts; the Academy tried and true veterans that attend the Academy-only scheduled screenings. Paramount (Brad Grey) deliberately set up secret screenings with writers, directors and actors over the last month and a half; many of whom are Academy voters.
This pre-release strategy is what has been so controversial/unconventional in the biz (opposed to the critics-first approach), seemingly resulting in the first wave of backlash from online critics who "wanted to be the judge"/contrarian of all the early rave tweets from Brad Bird (Academy voter) and the like. I think this is a huge risk/reward Oscar play on behalf of Brad Grey and Paramount.
Look back to June when Paramount brought on that Oscar campaign "guru" that won Harvey Weinstein so many awards (she is certainly making some of these calls behind the scenes):
Taback, reached on vacation in Italy, had no comment, but sources say she has finalized a deal to work with DreamWorks Animation, which will be fielding How to Train Your Dragon 2. She also is said to be close to signing on to consult with Paramount's awards team on a slate that includes Christopher Nolan's Interstellar.
Gang, relax. This is an uncharted Oscar strategy that has caused ripple effects across the industry. Paramount, Grey and this guru are not stupid; they knew there would be critical backlash, but in the end, critics don't have an Oscar vote.
Fret not, Nolan Fans. We've got a fun few months ahead of us...
Oliver Lyttelton over at The Playlist is predicting Nolan for a directing nod, and has Interstellar at #5 in his Best Picture predictions. Here's an interesting paragraph:
As we discussed above, Christopher Nolan's not in the position he was before the reaction to "Interstellar" landed, but he shouldn't be counted out: word is that the film's playing better to Academy members than to critics. It might depend somewhat on the audience reaction as well, though because if the film doesn't hit Nolan's usual super-blockbuster standards, his chances get slimmer. Mike Leigh doesn't have the same problem of expectations financially speaking, but is perhaps as much of a possibility. "Mr. Turner" is reportedly being eaten up by the Academy, and the potential for a third nomination for the helmer is very real.
At the end of the day, I could care less if Nolan gets Oscars...the whole thing is kind of a joke anyway. As long as he keeps making fantastic films that WE love, that's the most important thing.
After seeing the film, I can firmly say this won't win Best Picture (though I'd be thrilled to be wrong). I don't see it. It has the chance to get nominated for the big categories (Pic, Dir, Edit), but it's going to depend a lot on how the experience resonated with Academy voters. This is a very polarizing film, and not just for the third act. I'm understanding why there are a lot of negative reviews and I don't think it's an agenda problem with the critics , but a matter purely of taste. If so, it might miss out sheerly on being divisive.
Likely wins for both sound categories, visual effects, cinematography, and very possibly editing.
Likely noms (but less likely wins) for best picture, director, production design, score. Screenplay is a long-shot but it's kinda possible.
It's POSSIBLE, but not likely, to see acting nominations for Chastain, Damon, or Hathaway. Best actor is too crowded. McC won't get in unless others cancel eachother out.
