Home Forums Movies What if Harvey Weinstein was behind “The Social Network”?

What if Harvey Weinstein was behind “The Social Network”?

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
  • FilmGuy619
    Jan 13th, 2013

    Since The Social Network’s loss for Best Picture and Best Director still stings, it had me thinking that because it lost to The King’s Speech, “What if The Social Network was Harvey’s top dog in the awards race?”. Could it have prevailed in his hands since he seems to know the Oscar tricks better than anyone? To me, he’s like LeBron James. Even if you say that you don’t won him behind your film or on your ‘Dream Team’, you’re kinda lying to yourself. 

    Mladen Vukcevic
    Oct 30th, 2013

    Well, if he managed to push Paltrow in front of Blanchett in 1999, I have zero doubts that he would be able to do the same with “Social Network”. And he wouldn’t even have to move a hand, just a finger or two.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Feb 20th, 2014

    Recut the film or no campaign for you.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jun 3rd, 2015

    Recut the film or no campaign for you.

    No need to actually recut the film. Just threaten to recut it in a leak to the industry press citing need for MPAA rerating and stir up the ensuing backlash and controversy on Twitter and in blogs, and – of course – on Facebook. Achieves same goal while saving considerable money on the film editors and their editing facility.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jan 1st, 1970

    “The King’s Speech” is a dreadful film and Colin Firth is laughably terrible in it. “The Social Network” is a good film, and Jesse Eisenberg is fine in it – also, no Oscar nomination for Andrew Garfield? Shame.

    “The Kids Are All Right” is good, not groundbreaking. Loved Bening & Moore & Ruffalo a lot. “Black Swan” is impressive – nice performance by Portman and the direction is also superb.

    “127 Hours” is great, James Franco should have won the Oscar over the awful and boring Firth. “Winter’s Bone” is okay – maybe not BP material. “The Fighter” is once again okay – nothing spectaculary interesting and there is no depth at all.

    “Toy Story 3″….give me a break.

    “Inception” is the best film out of the bunch. It should have won easily. Unfortunately they went with a boring british shit.

    Snubs: “Submarine” “Shutter Island” or “The Ghost Writer”.

    Yeah, and to answer your question….he has a big name for sure…but is he that good? I think his campaigns are usually end up failing.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Dec 1st, 2011

    It would have been a different cut film that would have likely won more Oscars. Meh.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jun 3rd, 2015

    . . .

    “Inception” is the best film out of
    the bunch. It should have won easily. Unfortunately they went with a boring
    british shit.

    Snubs: “Submarine”
    “Shutter Island” or “The Ghost Writer”.

    . . .

    I agree with Inception being the best of the nominations. Christopher Nolan was
    missing a Best Director nomination too. 
    Another excellent movie was Winter’s Bone, a low budget production.
    Debra Granik is a director to watch for in the future. True Grit was great, one
    of the few remakes that exceeds an original. Like all of John Wayne’s post-WWII
    movies, the 1969 version’s script was tailored for John Wayne. He only played a
    single type of character and that’s what audiences paid to see. Just change the
    era, costume, and guns being toted around. I knew the Coen Bro’s version wasn’t
    going to get Best Picture though.

    Shutter Island:
    Not only was Shutter Island missing from the Best Picture list, DiCaprio was
    missing from the Best Actor (Shutter Island or Inception, take your pick) and
    Scorsese was missing from the Best Director. This was inexplicable, except,
    perhaps, that Shutter Island suffered an Oscar Curse double-whammy with
    DiCaprio as its leading actor and Scorsese as its director.  Lennie D should have gotten his first golden
    statue for his Arnie Grape performance 22 years ago, and a few more since then.

    The Ghost Writer:
    A superb political thriller. Not being on the BP list,
    while disappointing, did not surprise me. The French/Germany/UK production was filmed
    in Germany, had Polanski’s main character, a fictitious former Brit Prime
    Minister, obviously patterned after Tony Blair and a plot containing covert US
    meddling in Brit internal affairs and politics. Had potential for political
    controversy, even if it’s a completely fictional story. Plenty of political party
    fanatics will seize anything they think can get traction if they spin the Hell
    out of it. Worse yet, Polanski had finished its post-production editing while
    under house arrest in Switzerland during extradition hearings (which
    Switzerland subsequently refused and freed Polanski). The press frenzy from
    that in the Fall of 2009 definitely hurt its chances for consideration later.
    Summit Entertainment, its US distributor, kept a low profile with the film and
    didn’t put any Oscar campaign behind it, undoubtedly to let it rest. The last
    time around with The Pianist, the Weinstein Bro’s conducted a deliberate smear
    campaign that didn’t get much traction then but might have in 2010. The
    Tinseltown Press Corps can become a piranha feeding frenzy with all the news
    that’s print to fit, and if there’s still open white space, they’ll invent
    something. If it’s any consolation, the movie was a European award magnet.

    Citing Submarine being snubbed surprised me (were you serious?):
    An excellent film! Did AMPAS even know it existed? Regardless, from its IMDb
    data, Submarine wasn’t eligible for 2010 Oscar consideration. The film was
    screened during Sept and Oct 2010 at two film festivals outside the US in
    Canada and the UK, so by convention it’s considered a “2010” film. However,
    it wasn’t shown in a US film festival until early 2011 or released into US
    theaters until June, 2011, and that was a limited release. To be eligible as a
    Feature Film (Best Foreign Language and Best Documentary have their own rules),
    the movie must have a run in a commercially operated for-profit theater open to
    the general public within Los Angeles County for seven consecutive days during
    the calendar year in which it’s considered (i.e. a standard movie theater that
    schedules and exhibits films as a business and charges admission). To be
    eligible in 2011, Submarine’s limited US release would have needed to include a
    one week run in a “qualifying” L.A. County theater. After it hit the Canada and
    UK festivals in 2010, it was automatically ineligible after 2011 regardless of
    US release dates. There are some additional requirements and restrictions, but
    those are the basics. AMPAS Oscar Rules Two and Three govern its eligibility. The
    2015 rules were the same for 2010 and 2011, just change the calendar years in
    the dates to the appropriate ones:
    An interesting strategy could have been shooting Submarine twice, once in Welsh
    and once in English (doing each scene in both languages during the shooting),
    or dubbing an English track in post-production. English sub-titles would are
    required but those are standard fare now for the hard of hearing. If run as
    required to qualify for Best Foreign Language Film it could have been submitted
    as a Welsh movie by Great Britain (must be submitted by the country). This was
    done twice in the 1990’s. The Canadians have done this seven times. Six were
    shot in French, the seventh in Hindi and they were submitted with English
    subtitles. It’s a way to get a low budget, limited distribution film like this considered
    for an Oscar through the Best Foreign Language Film side door.


    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
RobertPius - Nov 18, 2017
Andrew ... - Nov 18, 2017