Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

All things Natalie

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Dazza » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:05 am

Carlito Brigante wrote:
Dazza wrote:I'm still not sure what you're arguing. Three completely different situations, the only thing that links them are vagina's. Are you suggesting women can't be trusted with the responsibility? Are you suggesting women can't direct? Thor 2 was pretty shit wasn't it? Maybe Jenkins could have done something with it. She's doing Wonder Woman right now so I'll guess we'll see what she's got before too long.

Heller was never signed on to Sex, she was obviously courted and apparently has decided she'd rather keep doing her own thing. Having just seen her first film I say HELL YES to that.

Oh, and she's just completed filming for Rebecca Zlotowski so...again, what are you arguing exactly?

Just keep rolling with whatever comes. Why get caught up on which gender is going to direct which movie if it's going to jeopardize the entire movie? If it's a woman, excellent, if not, she still has a whole career ahead of her. In time she'll end up doing political thrillers with Kathryn Bigelow or any other great female directors out there. Who the hell knows?



Why would it jeopardize the entire movie? Again, there was ONE unprecedented clusterfuck with a female director - you're looking for a pattern that isn't there. How do you know she isn't doing exactly as you're saying she should do?
User avatar
Dazza
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:19 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Carlito Brigante » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:23 pm

Dazza wrote:
Carlito Brigante wrote:
Dazza wrote:I'm still not sure what you're arguing. Three completely different situations, the only thing that links them are vagina's. Are you suggesting women can't be trusted with the responsibility? Are you suggesting women can't direct? Thor 2 was pretty shit wasn't it? Maybe Jenkins could have done something with it. She's doing Wonder Woman right now so I'll guess we'll see what she's got before too long.

Heller was never signed on to Sex, she was obviously courted and apparently has decided she'd rather keep doing her own thing. Having just seen her first film I say HELL YES to that.

Oh, and she's just completed filming for Rebecca Zlotowski so...again, what are you arguing exactly?

Just keep rolling with whatever comes. Why get caught up on which gender is going to direct which movie if it's going to jeopardize the entire movie? If it's a woman, excellent, if not, she still has a whole career ahead of her. In time she'll end up doing political thrillers with Kathryn Bigelow or any other great female directors out there. Who the hell knows?



Why would it jeopardize the entire movie? Again, there was ONE unprecedented clusterfuck with a female director - you're looking for a pattern that isn't there. How do you know she isn't doing exactly as you're saying she should do?


She said she wanted a female director and the Ruth Ginsburg movie was stalled because of it. It's great. A truly noble actor's demand. I dig that. But now what? One female director already declined. She's going to risk the movie being pushed further until she gets what she asked for? Or will she settle for a male director if she can't find a female director that wants to do the movie? In the end what's more important? The gender of the director or the character?
Carlito Brigante
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:39 pm

Interesting article about the production problems ... and because the film has not been the marketing it deserved

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-prop-8-lawyer-david-859598
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Rachel » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:16 pm

Jane Got A Gun Is Unbelievably Sexist. Idk if "unbelievable" is the right word because I'm completely unsurprised.
Rachel
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 2:38 pm

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:21 pm

Natalie Portman on Making ‘Jane Got a Gun’: ‘There Was an Obstacle Every Hour, Every Day’

http://variety.com/2016/scene/vpage/natalie-portman-jane-got-a-gun-premiere-1201691089/
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:37 pm

User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:30 pm

Some videos from US Premiere...





User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:09 am

Box office weekend preview:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4149&p=.htm

Finally we come to The Weinstein Co.'s release of Jane Got a Gun, whose troubled production is well-documented. Things truly went haywire when director Lynne Ramsay didn't show up for the first day of shooting. Her departure was followed by a revolving door when it came to the cast and the bankruptcy of Relativity ultimately landed the film at The Weinstein Co. Gavin O'Connor (Warrior) eventually stepped in to direct the film which stars (and was produced by) Natalie Portman along with Joel Edgerton, Ewan McGregor and Rodrigo Santoro. Weinstein originally estimated it would only be arriving in 550 theaters, but that count rose to 1,210 theaters today making it a little more possible it could find a spot in the top ten, but it has a tough road ahead of it.

Not only did it have a troubled production, but the marketing campaign appears to be almost non-existent. A target figure for the weekend would seem to be $3 million, but the fact this is a Western with little juice behind it doesn't seem to be working in its favor. On the plus side, Little Boy did manage $2.7 million from 1,045 theaters last year and upon their wide releases, Ex Machina brought in $5.3 million from 1,255 theaters and It Follows made $3.8 million from 1,218 theaters, but both of those films were enjoying far more positive buzz than Jane has ever received.
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:21 am

It's not Natalie in it, but this Joel's interview about the film is very interesting:

User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby scottie » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:55 am

Tuesday night's Movie night,....
scottie
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:04 pm

This is not a video of Natalie either, but Ewan McGregor was in the Jimmy Kimmel Show last night and talked about his participation in the film...

User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:27 pm

An article describing the difficult path of the film until its release in cinemas:

http://uproxx.com/movies/jane-got-a-gun-story-behind-its-troubles/2/

The last two paragraphs are especially sad ...

Jane Got A Gun was still the Weinsteins’ baby, but there was a cripplingly expensive, professionally embarrassing baby that wouldn’t stop screaming and sh*tting itself. The producers had sunk too much time and resources into Jane to let it die, but the Weinsteins also couldn’t afford to spend any more money on a film that seemed doomed to fail. As one final gambit, the producers opted into what’s called a “service deal,” an arrangement where they would actually pay the distributors a flat fee and small percentage of the box-office returns just to get it into theaters, at no additional expense to the Weinstein Company. It’s a bare-bones deal, wherein the distributors have no obligation to pony up any of their own money for publicity and advertising. Agreeing to a service deal is how you know a producer is desperate.

Which brings us to the present day, and the quiet, unceremonious death of Jane Got A Gun. Whether the finished product is actually good is now largely beside the point, unless positive word-of-mouth miraculously lifts this film back into the black. (That seems unlikely, though; The Hollywood Reporter‘s review amounts to ‘fine, not great’.) The content of the picture is destined to be forever overshadowed by its reputation as a sinkhole of time, money, and talent. If the calamitous Jane is to be remembered at all, it will be as a footnote in the Hollywood history books, or for those involved, as the most costly headache they’ve ever survived.


The truth is that it's a real shame what happened with this film. Unless a miracle happens this weekend, I'm afraid, as the article says, the film does not have the opportunity to show to the audience if it is good or bad by itself, and only be remembered for its rugged shooting and distribution.
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Dazza » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:48 pm

Most people won't know or care though. The film either works or doesn't. It's a shame the potential of the film was hamstrung right out the gate...maybe they should have pulled the plug there, but I think that would have meant a lot of crew possibly being financially damaged. At the end of the day it's just a movie though.
User avatar
Dazza
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:19 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:37 pm

Yes, of course ... but it is really disappointing that the film did not have the opportunities it deserves because the distributor has not put all eggs in one basket. We had more promotional material for the French distributor that American ... and that's a shame.

Anyway...
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:50 pm

User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

PreviousNext

Return to Natalie Portman

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests