Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Casting

Has there been any mention of who else they have decided to cast in the film. I was just curious how they could possibly release the film next year when there has been no casting of the rest of the parts? Headstrong 345 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Headstrong 345

There is a page on it over on Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/les_miserables_2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.210.31 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Woolston?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but someone has removed the credit to Catherine Woolston as Thenardier's other daughter. Angelic-alyssa has said that Woolston tweeted about her character, but someone claiming to be the actress in question removed it. Should we add her credit or remove it if possible? As I don't want to get into an edit war and an uninvolved user, I am using the WP:BRD cycle to open up a discussion. Thanks. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to take her word for it. - Jasonbres (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends of the ABC

Just throwing it out there, but should we merge Friends of the ABC with the 'Other' section of the cast? The Friends of the ABC aren't even explained anywhere leading up to the section, and they are, if the film is like other adaptations, a fairly minor ensemble. Thoughts, anyone? Rjp422 (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Screenplay

Now that the screenplay of the film has become readily available, am I able to fill a synopsis for the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.228.76 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Budget

In the Entertainment Weekly this week, the film is given a $61 million budget. Am I allowed to put this into the infobox? --EdenCole (talk) 11:34, 03 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, with the citation of course. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Awards

Hugh Jackman was nominated for Best Actor by the Satellite Awards

National Board of Review= Best Ensemble http://www.goldderby.com/news/3681/national-board-of-review-nbr-awards-winners-zero-dark-thirty-oscars-movies-entertainment-news-24680975.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.80.31 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

I am really hesitant about putting Swift in the cast list. Nothing official has been announced and just because she was seen leaving Cameron Mackintosh's office does not necessarily mean she was cast. Everything that's been said about her being cast comes from unreliable gossip sites like Perez Hilton and Just Jared. I'd rather wait until we hear from Universal or from anyone associated with the movie or more reliable sources like Playbill. - Jasonbres (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Since the official casting will be announced soon, we must find a reliable source such as Playbill or the official website itself. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Has this been confirmed now or what?--88.111.116.8 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gavroche

I don't think Gavroche is son of the Thernardiers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.24.66 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

He actually is. It is explicitly stated in the original novel that Gavroche is the Thernardiers' son whom they left in the streets. In the musical, however, there is no mention of this. --Bonbonquest (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavroche 12.162.122.5 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Gross

I have updated the box office gross to include international takings. Every other film on wikipedia displays the film's worldwide gross in its info box, so I'm not sure why this one has only been displaying the domestic total. I'm assuming therefore that nobody has a problem with this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.174.56 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary

I am working up a plot summary in my sandbox. It can be found at User:Sjones23/Les Miserables. Comments there would be very much appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have now added the plot summary to the article. If anyone wants to trim it to the 400-700 word count (as laid out in WP:FILMPLOT), feel free to do so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up

Since the film's U.S. release, there has been editors adding information to the plot which exceeds the WP:FILMPLOT summary guidelines. I am trying to reduce the plot summary here, but users unfortunately keep on adding to the plot summary, which is excessive. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Some details are being edited into the plot summary that come from the novel or musical but are not present in the film (eg. Gavroche as commented above). Use caution to distinguish amongst the various works. Loldr (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)loldr

Cast billing

Something's going on in the cast section. A new user has insisted that we should use bullet form for the friends of the ABC, but I feel that the people who are not listed in the poster should be in prose format instead of bullet form. I am discussing this on the talk page to see if others can voice their opinion on this matter rather than getting into an WP:EDITWAR. I also believe that we should use prose for those that are not listed in the film's poster. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the cast section is very messy. Only the main cast should be bullet-pointed, and other significant roles should be listed in prose. I also think the billing is overly excessive. Many of the extras in the film were played by stage actors associated with the show, and as such their parts are listed even though their characters only appear for seconds of the film and may not even have any lines. I think such listings should be removed in favour of a simple comment stating that most minor roles were filled by actors who had previously had parts in the London stage production.--94.11.174.56 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At this edit, Editor Sjones23 converted the cast list from wholly bulleted to partially bulleted. Editor Sjones23 now rises to complain that another editor is undoing that. The prose version of the lists are still lists. If we're going to have lists then we should make the lists be lists. Simply substituting sentence punctuation for bullet points does not convert a list into prose. Prose has whole sentences and paragraphs that convey subtlety and nuance; a list has none of these.

I am in favor of returning to the wholly-bulleted list form unless an editor more clever and knowing than I can write it in a way that isn't simply the list written as a long series of items separated by semicolons.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I raised concerns about the cast section to see if we can reach consensus. I think we should take a look at the relevant guideline: WP:MOSFILM#Cast. In film articles, sometimes we use bullet form, sometimes we use prose format, as with Back to the Future (a Good Article), and sometimes we use both prose and list format. For a few good examples of how a film cast list looks like, see The Avengers (2012 film), Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Dark Knight (film) and Thor (film), all of which are Good Articles (they combine list form with prose format). The one who was bulleting the "Les Amis de l'ABC" was actually Cosette Fauchlevent (talk · contribs), a new editor who feels that we should list the bullet form for the "Les Amis de l'ABC" cast members. Rather than getting involved in an edit war, I took the WP:BRD route and started a discussion here. I have already notified the Film WikiProject to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter and asked an experienced user involved with the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess my notion of what constitutes a good article differs significantly from what apparently passes for one. Not surprising really since the consensus model in general drives everything on Wikipedia toward mediocrity. I find a lot of the stuff that is included in the cast sections of your example articles to be uninteresting and frankly much too tabloid-like.

Since my last post here you have changed the cast list once again. Before, Les Amis de l'ABC was a separate list, now, the friends are part of one long list and because of that must all be separately identified as friend of the ABC. As an aside, because Les Amis de l'ABC is French, it should be italicized.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cast sections in film articles can be mixed with prose and list format, but I don't necessarily agree with some of your ideas. I feel that minor characters have to be listed in prose format and I think prose format for non-billing roles would work. That way, we can group them together instead of making up a personality type and then saying they're a member of the ABC, etc. Consensus does not really drive everything toward mediocrity, but these are a few examples of how cast lists in other film-related articles which are either GA or FA would look like. As such, I agree with Darkwarriorblake's concerns that non-billed roles should be included as well. Prose sections to cover the lesser roles would be of some use underneath any bullet form. Then again, I also support GrappleX's position as well. Meanwhile, I've fixed up the cast list as well for Les Amis de l'ABC and am expanding it with real-world information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not at all surprised that you don't agree with me. Minor characters do not have to be listed in prose format. If what you end up with in the end is a list without bullets, then, it is still a list and it reads like a list so should be formatted like a list or done away with (which see).

I'm not sure I understand what you and Editor Darkwarriorblake mean by making up a personality type and then saying they're a member of the ABC, etc. If we're "making up" anything, then we're not serving the reader.

Of course consensus drives article quality toward mediocrity. There is a broad spectrum of Wikipedia editors: from those who should be making a living from their writings to those who can barely string enough words together to form a cogent sentence. You've seen them all here. Everything that those stellar writers write is going to tweaked and modified by those of us who are mere hacks by comparison. The really good writers know this so probably don't give us their best work. Complacency is mediocrity's handmaiden. Look at the number of editors who have created this article. Now look at the number of editors who are participating in this conversation. Those complacent editors are sitting back and waiting for the dust to settle. We do not have the benefit of their wisdom.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If I did something to offend you, then I am deeply sorry, but what I meant was that I actually agree with some of your ideas and I have implemented some of them in my last edits. Also, most of the minor characters here can be grouped into prose format rather than using list format. Since there is a dispute going on, a discussion is necessary to get others involved and help work this situation out. What I meant was that prose is best for non-billed people and most of them can be easily grouped together, per Darkwarriorblake and Grapple X's suggestions. While minor roles may not be bulleted, it can be merged into prose if possible. Also, as an experienced member of WP:FILM, we have to comply with their manual of style. Either adding real-world context or adding information to the bullets to remove redundancy will help gain my support. I just do not like sections that simply lists names such as IMDB. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You did and said nothing offensive. That we disagree is apparent. I'm not really interested in a conversation with someone with whom I'm in agreement – it's not very stimulating or productive.

I think that Editor Grapple X are coming to believe that the entire §Cast section can (I think should) go away – at least that's how I read his last post.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A mix of bullets and prose would probably be best. Bullets that just consist of "X as Y" should be avoided, cast sections should offer real-world information about the actual casting in order to avoid being redundant to the wider article. Entries such as the Hugh Jackman bullet are a good example of how to do it. However, a brief prose section to cover the lesser roles would also be of some use underneath any bullets. GRAPPLE X 20:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose is best for non billed people, most of them can easily be grouped together that way instead of making up a personality type and then saying they're a member of l'abc.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Hugh Jackman bullet [is] a good example of how to do it. Really? I disagree. All that stuff about his daily routine and how he cared for himself strikes me as the kind of thing one would find in the rags at the grocer's checkout not in a well-conceived Wikipedia article. It is just trivia that does nothing to advance the quality of an article about the film.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It actively discusses information about the actor and how they portrayed the role; that is exactly the kind of information that should be present if a cast section is to be justified (that or information on the actual casting process). Otherwise you end up with a section entirely redundant to the plot section. Without real-world information, properly sourced, a cast section doesn't have enough merit to exist. GRAPPLE X 01:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I would like to quote the Cast section of WP:FILM's Manual of Style:

Cast section from WP:FILM's Manual of Style

Actors and their roles can be presented and discussed in different forms in film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. If necessary, build toward a consensus. The key elements are discussed in detail: A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are numerous cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose. The real-world context about actors and their roles may vary by film. Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming. Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members. The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles. (Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and a English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film.) If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise. Also, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, please limit boldface to table headers and captions. Actors and roles should not be bolded.

To summarize it, the key elements are size and importance, real-world context, and structure. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed {{blockquote}} to a simple wikitable to preserve proper indentation because {{blockquote}} is broken.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Editor Grapple X: If we need to add words to justify a section then perhaps the section shouldn't be there in the first place. Take Mr Jackman's entry in the cast list as an example. We already know who Valjean is from §Plot. The rational for casting Mr Jackman and other actors could just as easily, and to my mind more properly, be made part of §Pre-production (where there is already a bit about his casting). The rest of his entry isn't about the film so much as it is about Mr Jackman who has his own article, where the remainder of his cast-list entry belongs. So now Mr Jackman's entry is reduced to "X as Y" which, as you've pointed out should be avoided. So, we eliminate him entirely from §Cast by adding his name parenthetically to §Plot.

To include a member of the cast in the article, the character must be mentioned in §Plot. Not important enough to be in the plot description then not important enough to be included in the article.

Do what I've described and §Cast can go away and the article will be better for it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actors names should be in the plot already, it makes things much easier to follow (how many of you would readily recognise the name of Jon Voight's character in Heat, for example, without it having "(Jon Voight)" appended?). A paragraph under the production section to group together any relevant information on the casting process would also be useful, together those would mean that the cast section is entirely unneeded. There's no need for a redundant section, which bare "Actor as Role" bullets is—adding information to these bullets would only serve to lessen redundancy but if this information is present elsewhere then a cast section is unneeded. For featured examples of both approaches, Manhunter uses a cast section with information on the actors' casting and their relation to each other and the crew, while Eraserhead features no cast section and simply discusses actors under the plot and production headings. Either of those approaches would get my support, I just don't have any love for a cast section that simply lists names like IMDB. GRAPPLE X 14:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I agree the information attached to the main cast members needs to be improved, I'm not sure about the quality of the ones that have recently been edited in. Much of the time they just seem to be tediously and excessively detailed and not necessarily interesting/relevant. For example, does it really need saying that Isabelle Allen thought everybody on set was "really nice"? Russell Crowe's section takes an entire paragraph just to state that he was initially reluctant to take the part. Nobody's description on the list of Amis de l'ABC is relevant and the details about who is the oldest etc. are not even mentioned in the film. Those characters are too minor to be listed in my opinion. The only reason they are even named roles is because of a single line in the film in which Enjolras lists the names of the group members when giving out instructions. --94.15.122.44 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think they also might be minor as well, due to the fact that Enjolras lists the members' names in a single line and also the descriptions on the Amis de l'ABC list might be irrelevant to be included. In fact, Marius and Enjolras are the only two members of the Amis de l'ABC that have important roles in the film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I just got in touch with User:Erik, a WikiProject Film coordinator. This is part of his response:

“ I looked at the discussion, and I'm not quite sure what to recommend. One possibility that comes to mind is putting Les Amis de l'ABC in a side table (like you see at Panic Room#Cast). Perhaps you could do the same for the main cast members -- they could have their own side table with prose discussing them (since some characters like Cosette/Marius or the Thénardiers can be grouped). That would mean two side tables, if that's palatable at all. ”

This could also work as well. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Editor Erik's example just a variant of the "X as Y" IMDb-style list that you, Editor Grapple X, and I have all, in one way or another, said that we don't like? I think so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be, but the side table there is a variation of the "X as Y" format (just without the "as" in said table), while discussing the cast in prose format. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck ... it's a duck.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the cast section needs a bit of a revamp, either to a) the format of "Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean", with a casting section below discussing the background of casting and character development; or b) a brief discription of the background - along the lines of what is written in the Jackman entry already. I think any comment on the characters interaction with other characters should be scrapped unless officially cited with reliable sources. A "casting" section should really be including information about the actors and their relationship with the character, i.e. how and why they accepted the role. We need more of that if we are going to get it to Good article status. Anyone got other ideas that might work? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs more editors to stop being complacent. My views and those of Editor Sjones23 aren't enough. Speak up.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, bulleted lists are generally disliked because they create too much white space to the right. And even if each bullet is expanded with real-world context, the amount of content can vary with each character, which can affect the ease of looking up actors and their roles. An example like Panic Room#Cast was my attempt to accomplish both an easy lookup and to cover the actors and roles in detail. I think something like that could be done here, especially since the main characters have their own blue links. Considering the fame of the source material and its various adaptations, I'm okay with identifying a good number of actors and roles. I don't know if my previous comment made sense, but we could have one side table listing all the actors and roles above "Les Amis de l'ABC" and group related characters (Fantine + Cosette, Thénardiers) in a way that prose can flow. (In the Panic Room example, I grouped the three burglars together, but feel free to be critical of that approach.) With that done, there could be a second side table to list the actors and roles in Les Amis de l'ABC (though I think we can excise the brief descriptions). After that, I'm mostly fine with the last two paragraphs. In summary, we could have 3-4 paragraphs of the main characters with the side table next to it, then 2-3 paragraphs that mention Les Amis de l'ABC in summary and the existing last two paragraphs, with the Les Amis de l'ABC side table next to it. If you'd like other opinions, you could message Grapple X to see what he thinks of what I propose, which I think is different than what he's normally seen in most other film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Going to be brief; was pinged about my opinion on this. I'm not keen on those side boxes, as they're wholly redundant to the plot section, where the characters are already identified in a readily accessible manner. I'd say they could be dropped without any loss of function or usefulness. GRAPPLE X 19:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Do you not think there is a difference in presentation by providing an easy way to look up actors and their roles? It's not easy when it is embedded in the plot summary, especially if someone does not want to read it. That's why I see value in tabling such names in a sidebar fashion when discussing the cast in detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of storyline?

Is the film like the stage production or the book in terms of story? If not could we have a section to summerise the differences?

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of both stage production and the book. We could add a comparison, but you may have to use reliable sources for that. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Music

Is there reason to place "Claude-Michel Schönberg" on the "composer" parameter? As he is not credited as the score composer in the film. Typhoon966 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's actually the "music" parameter, not composer. Actually, yes, there is a reason. In the credits and poster, there is a credit that states "Music by Claude Michel Schönberg." Almost all of the films have at least one or two composers. But considering the fact that this is a musical, Schönberg should be at least mentioned in the music parameter since he did write the score. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We should go with how it is credited, or by how a secondary source presents it. The relationship between the authors of music for a stage musical and the filmed version is complex, depending on how "integrated" the music is and the level of involvement of the composers. The British Film Institute credits the music to be "by Claude-Michel Schönberg" with "additional Music by Anne Dudley" and "lyrics by Herbert Kretzmer" (see [1]). I think all that information should included here. I also think Victor Hugo should be added to the "based on" parameter too, since the stage musical and the film ultimately derive from his novel. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't notice that. I checked the poster and indeed there was a "Music by" credited to Schönberg. My bad. Typhoon966 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So Schönberg shall only remain in the "music" parameter then, no one else should be put there. Typhoon966 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The documentation for Template:Based on states that it's not to be used with films that are "not clearly or officially based on one original work". I've never really seen this rule enforced, but it does seem to go against including both the novel and the musical in the Les Misérables (2012 film) infobox. It might be helpful if the template could be modified to allow for the inclusion of multiple source materials. —Flax5 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Official casting?

In the Pre-Production section is the sentence, "In September 2011, Jackman was officially cast as Jean Valjean and Russell Crowe was cast as Javert." What is the point of the word "officially"? What would an unofficial casting be? And who could have unofficially cast him? 79.75.87.76 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reception section

All right. There seems to be some disagreement with how to present the critics section. I think a good example to use is the reception section of Thor and critical reaction section of The Avengers. Rather than getting involved in an edit war here, I think we should discuss changes here on the talk page. If anyone has thoughts, please comment here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If the disagreement is regarding this, I think the use of "Fresh" is problematic because not all readers know that 60% and above is considered "Fresh". However, Metacritic's use of "generally favourable" seems more readily understood even to someone not familiar with that website. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The GA review at Talk:Les_Misérables_(2012_film)/GA1 was started by a sockpuppet for the purposes of cheating in the 2014 WikiCup competition. The GA classification has accordingly been withdrawn and both accounts of the user in question will be removed from the WikiCup for cheating.

I note the article is of a very high standard and would have no problems with an uninvolved user reviewing for GA status. Nick (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 17:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is the "romantic" needed in the opening sentence? It's a little on the long side as it is, but given that the main character Jean Valjean doesn't ever have any romantic interactions with anyone, I don't think that's needed.

Y This classification is also used on a number of reliable outlets, such as Metacritic. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• You need consistency whether you're using the serial comma or not. One sentence, you have "scripted by William Nicholson, Boublil, Schönberg and Herbert Kretzmer", as well as " Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, and Amanda Seyfried. Notice that the second to last entry varies whether it has a comma or not

Y OK. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• The lack of "romantic" aside, I think you glossed over a major part of the story with the Marius, Eponine, and Fantine love triangle. In the second paragraph of the lede, the first five sentences all take place in the first like 25% of the film.
• "Les Misérables has been popularized through numerous adaptations for the stage, television, and film, including a musical and a film adaptation of that musical." the current tense feels weird. It's almost as if you got that from the main Les Mis article and plopped it here. Obviously there is a film adaptation, this article is about that :P

Y I can't find this piece, perhaps someone has fixed it before :D —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "....announced that the film resumed development" - this is odd for the lede, as there's no indication when the film started development there.

Given that the film's development dated back to the 1980s, "resuming" is not the problem. The previous sentence regarding Mackintosh was in fact the issue; this statement could not be found anywhere in the article. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Hooper and Nicholson were approached in March 2011 and the main characters were cast in 2011" - since both events happened in 2011, you could say "...were cast later that year."

Y Fixed. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• In the last lede paragraph, don't use two "with..." clauses in the same sentence: "with many critics praising the cast, with Jackman..."

Y —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "being the most often singled out for praise" - little awkward grammar here. Drop the "being the"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't find anything grammatically wrong in this phrase —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• You should spell out "BAFTA" the first time you mention it, since it's an acronym (and then put it in parenthesis)

Y OK —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Any chance you could cut down on the whole plot section? It seems some sections are a bit emotional, and a bit excessive in detail. For example:

• "The Bishop urges Valjean to do something worthwhile with his life. Moved by the Bishop's grace, Valjean breaks his parole and vows to start a new life under a new identity." - could easily be condensed into one sentence
• "In their initial meeting, Javert recognizes his face, but cannot place it, and after witnessing him demonstrate his strength by lifting a heavy cart to free a man trapped underneath, becomes suspicious that he is the convict who broke his parole eight years earlier." - could definitely be shorter. - "In their initial meeting, Javert recognizes but cannot place his face, but suspects who Valjean is after witnessing him lift a heavy cart to free a trapped man." - that still carries the gist of the meaning of them, but it's much shorter.

Y All done —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "He returns to the hospital, where he promises the dying Fantine he will look after her daughter. Shortly after, Fantine dies. " - these could easily be merged.

Y Done —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Marius lives in a small room near the Thénardiers and has become friendly with their daughter, Éponine (Samantha Barks). Éponine is deeply in love with Marius, though he considers her merely a friend." - these could also be merged with some pronouns and some sentence restructuring.

Y —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The Thénardiers also see Valjean and believe that they now have their chance to extract more money from him. Valjean and Thénardier have an argument and Javert arrives in the street to break it up. Valjean and Cosette slip away before Javert can recognize them. Thénardier cooks up a plot to rob Valjean. Marius pleads with Éponine to find out where Cosette lives so he can see her again." - Feel like this could be restructured for better flow. I'll help if you need it. (I also think "cooks up a plot" is a bit unencyclopediac"
• "Éponine leads Marius to Cosette." - k, great? This could be mentioned earlier when you say "Marius pleads with Éponine to find out where Cosette lives so he can see her again." Merge them ideally, and cut the redundant info. Or, if you don't want to, you could say "After being led by Eponine, Marius meets Cosette and they profess their love for each other, while Eponine laments that her secret love for Marius will go unrequited".
• " Éponine screams to warn Valjean and Cosette. Thénardier is enraged at Éponine's interference, and slaps her." - this seems fairly trivial to be included. Any way to trim it down somewhat?

• "Valjean is refused employment and driven out of every town, because of his paroled status" - remove the comma

Y Already fixed by someone before —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• You have two sentences in the second "Plot" paragraph that just uses a bunch of "she"'s, when using "Fantine" one of those times would be a nice change of pace.

Y Corrected —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "After a brief escape plot, in which Valjean and Cosette escapes to a convent" - some of this seems redundant

Y Corrected —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "With the Parisians not joining the revolution as the students expected, they resolve to fight to the death" - slight confusion over who "they" is

Y —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

More later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• In the cast section, Valjean is the only one you specify is a Frenchman. Why?
• Maybe wikilink baritone and tenor in Hugh Jackman's section?
• I think Crowe's section could use less quotes and more about his actual preparation (did he ever take any vocal lessons? If not, that'd explain a lot)
• Source for Eddie Redmayne suggesting the a capella beginning Empty Chairs?
• I know what "Les Amis de l'ABC" is, but it's only mentioned once in the entire article. It might be helpful to say Friends of the ABC, as that's how you mention it elsewhere in the article.
• Ref 40 is broken, and ref 41 doesn't seem reliable
• "A highlights soundtrack album" could be worded better
• The second paragraph of "Musical numbers" is unsourced.
• "However, the film was abandoned." - ref?
• "Fellner, Tim Bevan, and Debra Hayward engaged William Nicholson" - is "engaged" the proper term here?
• "but Swift later stated that those reports were not entirely accurate." - why the "entirely"?
• You have the info on Eddie Redmayne in two separate paragraphs in pre-production...
• It seems like a lot of "Cast" and "Pre-production" are the same. Have you considered merging those sections? Like, having the history on the casting when you say who was cast and when?
• Much of the "Filming" is unsourced, and seems too short compared to the extensive "Pre-production" section
• Two paragraphs of "Post-production" are also unsourced
• The second paragraph of "Marketing" seems awfully redundant to what was in "Post-production"
• "with further posters of Thénardiers and Marius released on 1 November 2012." - unsourced
• Could you reorganize the "Reception" more into positive and negative, instead of just drolling out large quotes by various magazines?

All in all, the article has its moments, but there is just too much wrong with it that I have to fail it. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Cheers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange section in the intro

The article's introductory section has this odd passage:

Examining the nature of law and grace, the novel elaborates upon the history of France, the architecture and urban design of Paris, politics, moral philosophy, antimonarchism, justice, religion, and the types and nature of romantic and familial love. Les Misérables has been popularized through numerous adaptations for the stage, television, and film, including a musical and a film adaptation of that musical.

It is probably lifted directly from the article on the novel. I think it should be significantly reworded or removed altogether. Yannis A. ^✆|☑ 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Les Misérables (2012 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DZOQ92zN to http://oscar.go.com/nominees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ensemble cast

Shouldn't Eddie Redmayne be added to ensemble cas mentioned at the beginning of the article; given the mention of Amanda Seyfried he had comparable, if not exceeding, screen time and solo performance. This could've been due to Redmayne being relatively unbeknown at the time. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)