NYT article on Weinsteins

There's an excellent in-depth article in the New York Times about the Weinsteins and their struggle to regain momentum since leaving Miramax/Disney. The article makes it clear that the Weinstein Company needs some hits, and they need them now. I'm sorry to say that I don't see any chance that Inglourious Basterds is going to fit the bill. The best reference point within the article is that Pulp Fiction was made for $9 million dollars, while Inglourious Basterds cost $70 million. There is no chance Inglourious Basterds will catch on ANYTHING like that film did. The not so subtle subtext of the article is that while Harvey Weinstein might have gotten distracted by non-film ventures in recent years, a bigger problem might be that he's lost his creative if also not-so-subtle promotional touch. Case in point: the article mentions a possible Oscar campaign for Brad Pitt. Friends, that is ridiculous. It's the sort of idea that comes from Brad Pitt being a big star, not the role or the performance justifying it. What the Weinstein Company OUGHT to do is wage a campaign for Christophe Waltz, who truly carries the movie. Not only does he deserve it, but that would signal that the Weinstein Company has not become just another part of the Hollywood machine, and still has the creative sense and chutzpah that distinguished the Weinsteins in the first place.