The singing-and-dancing strongman has always had an affinity for musical theater, and theater doesn’t get a whole lot more musical than it does in Les Mis, which is based on the Victor Hugo book that follows the lives of Frenchmen from 1815-1832.

Hopefully the duo of Jackman and director Tom Hooper will be able to create more of a splash with their adaptation than Uma Thurman and Liam Neeson were able to do in their 1998 version, which garnered only $14 million at the box office.

It’s a safe bet, especially considering Jackman has made his singing and dancing known to every American via the Oscars, The Tonys, and The Man from Oz.

All pieces seem to be in place. The only question that remains is: Are Americans ready for a film about French people? (Variety)

Hooper is in talks to helm the Universal distributed adaptation of the downer musical. The plot contains many different threads, including an ex-con named Jean Valjean who’s on the run from policeman Javert. Sacrebleu. In 1998, there was a Les Miserables film starring Liam Neeson, Uma Thurman and Geoffrey Rush, but it was based solely on Victor Hugo‘s novel and it tanked at the box office. Ya gotta have those catchy tunes. (Variety)

The Weinstein Company (TWC) announced today that THE KING’S SPEECH PG-13, the family-friendly version of its Academy Award-winning historical drama about King George VI, will open on 1,000 screens nationwide on April 1, and will be the only version available in theatres. One of the year’s most celebrated, successful and beloved films, THE KING’S SPEECH was honored at the 83rd Academy Awards® with Oscars® for Best Picture, to producers Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin; Best Director, to helmer Tom Hooper; Best Actor, to star Colin Firth; and Best Original Screenplay, to screenwriter David Seidler. The announcement was made by TWC’s President of Theatrical Distribution and Home Entertainment Eric Lomis.

Said Lomis, “We are thankful to the MPAA for their wisdom and swift action in approving the release of THE KING’S SPEECH PG-13 release. The action enables those to whom it speaks most directly – young people who are troubled by stuttering, bullying and similar trials — to see it.”

The emotional impact of stuttering that was illuminated by THE KING’S SPEECH continues to be a topic of conversation with the recent statements by Vice President Joseph Biden about his own struggles with stammering. The release of THE KING’S SPEECH PG-13 offers families nationwide access to a positive story about stuttering and overcoming obstacles and social stigmas.

In addition to The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, Les Miserables and Queen of the East, Hooper is said to be interested in rescuing an adaptation of the novel Tulip Fever from turnaround. This wouldn’t be the first attempt to bring the novel to screen. In fact, a few have tried and failed including Shakespeare In Love writer Tom Stoppard and director John Madden.

A period love story about a bored wife who falls for the painter hired to create her portrait, this is considered a shoe-in for a win. Especially if Hooper can get Stoppard’s script. If there’s one thing the Academy loves, it’s these Victorian pornos. (Deadline)

The King’s Speech is expected to clean up this Sunday at the Oscars and in turn, Harvey Weinstein would like the film to clean up at the box office. A PG-13 version of the film will be hitting theaters soon to draw in the tweens. They just looooove Colin Firth.

The film is pretty clean overall save for one scene where Firth issues a frustrated, expletive-filled outburst that would make Kurt Sutter blush. In this re-edit, that has gone bye-bye against the wishes of director Tom Hooper. Next thing you know, they won’t let him cast Andrew “Dice” Clay in his adaptation of Les Miserables. (THR)

Not to worry, Hoopertarians. The acclaimed director is considering a different big project: a new film version of the hit Broadway musical Les Miserables. It’s not just a poster in you high school music teacher’s classroom. Les Mis is a not-a-laugh-a-minute show about an ex-convict and other French folks who do a lot of struggling in the 1800s. Judging from the time period alone, it seems more like Hooper’s thing. (Collider, 24 Frames)

There was no overlap though, as Snookered shot in August of 2008, and The King’s Speech was shot in 2009. Imagine the extra stammering that would have come out of Colin Firth if he’d walked onto set and accidentally interrupted a crucial Snookered money shot. It would have cost Jonno a Goscar!* Astonishing (and safe for work) proof is below. (Movieline)

*Gay porn Oscar

“Stanhope was an explorer in the early 19th century, described by Seidler as ‘a female Lawrence of Arabia,’ who began as the hostess for her uncle, Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. After Pitt’s death in 1810, Stanhope, then aged 34, travelled through the Middle East, generally refusing to wear a veil, and sometimes disguising herself as a man as a result. Settling out there, she led occasional treasure-hunting expeditions, and became a powerful, well-respected figure, known as ‘Queen Hester,’ in what is now known as Lebanon, giving sanctuary to refugees, and believed that her destiny was to be the bride of a new Messiah.”

No director attached yet, but this news originally came from Tom Hooper, who mentioned this was King’s Speech screenwriter David Seidler‘s next project. So the speculation is that Hooper will be directing too. Whenever these two wild and crazy guys get together, it’s fireworks, so here’s hoping. (via The Playlist)

This week we shackle our Best Director contenders together by the ankles, slather them in honey, toss them in the bear cage with an 800 pound grizzly and a pair of bolt cutters to see who among them has the will to survive. Wait… did I say directors or hobos? I meant hobos. But this article’s not about the bear game. No, this article’s about the Academy’s Best Director nominees, an impressive list containing some of American cinema’s most lauded directors. We have David “Fight Club” Fincher, Darren “ass-to-ass” Aronofsky, Joel and Ethan “that movie where Peter Stormare puts Steve Buscemi in a wood chipper” Cohen, David “O” Russell… and some British dude. I’d be honored to have any one of these talented white males helm my breakdancing videos (PopNLockNRonnie @ Youtube). But which of these white males deserves the Shiny Gold Dude?

FRONTRUNNERS

DAVID FINCHER

PRO: David Fincher is one America’s most acclaimed directors, possessing a unique visual style that sets his work apart from his peers. He boasts an impressive track record — Alien 3 notwithstanding — and despite working primarily within the studio system has managed to make a career of exploring the darker realms of the human psyche. While The Social Network bears Fincher’s stamp it is also his most accessible and critically acclaimed film to date, a one-two punch that makes him an easy choice for Academy voters.

CON: Fincher’s renowned for tackling bile-black subject matter; he’s made films about serial killers, psychopaths, serial killers, serial killers and serial killers. And while The Social Network’s backstabbing billionaire protagonist does have his dark side, it’s not like he’s cutting off anyone’s head and mailing it to their sweetheart (that we know of, anyway). In comparison to Fincher’s back catalog, The Social Network might seem to some Academy voters like a bit of a trifle.

TOM HOOPER

PRO: Tom Hooper is the least known of our nominees, but he does have buzz on his side. The King’s Speech received the lion’s share of nominations in the major categories and thanks to the slick campaigning of the baby-devourin brothers Weinstein, seems to be gaining momentum as Oscar night draws near. Hooper is also this year’s safest choice; his resume boasts period pieces and costume dramas but none of the dark, violent, controversial work that his fellow nominees are known for. He’s never cut off Gwyneth Paltrow’s head (unfortunately), shoved a double-dong up Jennifer Connelly’s pudding pipe (unfortunately), thrown anyone into a wood chipper (unfortunately) or tried to strangle George Clooney (ibid). He’s the Postum of best director nominees; a rich and tasty beverage that is inoffensively flavorful and harmlessly healthful.

CON: Tom who? Hooper is what my WoW clan members would call a “noob.” Also he’s British, and we should never forget how the British betrayed us during World War 2 by aligning themselves with the Nazis.  Or perhaps that was the Italians. Eh, British, Italian, same thing.

DARK HORSE

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN

PRO: I know he wasn’t nominated, but if any director could find a way to win despite not being on the ballot, it’s Nolan. Perhaps I’m only dreaming he wasn’t nominated and when I wake up he’ll be on the Best Director short list. But then what if when I wake up I find out that’s just a dream, too? And what if that dream’s a dream within a dream within a dream, and it isn’t even MY dream but someone else’s dream? These are the kinds of things I think about when I’ve been huffing air freshener.

CON: After examining the list of past Best Director winners it seems that exactly 0% were people who weren’t officially nominated. Why I don’t know. I guess for the same reason that ZZ Top didn’t win the 1984 Presidential election as write-ins, in spite of spending months on the campaign trail in a roadster called Eliminator, telling every voting-age citizen in every one horse town about the virtues of sharp dressed men and knowing how to use legs when you have them. Or perhaps ZZ Top DID win the 1984 presidential election and I’m only dreaming they didn’t? Whoa. Just blew my own mind.

LONG SHOTS

DARREN ARONOFSKY

If it was the award for MOST directing, Aronofsky would be a shoo-in. Black Swan was a masterstroke of technique, but like a Yngwie Malmsteen guitar solo it rings a little short on soul in spite of its technical impressiveness. Also, Aronofsky has been left in the shadow of his film’s leading yummy-mummy-to-be Natalie Portman, who is widely favored (and was my pick) to win Best Actress.  Darren Aronofsky’s a highly talented filmmaker and I have no doubt that he’ll eventually get his due, but I don’t foresee him taking the Shiny Gold Dude in 2011.

DAVID O. RUSSELL

If this article was about the bear game, David O. Russell would be a shoo-in. If anyone on this list has it in him to tear out a bear’s throat with his teeth while his fellow directors bleed to death it’s Russell. Unfortunately this award’s being given for directing not bear-fighting. And while Russell has made some wonderful films – The Fighter included — I still don’t think the Academy voters will be willing to overlook his volatile disposition, especially given the fact that he essentially tried to murder Oscar darling George Clooney on the set of Three Kings. George Clooney’s farts have been nominated for Oscars. For the love of God, don’t fuck with George Clooney.

JOEL AND ETHAN COHEN

The Cohen Brothers are kind of like Pixar for grown-ups; all they have to do is make a film to get Oscar nominations. Which in a way works against them. When you’re prolific and talented enough to be on the ballot every year Academy voters are forced to be a bit more discerning. True Grit was an amazing film, but was it an amazing Cohen Brothers film? Back to the Pixar analogy, it wasn’t a Cars but it probably wasn’t a Toy Story either. I’d consider it a solid Monsters, Inc.

ADVANTAGE: David Fincher. Any of the nominees would be deserving and it’s still going to be a shoot-out. But while buzz is on Tom Hooper’s side I believe the Academy voters will honor the more experienced Fincher. Give that man a Shiny Gold Dude!

The film portrays her father, King George VI, as an uptight stutterer who eventually goes on a ridiculous swearing binge. Up until now, nobody on Team King’s Speech — Colin Firth, director Tom Hooper — knew what the subject of the hidden track on “Abbey Road” thought of their film. Now they know, because The Sun reports:

“[S]he found it moving and enjoyable. She was clearly amused by some of the lighter moments.”

The Queen is also a documented Nintendo fan, so I’m sure she’s greatly anticipating “The King’s Speech: Stutter Busters” for Wii. It comes with a phonograph peripheral.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was also as-gracious-as-can-be-expected about his biopic The Social Network, even appearing on SNL with star Jesse Eisenberg, pretending to be cool about everything. Damn it, why aren’t these people more outraged about Hollywood taking liberties with their lives? Back in the good old days, if William Randolph Hearst didn’t like your movie about him, he would bury your film in the papers and attempt to buy all the negatives so he could burn them. Now that’s what I call a kickass reaction to a biopic. (TheWrap)

How do you make one of the year’s greatest films even better? Simple! Remove any words that might offend fat middle-age housewives. At least that’s what Harvey Weinstein has in mind. The producer hopes to release an edited version of The King’s Speech in order to secure a PG-13 rating and (hopefully) a larger showing at the box office. Personally, I don’t hear a lot of kids between the ages of 13 and 16 clamoring to see films about early 20th Century British royalty, so I don’t really understand why it needs a PG-13 rating. Then again, I sleep on an old air mattress, and Harvey sleeps on a bed made of gold bricks and delicious lox, so I’m assuming he knows a little more than I do when it comes to making a profitable movie.

It’s easy to see why people (specifically, Tom Hooper, the film’s director) are worried about this move. Anyone who’s ever seen a film dubbed for television knows what this type of editing can do, and it’s not pretty. Case in point, the following nine examples!

Ghostbusters

Ghostbusters is a great film, but we can’t have it ruined by such foul language. What’s a good word to replace “dickless?” I know: “Wally Wick!” It’s perfect! In the immortal words of Tim and Eric, “Great Job.”

Scarface

If someone is willing to sit through Scarface, a movie about a psychotic Cuban gangster, why in hell would they give a flying f*ck about hearing the word “f*ck.” They probably don’t. But the sponsors do, which is the same reason I just used a “*” instead of typing out the whole word.

The Usual Suspects

“Give me the keys, you dirty c*ck sucker” vs. “Give me the keys, you fairy godmother.” Personally, I find the second phrase more offensive. At least “c*ck sucker” doesn’t imply I’m female. “Fairy godmother” does. I’m all man, god damn it!

Casino

This is another film that I simply can’t believe they bothered to dub. The whole movie is curse words and violence. Seeing the dubbed version is like watching the no-sex porn parodies, except a lot less funny.

Snakes on a Plane

This dub job is a joke, but then again, this whole movie was a joke, so I really don’t see the harm.

Die Hard 2

The “yippie kai yay” part sounds familiar, but who the hell is Mr. Falcon? If they’d been committed to the dub, they would have at least dubbed “Falcon” over the bad guy’s name earlier in the film.

Pulp Fiction

You take the curse words out of this film, and it really loses its luster. But when you take the brutal man-on-man forced sodomy away, it completely loses its soul. For shame, Bravo. For shame.

The Departed

I’m not sure what’s more annoying: the dub job, or the forced Irish accents. Just kidding! It’s obviously the Irish accents.

The Big Lewbowski

This is one example where watching the dubbed version might actually be funnier than the original. And if kids happen to be watching, they’ll learn a valuable lesson about not finding a stranger in the Alps.

Anyway, this wouldn’t be an unprecedented move from Weinstein, who also released Roberto Begnini’s Life Is Beautiful dubbed into English in order to expand its American appeal. This is a new low, although perhaps the MPAA is somewhat to blame as well – didn’t Titanic manage a PG-13? And it had nudity! (via Vulture)