This is an entirely different question of whether it would have been produced or not. The thing is that if it was anyway, it would have been regarded as a contender.




In fact, it is actually residing in the predictions of quite a couple of people here.




If Kong is a very big possibility, why do I not remember War of the Worlds being a big possibility as well?

Because it *exists* because it has a big pedigree. You can't divorce this issue. These big epics like The Aviator don't just *happen*. It has a pedigree which gets films nominated for Oscars. Kong has the best pedigree of any of the films being released in the second half of the year. It's even got more Oscar nominated/winning actors.


Because it was being released in Summer. Because Spielberg can only get nominated for one movie and Munich is more Oscar friendly. Because Dreamworks and Paramount are pushing other movies and aren't incredibly effective campaigners.

The *only* issue with Kong is its genre. The only issue. (well unless it turns out to suck).

So if Spielberg didn't have Munich, would it have been considered more?



Exactly that makes quite a difference. The genre.

Do you not read?

*IF* Spielberg didn't have Munich and War of the Worlds was being released by Universal or Miramax or New Line or a better studio and it was being released in mid-December, it would be a contendor (and so would Tom Cruise).


You say this like this is some revelation. We've been talking about the genre issue for months.

No studio or release date could really make that much of a difference for a movie like War of the Worlds.

im pretty sure i'd be saying kong right now, if the only thing that had changed was the absence of LOTR...


it just looks to me like one of the most quality films coming out of december, and its very likely gonna make the most $$ of the winter...well, save potter...(and even then, yknow?)

i just think its gonna make too big a splash too be ignored...

coupled with all the movies dropping out.

so.

course, it could pull a north country or elizabethtown and end up sucking.

also, don't forget that i'm insane:)

What Raffiki said.



It makes much more of a difference than people assume.

Also, how come no one is seeing Oscar buzz for Harry Potter then? The reviews are better than Walk the Line's, the box-.office is huge, the director has directed a Best Picture nominee before...

(BTW, I am not considering Potter either, incase someone tries to misinterpret it)

Genre can be bent though. It does happen. If there is an argument about how much genre actually matters, that is a good discussion. The folks here all realize that genre (and remakes) are stumbling blocks. There are 5 previous pages of this discussion.


Because (sadly) the sum of its parts don't scream Oscar and Warner Bros. would never take it seriously as an Oscar contender. Also, a sequel has never been nominated before that didn't have previous parts nominated, that would be a first.

Do you not agree that of the big pictures this year, Kong undoubtably has more going for it than Star Wars, Potter, Narnia or War of the Worlds (other than reviews which it has none of at this moment)? I mean... simple numbers and previous recognition say a lot about it.

It is a giant ape. A GIANT APE THAT FIGHTS DINOASAURS. Can that be bent?



Oh, by itself the cast, the director, the box-office might scream Oscar. As for it being the sequel to non-nominees...true. But then again, it's not like anyone ever considered the first movie either. Even before the reviews (of which we have none for Kong either, but that's a different point that you already refered to anyway).




Is that saying much?

Last year we had none of the biggies nominated either.

Yes, it can be bent, and it has been bent by Jackson, not one, but THREE times. It's also been bent by Spielberg too. When top line directors and cast align with top line studios and release a major film in November/December when most of said studio's candiates (Universal) are falling by the wayside the possibility opens up.

WOKJ is NOT the only one poppin' the "O" word around for King Kong, mind you.


The only time in 20 years of Oscar history that there was no "big" box office film nominated. Walk the Line will likely make the most of any of the nominees before nomination day. It looks like we are headed that way again, we don't know, which could mark a major shift away from the public (even further than it's already going).

Then again, we didn't have a King Kong, War of the Worlds, Harry Potter or Narnia last year.

Jurassic Park wasn't nominated. If you mean Jaws, then I hope you don't expect KK to make such an impact as Jaws did. Jackson adaptaed what was Oscar material, just as much as Star Wars was, so if you want to refer to the genre being bent, you can go back further, to Star Wars. And then ask yourself whether a) it happens so often b) all you have seen of Kong looks as much Oscar material as what you have seen in trailer and previews of LOTR flicks before they came out. Those did look like Oscar material.

I know very well that WOKJ is not the only one considering KK an oscar contender. I just think that all of them are simply just as Jackson-influenced as the rest here. That's all. I am sure that if Roland Emmerich directed and all the rest was EXACTLY the same and even the previews looked exactly the same, no one would have thought of it.




And we had it last year, true. Then again this year seems even weaker than the last and many before, so why not this year again?

I don't feel it, so sue me. I also think that the vast majroity of those who predict it are ONLY predicting it because of Jackson, so sue me as well.

I mean ET. I'm talking fantasy here.


Bullshit. Nobody was saying this in the summer of 2001.


The reason is, that we have ignored "the game" and we understand that the name "Jackson" matters just as the name "Eastwood" matters just as the name "Scorsese" matters.


I agree. But then Oscars are often about politics and not merit.



Since it's so weak, doesn't that give weight to the idea that maybe the Oscars will branch out to films that don't normally get Oscars? Like gay cowboy movies? Or no box office Woody Allen movies? Or maybe high-pedigree monster movies?


Nobody is asking you to "feel it" we're asking you to use your fucking brain and recognize that the argument for it is as valid as saying that The Departed could get an Oscar nomination.


We've gone over this ten times, it's part of the pedigree of this thing. Obviously Universal Pictures feels the same.

Never considered E.T. fantasy. More like kiddie sci-fi.

Star Wars is fantasy for me. Sci-fi fantasy.

Actually it is not a bad point. Then again, E.T. was the 2nd highest grosser ever when it was released. I am sure that made an impact as well.






I remember QUITE the different consensus. QUITE.




Attach Jackson to a drama and I'd agree. But the thing is, that it seems that no matter what blockbuster Jackson would direct, people would consider it a Best Picture contender. I don't even think Spielberg enjoys such a privilege as of late.




Still, politics can get you only this far it seems. Politics let Eastwood win for the second time and Scorcese still lose for the 155th.





First of all, I am pretty sure that Woody Allen movie will make quite a decent box-office.

Second of all, how many gay cowboys movies do you know to compare?

Third of all, I know plenty monster flicks that were not nominated. Jurassic Park, anyone?



It is not a lock, but it is more likely to get one.



They started big Oscar campaigning already?

Because it was being released in Summer. Because Spielberg can only get nominated for one movie and Munich is more Oscar friendly. Because Dreamworks and Paramount are pushing other movies and aren't incredibly effective campaigners.

The *only* issue with Kong is its genre. The only issue. (well unless it turns out to suck).[/quote]

They have FYCs, web site, and screenings.

So either they are stupid. Or the Oscar policy will rule here and by some chance they manage to get through with it, but that...okay, it's unfair to say that I'd hate to see it because I havenÄt seen the movie...but really, I have hard time believing that it will be better than most *good* summer blockbusters. Except for that it is released in the winter and the running time is pretentiously extended to 3 hours.

I sound like a LOTR-hater, right?

I still think it will need over 90% at RT and some universal love for that nomination.

Or neither. It could be a great film that they campaign and doesn't hit it with the Academy.


That's like me saying, "the dramas released in November haven't been as good as those in September, so they are probably not going to be nominated".


Pretentiousness doesn't help the Box Office any. Why is a 3-hour King Kong pretentious and a 2.5 hour Potter not? What if the film just needs to be 3 hours?


It's obvious I'm not looking forward to Geisha. I can't stand what they've done to it based on what I've seen. It looks bad. But you don't see me saying that all of its chances are bogus. Despite having serious misgivings about Brokeback Mountain's atmosphere I'm not saying it can't be nominated.

You've made up your mind on Kong, which is fine, but you aren't objectively looking at this issue from all angles. This is what is infuriating to me.


I wouldn't begudge it a 87%, but yeah, overall the reviews have to be pretty positive for it to get a nomination.

If it is such a great film (and not just a great film, but great film as in Oscar material) it will hit it




The thing is that the release date just matters too much. I mean, really, if Cinderella Man was released in December it would be much more of a contender than it is now. Same for last year's Eternal Sunshine.




Potter is an adaptation of a long book, I just don't see it being possibly shorter. In Kong's case Jackson actually decided to add an additional 30 minutes later on. It seems that he wants it to be the official LOTR follow-up by all means. Expect an EE, heh.





But in any case, I have my issues with Brokeback Mountain (and especially its director who I consider vastly overrated), but I still think it will do fairly well, at least with the noms. I would much rather see Kong than BM being nominated, but I see much less chance for Kong. How exactly is that so biased? I just don't see anything that distinguishes King Kong from, say, War of the Worlds or Batman Begins.




Pretty positive?

Batman and Star Wars had "pretty positve" reviews. That won't be enough.

[Lecter and andaroo mutally withdrew a nasty flamefest]

King Kong doesn't just have Jackson.

3 hours long
Period Piece
Big Best Actor winner in Adrian Brody
Big previously snubbed actress in Naomi Watts
A grand box-office no doubt
Good December release date, which is always a set-up for Oscar movies
Big studio

If the movie wasn't a remake about a fantasy giant monkey, and it had all these credentials, it'd be a lock like Munich is a lock.

Do we REALLY no for a fact this is gonna be a grand box office winner or wishful thinking?? I haven't exactly heard anyone excited over this movie other than LOTR fans.. For everyone else, it's another 2nd remake of something we've seen before..

If it's just LOTR "fans" interested in this, then it will likely make $300+ million domestic.

As it is, I think most of us see around 200 million.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10216525/site/newsweek/

The first review. It's glowing, but then the guy did get flown to New Zealand for it.

It definately is a fluff piece.