3 hour running time.

Check

Period piece.

Check

Labour of love.

Check

Large box office potential.

Check

History with AMPAS.

Check

So Kong seems to fit the bill.

It really could happen.

If people remember correctly, I wasn't what one would call impressed by the trailer. It was ok, not horrible, just ok.

A 3 hour running time for a film with this sort of history simply can't be ignored now in terms of Oscar.

If critics support Kong (80+%), that's all she wrote. It'll be a shoe in for a BP nomination and would need to be thought of as a serious contender.

Sagging box office for the year, Cinderella Man a faded memory, Jarhead stumbling out the gate, All the King's Men shipped off to next year's race, all work in King Kong's favour.

There's still Munich and Geisha and a few other unknowns to the equation but as of last night, the race has changed.

I sure as hell hope your being sarcastic - maybe a smilie would help clarify your intent...

I agree...I still haven't counted it out. I just don't see what it has going against it. Like you said, it's got plenty going for it, and really only...what: "remake of a 1933 silent" against it? Tough hurdel to jump there.
Then again, I'd put The New World at least a couple spots above Syriana, which seems to be a lock around here. and i'm still not willing to call Jarhead out, so...

It wont be nominated for the big oscars,all i see is tech noms.

I wasn't impressed with the trailer either..

and the big-budgeted 3-hour thing could go either way, really.. I'd prefer a quicker movie, but I guess Jackson doesn't make them anymore..

A 3-hour running time doesn't automatically make this a contender. Gods and Generals was 4 hours. Prestige movies just HAPPEN to be long. They're not nominated BECAUSE they're long. And it needs more than massive critical support as well. It's a fucking (3-hour!) monkey movie, to put it in simple, pandering terms.

Period piece, yes. But it's an action/adventure movie, with sci-fi elements. AMPAS isn't going to reward it without a fight.

It also needs to make MORE money than LOTR. Good luck with that, Universal.

And Kypade...King Kong, from 1933, was not a silent movie.

I also wonder if there's a portion of Hollywood that wants to see Peter Jackson knocked down a peg. Here's a guy who has consistently bucked the system in astounding ways, ended up with more accolades and money than god, was paid more upfront than any director ever, etc. Plus, he's an outsider. New Zealand.

I just can't imagine King Kong really being a contender, unless it truly is an impossible-to-ignore masterpiece.

:O Oh well, at least i got the date right (which i was guessing on). the point is still the same (if perhaps lessened slightly)...that's still all i really see going against it..the "remake" factor. and i just dont think that;ll be too big of a problem. but, i guess we'll see.

Also, why does it have to make MORE than LOTR? :confused:

I disagree with most of your points but in particular the last sentence. At this point, KK doesn't need to be an impossible to ignore masterpiece. It just needs overwhelming critical support, a few key early wins in the award season, with solid box office.

It's not as if there are 4 films leading the pack and Kong needs to fight it out for the 5th spot. A very weak year it is.

"Solid" Box office? Anything less than $300 Million, and you're gonna hear the word 'disappointment' thrown around. Remember, the budget is now at $207. It cost more than LOTR. People are going to be comparing it to LOTR. Anything away from LOTR's gross= bad press, anathema to any Oscar campaign.

What would the 'key early wins in the award season' be? Critics groups? They're not going to give Kong anything.

And again, this is an ADVENTURE movie. Starring Jack Black. LOTR is pretty much the only exception to the 'academy ignores action movies' rule, unless we go back to RAIDERS or STAR WARS (i.e. "impossible-to-ignore masterpieces," mega-cultural phemomenon, etc.). King Kong needs to also be a cultural phenomenon, the way RAIDERS and SW and LOTR were. They don't come around that often. It's a mile-long-shot at best.

If it's a masterpiece, it will win the Oscar.

If it's "only" really, really good - and manages to transcend the whole action/adventure genre (much like LOTR transcended Fantasy) - then it'll probably still be a dead cert for a nomination, but the perception that Jackson's already been rewarded plenty enough might hinder its chances to win.

The writing is on the wall for Kong, to rule it out of the BP race is foolish.

Early reviews should start appearing within weeks (Time, Newsweek) and if the buzz is hot, it's in the 5.

http://www.universalpicturesawards.com/

Universal conisders it a contender.

I think that it won't get anything close to a Best Picture nom, even if it's deserving. Jackson and company were given the lion's share of appreciation just two years ago after getting quite a bit the two proceeding years, and I think academy voters will be moving on, especially considering this is a remake. There will be 5 movies that are of strong enough quality that they won't have to turn to throwing anymore love Jackson's way to make up for anything. Revenge of the Sith got an 82% RT score, and it's a more monumental undertaking than King Kong, but I don't see it getting any such glances, either.

Theres a huge difference between ROTS and King Kong.

*will discuss more later*

Oh, you've seen the new King Kong?

Not in the movies themselves, but in the other details which are obvious and already pointed out in this thread.

Except if people say "Flags of our Fathers" 90% of this website (and every other site I've been on) say "Clint will win again in 2006, or at least be a contender". I don't see why it's not possible for Jackson in a year like 2005.

I wouldn't call Episode III a monumental undertaking actually. Aside from the fact that it was the third Star Wars movie there is really nothing insane about what they had to do, just throw a lot of money at CG. There are war movies on the schedule and dramas that were harder to film than Episode III. And if you've been looking at the sets and physical effects they've done for Kong...

I agree with all of your logic Maverikk. But I also agree with Loyals. It's probably NOT going to happen but one has to wonder how close it could come this year?

I think it is worthy of discussion though. Most of the issues that yoshue brings up are absolute garbage. Not even those of us really anticipating this see it doing anything more than 250 million, and in a year like 2005, that's a lot of money. Nobody expects this to do as well as Lord of the Rings and generally the audience didn't care that Spider-Man 2 barely made its money back in its domestic gross... because 200+ at the box office means that "people have gone to see the films".

At this point, because we don't know how great it is or how good it will do B.O. wise, it appears that the only thing holding Kong back from being considered a front runner for a nomination is genre. Everything else lines up almost exactly with what we would consider a major Oscar contender.

So I really don't know what to think of it at the moment.

Flags isn't a remake, though, that features a 50 foot monkey as it's title character. I think the academy will be more traditional for awhile after stepping outside the box with 3 straight LOTR nominations. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I don't expect it.



I think it was the most monumental undertaking ever. Lucas had been taking it in the ass, and had the hard job of tying everything up, and he did so with minimal complaints. By that logic, King Kong wasn't any harder to film than Sith, and easier to film than other films. It's also easy to make a film when it's all laid out for you like the 1933 and 1976 versions are.



Oh, sure, wouldn't it be something if it were nominated? One has to wonder if that would mean a deplorable year for quality if it does get nominated, because I can't see others getting passed over for another Jackson fantasy film if an argument can be made about something else getting one.



Definitely worth discussing. It will probably be in my top 5 films of the year, and I hope it is worthy. The 3 hour thing concerns me. Seems like it's being overstuffed, and there's not enough characters to really justice such a run time, in my opinion.



genre and remake and recent over abundance of love thrown Jackson's way in recent years will make it an uphill climb. If more contenders like Syriana or The Family Stone don't show themselves to be Oscar worthy, the King Kong stuff will start looking really possible, but I feel it's not toward the front of the line right now, as those films will get the first shot if they're good enough. If not, it's up for grabs.

Mav, I don't think you have any type of credibility when it comes to predicting Peter Jackson movies.

And the difference between ROTS and King Kong will be quite simple (if lotr is any indication of what is to come from KK): and that is class in film-making.

There you go, I said it. Tear it apart.