World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Are War of the Worlds, King Kong realistic contendors?
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4434		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  andaroo1 [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:25 am ]
Post subject:  Are War of the Worlds, King Kong realistic contendors?
Forget your Spielberg, Jackson or whatever bias in this thread. We've done that enough.

Is the lack of a serious public favorite (as far as general awareness and Box office might) this year going to swing one of these more commercial prospects to major Oscar nominations next year? A public backlash? Nothing coming out looks like a hopeful Oscar bait film in 2005 that can score major money. The New World would be lucky with Master and Commander's total. The Constant Gardener? As if. Even the major hopeful, Memoirs of a Geisha has a virtually unknown cast (for the US at least) and Rob Marshall is not necessarily a household name.

What are your thoughts? I could easily put Narnia or Potter here, but those are both shakier prospects. King Kong and War of the Worlds are probably the two of the films in SERIOUS running for major tech nominations (the sets for both of these films are absolutely unbelievable) and King Kong has a really prime release date. They both have casts with huge names in them (Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Adrien Brody, Niaomi Watts... heck even Jack Black has a Globe nomination)... something that Narnia and Potter won't have.
Author:  Anonymous [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 
The Producers, unless it's a major disaster will make at least $100 Million. It will also score several nominations at the Globes, which may translate to Oscar nominations.

Kingdom of Heaven will also make over $100 Million. Oscar nominations are possible, if not likely.

King Kong and War of the Worlds, who knows? I don't think it's likely based on the information available but it could happen. PJ's last 3 films were nominated for BP and if anyone can get a film about aliens nominated for BP, it's Spielberg.

All of this could have been avoided if The Incredibles got a Best Picture nomination or even Fahrenheit 9/11.
Author:  STEVE ROGERS [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are War of the Worlds, King Kong realistic contendors?
andaroo wrote:
Forget your Spielberg, Jackson or whatever bias in this thread. We've done that enough.

Is the lack of a serious public favorite (as far as general awareness and Box office might) this year going to swing one of these more commercial prospects to major Oscar nominations next year? A public backlash? Nothing coming out looks like a hopeful Oscar bait film in 2005 that can score major money. The New World would be lucky with Master and Commander's total. The Constant Gardener? As if. Even the major hopeful, Memoirs of a Geisha has a virtually unknown cast (for the US at least) and Rob Marshall is not necessarily a household name.

What are your thoughts? I could easily put Narnia or Potter here, but those are both shakier prospects. King Kong and War of the Worlds are probably the two of the films in SERIOUS running for major tech nominations (the sets for both of these films are absolutely unbelievable) and King Kong has a really prime release date. They both have casts with huge names in them (Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Adrien Brody, Niaomi Watts... heck even Jack Black has a Globe nomination)... something that Narnia and Potter won't have.



http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3961

Now wouldn't this question be best posed under the thread above about how the lack of a popular movie to the general moviegoer like SPIDERMAN II or Bourne Supremacy being past up in favor of these Boring, Critic Beloved movies like MDB or Aviator??? :-k
Author:  bABA [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
exactly who expected at the beginning of last year for the 5 movies nominated for best picture to be up there? We still don't know what might emerge as an oscar contender later on.
Author:  dolcevita [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
King Kong = Yes
War of the World = No

You're right they might pick something a little more popular with the fans and the fanboys, but its not going to come from Worlds. You're more likely to see Narnia (if its any good) and Kong up there.
Author:  Anonymous [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Imagine the internet chaos if Kong managed a Best Picture nomination. =D>

The producers and actors are saying that it isn't just a SFX spectacle, more of a human interest story that happens to feature a giant monkey.

That's probably just spin. But if it somehow manages an Oscar BP nod, I would pay to see the look on certain people's faces.
Author:  andaroo1 [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
The Producers, unless it's a major disaster will make at least $100 Million. It will also score several nominations at the Globes, which may translate to Oscar nominations.

A globe nomination is likely for The Producers, but we're talking more here. I can guarantee you that The Producers will not be considered a blockbuster audience favorite. Heck, Chicago wasn't when it was nominated for Best Picture.

What I'm saying is not that The Producers will be nominated, just that one of the big five next year will be a huge contendor.

I guess you could also add Kingdom of Heaven and Batman Begins to that list to an extent.
Author:  Maverikk [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
King Kong has no chance. It's a remake, another remake, of one of the classic classics. War of the Worlds is probably going to be to Sci-Fi for the academy. I think they will probably try to lure the fanboy/MTV crowd in some way if ratings suck this year, but I don't see them going to those extremes. It would have to be a movie that had box office AND a realistic chance to win. Sin City, providing it's an excellent picture, would be the more realistic type of possibility of a hip and cool type of film that the academy could go for.

Maybe they'll finally give Lucas his due. :razz:
Author:  andaroo1 [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Maverikk wrote:
King Kong has no chance. It's a remake, another remake, of one of the classic classics. War of the Worlds is probably going to be to Sci-Fi for the academy.

Now now, this is no thread for this weird Jackson pro or anti bias. But you bring up an interesting point about remakes. However that issue applies to BOTH Kong and Worlds. I would consider Worlds a pretty classic remake.

Quote:
Maybe they'll finally give Lucas his due. :razz:

Nah, he left all the guilds after being screwed by them on Empire Strikes Back. They will never nominate him again because he's "outside the system".
Author:  Maverikk [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
andaroo wrote:

Now now, this is no thread for this weird Jackson pro or anti bias. But you bring up an interesting point about remakes. However that issue applies to BOTH Kong and Worlds. I would consider Worlds a pretty classic remake.


I wasn't giving an opinion of Jackson, though. If I was, I would have said something about the academy already giving him several gift awards, and rewarding him with a best picture and best director for a movie that was not the Oscar norm just a year ago. My comments were strictly about King Kong. You were saying something about showing no bias?
Author:  andaroo1 [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not going to get into with you yet again Maverickk. You bring up a good point however, both War of the Worlds and King Kong are remakes, which undercuts them severely if we're talking about a "blockbuster" nomination because nominations for remakes don't happen often.

The same thing can be said for Jackson and Spielberg, they've already been awarded a ton. In almost every way War of the World and King Kong have the same pros and cons at this point except that Spielberg is one of the all time loved directors.

But I'm not really talking about who has the chance of winning, but merely is a realistic competator for the major nominations, and I think both King Kong and War of the Worlds have the prestige statistics in my view to at least be under consideration. They will definately be a favorite among the techs... Howard Shore, John Williams, set design, visual effects, etc. This is what gives them a leg up over things like Narnia which is far shakier.
Author:  Anonymous [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Andaroo, Moulin Rouge was nominated twice for Best Picture, as was Mutiny on the Bounty. A number of television shows were remade into Best Picture nominees as well, including The Fugitive and Traffic. Dozens of plays, literary masterpieces, so as you can see, remaking old ideas into Best Picture nominees is fairly common.
Author:  andaroo1 [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Andaroo, Moulin Rouge was nominated twice for Best Picture, as was Mutiny on the Bounty. A number of television shows were remade into Best Picture nominees as well, including The Fugitive and Traffic. Dozens of plays, literary masterpieces, so as you can see, remaking old ideas into Best Picture nominees is fairly common.

Moulin Rouge wasn't a remake though. Mutiny on the Bounty and Hamlet are two of note though. Although it's been years since something was a direct remake from another film nominated though.
Author:  Anonymous [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
andaroo wrote:
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Andaroo, Moulin Rouge was nominated twice for Best Picture, as was Mutiny on the Bounty. A number of television shows were remade into Best Picture nominees as well, including The Fugitive and Traffic. Dozens of plays, literary masterpieces, so as you can see, remaking old ideas into Best Picture nominees is fairly common.

Moulin Rouge wasn't a remake though. Mutiny on the Bounty and Hamlet are two of note though. Although it's been years since something was a direct remake from another film nominated though.


The two Moulin Rouge films couldn't be more dissimilar. But they share a name and a central locale which qualifies as a very loose remake in my book.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Neither of them will be up for Best Picture or Best Director, I guarantee that.

However, expect plenty of technical nominations for both. Plenty of them.
Author:  Box [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Anything's possible, sure, why the hell not?


I think King Kong has the better chance. And hey, I wouldn't be shocked if it got recognized in some way or another (if it is as good as I think Jackson can make it). I mean, it is no less about Hollywood than The Aviator is. King Kong has a long tradition, and paying homage to what really is an institution can't hurt it.

And take a look at the cast; I mean, this is not a conventional action film by any means.
Author:  Anonymous [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
YOU HEAR THAT PETER? ARE YOU LISTENING STEVEN?

LECTER GUARANTEES YOUR INABILITY TO GET BEST PICTURE OR DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS.

YOU HEAR THAT?

=D>
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
YOU HEAR THAT PETER? ARE YOU LISTENING STEVEN?

LECTER GUARANTEES YOUR INABILITY TO GET BEST PICTURE OR DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS.

YOU HEAR THAT?

=D>


Seriously, how many directors had four of their films nominated all in a row? Maybe William Wyler, but I doubt anyone else. How many had three Best Director noms out of four films made in a row? Once again, maybe William Wyler, but times have changed since then.

Steven Spielberg is a great director, of course, but seriously, it seems to me as if he has recently "lost his touch". Just look at A.I. and The Terminal. Considering the themes of the films, they should have been much more like Oscar contenders and yet they didn't make it. Minority Report was his best work since Saving Private Ryan and even that missed out on good noms. War of the Worlds is destined to be a summer blockbuster much moreso than Minority Report, The Terminal and A.I. I don't see any major noms for it, really. Spielberg should finally shoot Vengeance.

Oh and speaking of "guarantees", don't make me bump your post in which you have said that The Passion definitely won't be nomined for anything :D
Author:  Anonymous [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Oh and speaking of "guarantees", don't make me bump your post in which you have said that The Passion definitely won't be nomined for anything :D


Huh, oh, uh.... :razz:

I also said F 9/11 would be nominated. So yeah, I sucked bullocks in those two picks. Sideways will be my saving grace.

What's interesting though about War of the Worlds, they (the producing team) seem to be really playing up the post 9/11 realism and war angle.

Now, I'm going out on a limb here so bear with me.

Spiderman managed to capture that post 9/11 feel as well and made over 400 million dollars domestic doing so. A more seasoned director like Spielberg, if he can enslave the american audience using some of the tools he employed on ET and Saving Private Ryan, I don't see why War of the Worlds can't get that 5th spot. It will have the popularity needed and hopefully, the critical acclaim as well.

Peter has everything going against him. The only thing in his favor is his talent. Even if Kong gets critical acclaim and makes every top ten list on the planet, one would think the AMPAS couldn't nominate him again. If they do find themselves in a similar situation as this year, say Kingdom crashes and burns, and the Producers is a slight success, I could then see Kong getting in (unless WotW bets it to the punch).
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Oh and speaking of "guarantees", don't make me bump your post in which you have said that The Passion definitely won't be nomined for anything :D


Huh, oh, uh.... :razz:

I also said F 9/11 would be nominated. So yeah, I sucked bullocks in those two picks. Sideways will be my saving grace.

What's interesting though about War of the Worlds, they (the producing team) seem to be really playing up the post 9/11 realism and war angle.

Now, I'm going out on a limb here so bear with me.

Spiderman managed to capture that post 9/11 feel as well and made over 400 million dollars domestic doing so. A more seasoned director like Spielberg, if he can enslave the american audience using some of the tools he employed on ET and Saving Private Ryan, I don't see why War of the Worlds can't get that 5th spot. It will have the popularity needed and hopefully, the critical acclaim as well.

Peter has everything going against him. The only thing in his favor is his talent. Even if Kong gets critical acclaim and makes every top ten list on the planet, one would think the AMPAS couldn't nominate him again. If they do find themselves in a similar situation as this year, say Kingdom crashes and burns, and the Producers is a slight success, I could then see Kong getting in (unless WotW bets it to the punch).


There is one thing in Kinog Kong's War of the World's favor. This year, no blockbuster has been nominated. I mean really, The Aviator is the closest thing to a big blockbuster this time around and still even that one isn't...quite..a huge film. I think not nominating a huge blockbuster makes the Oscar race kind of boring to the casual filmgoers (not to filmfreaks like us). I believe next year will definitely have one big film nominated, the question is what film is it going to be...
Author:  Raffiki [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Are War of the World and King Kong realistic contenders.....

FOR????

Best Picture?
I think both are quite a stretch. War of the Worlds because I think it's aimed to be more of a blockbuster popcorn flick with a little more brains and not so much a bog dramatic or Oscar-y event and King Kong because the Academy might not be willing to nominate another large scale fantasy/sci-fi film (not to mention by Peter Jackson) and moreso if there is an equally as good episode in another sci-fi/fantasy series, Harry Potter. But never under-estimate either Jackson or Speilberg!!

For other Techies?
I think they are no brainers in other categories like sound and visual FX.
Author:  FILMO [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:44 am ]
Post subject: 
SFX and Sound. I think thats it. Unlikely that King Kong will get best picture or Director.
Author:  Algren [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Any movie is a contender, and as it is made with Tom Cruise (who has been nominated a few years in a row) i think it could get nominated again,plus Spielberg is Oscar worthy Director too.
Author:  andaroo1 [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
YOU HEAR THAT PETER? ARE YOU LISTENING STEVEN?

LECTER GUARANTEES YOUR INABILITY TO GET BEST PICTURE OR DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS.

YOU HEAR THAT?

=D>

That pretty much guarantees that both with be nominees right there ;)
Author:  andaroo1 [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
I just don't see what the big deal is about The Producers. I mean look at the talent involved. The thing that makes pictures like Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, The Hours, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Master and Commander, etc. huge contendors a year in advance is the massive amount of built up and well known talent that goes into those productions. Actors, directors, production people.

War of the Worlds and King Kong HAS those stats.

The ONLY film coming out in the November/December timeframe with anything approaching those stats is The New World. Not even Memoirs has those kind of stats. Definately not The Producers.

2005 is going to be an exciting year, the more commercial projects this year are very bold (Sin City, Batman Begins, Hitchhiker's, Episode III, King Kong, Harry 4, Narnia) and there is no overdue or expected Oscar winners at this point (The Aviator was pretty much on the chart all year).
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/