I think I have more than you, who only sees him with rose colored glasses on. I'll give you an example of how to keep your bias out of the academy's mindsets.

Spider-Man 2?

Reviews counted: 218
Fresh: 202 Rotten: 16
Average Rating: 8.2/10

93%

cream of the crop

FRESH 95%
Avg. Rating: 8.1/10

compared to last year's serious films.

[table][row color=#FFFF99][col color=#FFFF99]Film[col color=#FFFF99]Fresh Reviews[col color=#FFFF99]Rotten Reviews[col color=#FFFF99]Tomatometer Score[col color=#FFFF99]COTC Score[col color=#FFFF99]Average Rating[col color=#FFFF99]COTC Rating
[row][col]Million Dollar Baby[col]184[col]18[col]91%[col]95%[col]8.4[col]8.6
[row][col]The Aviator[col]174[col]22[col]89%[col]82%[col]7.9[col]7.5
[row][col]Sideways[col]187[col]8[col]96%[col]98%[col]8.5[col]8.7
[row][col]Finding Neverland[col]151[col]29[col]84%[col]81%[col]7.6[col]7.3
[row][col]Ray[col]148[col]34[col]81%[col]85%[col]7.3[col]7.7
[row][col]Spider-Man 2[col]202[col]16[col]93%[col]95%[col]8.2[col]8.1[/table]

Really, his arguments are pretty good. He just hit your fanboy nerve.

His arguments are typical. That's one. In this case, they just happen to fall in the realm of realism.

Two. I have never said King Kong is or isn't a big contender (ar at least not lately) and have yet to make my assesment, or at least post it. And for the record, I'm not really anticipating King Kong much at all. My fanboyism lies with LOTR and not Peter Jackson, although I do hold him in high esteem and admiration for the monumental task of making those 3 films (even with all the problems I had with them, which mostly are attributed to Jakson's decisions).

I'm sure if you closely follow my arguments or previous predictions/arguments I really don't hold bias when it comes to Oscar. I may ahve more enthusiasm for a certain film (like the past year: Before Sunset, which I deem one of the best films I have ever seen, but I never predicted anything more radical than the possible 5th/6th BActress slot possibly going to the VERY underrated Julie Delpy. I thought Hwke's performance might actually have been better and was even more underrated but very rarely brought up the prospect of a possible nod prediction for him.)

And three, I mainly made that statement you quoted just to see what Mav would say; that reason moreso than any.

I just realized that in trying to say a few simple things that shouldn't even be taken so seriously, I can be viewed as taking a very defensive stance. lol take my post with a grain of salt; I babble on alot.

Not that I think that King Kong has any chance of best picture nomination but King Kong has much better chance at it than ROTS since the academy doesnt acknowledge sci-fi films as front runners. King Kong while being a fantasy movie has a better advantage because its more of a period piece which academy members are sometimes a sucker for. Im not an expert on how the academy awards work but I cannot think off the top of my head any sci-fi films set in the future nominated for major awards

I heard Martin Scorcese has the next King Kong remake in pre-production already, and if that doesn't win an Oscar, I've heard that Paramount is going to bring Alfred Hitchcock back from the dead to do the next remake in 2007...

Luckily for Revenge of the Sith, it didn't take place in the future, but a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Here's the best way to sum it up:

The AMPAS won't reward PJ and his team with more nominations for another fantasy film.


My response...


The Two Towers.

The Two Towers is a weird scenario that's likely not to be replicated ever. A sequel to a nominated film, nominated itself, released one year after the previous. I think what Mav is saying that Return of the King kind of wiped Jackson's slate clean, which I think is a consideration. This is why Scorsese will be considered a frontrunner director until he wins something. But Jackson has won so he isn't "due".

But I think the same rules that apply to Clint Eastwood (us thinking he has a shot for Flags of our Fathers) could easily apply to Jackson (some of us thinking King Kong is on the BP radar). Especially in a year when we are seeing the first of the major contendors stumble.

Although even if Jackson & co. were nominated, I wouldn't expect them to be winning for anything other than techs.

King Kong or Star Wars will win visual effects this year. Both would be worthy. I think WETA's work on Kong looks a bit better technically, but to see ILM's groundbreaking work on the Star Wars prequels (and it was groundbreaking in many ways) go unrewarded would be sad for ILM.

It's really been a sad time for ILM. WETAs three in a row victory, their tremendous work on Azkaban being over-written by Spider-Man 2's horrid effects, Minority Report not getting a nomination? Episode I losing to The Matrix... etc.

I loved Spider-Man 2's effects!

I do agree, it'll be down between Sith, Kong, and other possibles like Fantastic Four or even Sin City. I see ILM bringing it home, as they should for pioneering this digital technology that will soon be viewed in 3D. If the effects in Sith weren't fantastic, it'd be one thing, but that's not the case, and EP III saved the year at the box office from being a complete disaster, and the movie should be thanked where and whenever it can be.



Yes, my point about Jackson is not because of the quality, it's because he just had 3 straight years of things showered upon him in the fantasy genre, which was unheard of. Had he came back with his own Million Dollar Baby type film after the LOTR accolades, the academy might have welcomed him back, but for a thrice told tale of a 50 foot monkey and his crush on a white/blonde woman, most likely not, even if it's great. Sam Raimi fond that out. I also feel some may call into question Jackson's ability to make a good film that doesn't rely on effects and if he could do anything that there wasn't tons of sources to get ideas from.

I would put Eastwood and Spielberg in the same boat. Both multiple Oscar winners, so they have to be on top of their game 100% to get anything at this point. Munich HAS to be fantastic or it'll disappoint. All movies aren't under the gun like that. If Clint or Steven tried to put out King Kong (or War of the Worlds), no matter how great it was, they wouldn't get a look, too. I think the genre definitely hurts his case, as it would hurt anyone.
..................................................................................................................:death:

Revenge of the Sith shattered box office records and tied up something that was very hard to pull off with the limited complaints, especially when you consider what Lucas has went through from people who hate the man for raping their childhoods. It was no small feat to satisfy as many as he did.

He did it so well that he even managed to make James Earl Jones' cringe inducing "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo..." more like a novelty than an embarrassment.

I still don't see it getting anything but some tech stuff, just like King Kong. There will be 5 justifiable films that are more traditional, and I don't see why they'd reward Jackson instead of Lucas, if they were going to go in that direction, as he made excellent box office (and saved the year), completed his story, and pleased the vast majority of critics in the process.

Differences between ROTS and King Kong

ROTS:
-Was released in May as a summer blockbuster
-Is part of a mostly trashed prequel series
-Is a sci-fi fanfrenzy film
-Has almost no acting credentials, maybe the guy who plays Palpatine. Other than that, none.

King Kong:
-Is released in December, prime Oscar position
-Is 3 hours long, is an epic
-Has Peter Jackson, who the academy loves
-Has deep acting credentials in Adrian Brody, Naomi Watts, Jack Black
-This is more my opinion, but it has a better aura of quality filmmaking on its side.

...

Mav, bringing up Spider-man and LOTR is EXACTLY what this boils down to. Spider-man was released in its year in May, was a 100 mil+ opening blockbuster, and received great reviews. But it was a Marvel work, was a fan-frenzy type of flick, so it went home only with a few tech. nods. LOTR was released in December, had good acting, had Peter Jackson who is solid academy bait, was 3 hours long, and had the aura of quality filmmaking on its side. Spider-man was also younger based, while LOTR was a bit more older-based. Same as this year, ROTS is younger-based while King Kong is older-based.

If anything, Spider-man=ROTS and King Kong=LOTR.

Shack, why do you do this? I have no desire to bitchslap you around in another debate where you project your opinion on mass groups and pose ridiculous arguments.

But this is not my opinion Mav. Everything in that paragraph(with the slight exception of the one point about auras of filmmaking which is most likely true anyways) is 100% facts.

You don't see because your love for all things Lucas has seemingly clouded your judgement. Fact is - and you can throw at me as many rotten tomatoes statistics as you like - that Ep3 is not in the least as highly regarded as LOTR is. To even consider Ep3 getting even nominated for best picture is simply ludicrous. This will never happen and you (probably) know it (anyway)...

Now as for Kong, it pleases me that it's being talked about as one of the possible contenders for this year's Oscars by some here but i find it a little premature since nobody has even seen it yet and clearly, the odds are against it for obvious reasons already stated here (LOTR Oscars, genre movie). To really have a slight chance PJ needs to deliver another masterpiece, which - as highly as i value him and as much as i believe Kong's gonna be at least good entertainment - i have my doubts with, for the simple fact that lightning rarely strikes twice. I guess i'm a sceptic when it comes to some things, hehe. Fingers crossed though...

Nazgul, you don't even have a vague understanding of how the awards season works, so please keep your dumb fanboy shit out of this forum. My love for all things Lucas must be why I said Sith won't get anything but techs, huh?

There are no "facts" in Oscar season. it's all conjecture.

It's very possible that Episode III gets more nominations than King Kong (or an equal amount).

You said, i cite: "I don't see why they'd reward Jackson instead of Lucas, if they were going to go in that direction". They would go in that direction if there was something worth considering. Ep3 is not.

As much as King Kong would be it is...

Actually... you know...

It would be a great time to give Lucas the lifetime achievement award this year.

Who's the fanboy here i wonder... Judging a movie without even seeing it...

Pot calling the kettle...

I have an understanding of the process. Want to show me how much you know about it so I don't think you're just ignorant?

If you do, you should understand that King Kong has much more going for it than Epi. III ever had. This is not counting the content in either movie. Before either movie was seen, KK has legs and legs more potential for Oscar than ROTS ever did. Details above.

Why, because it's a remake of a classic that's been remade before? Is that what it's got going for it? Perhaps it's the genre that is on it's side? Maybe the filmmaker is owed something for past efforts that came up short?

I'll hate the day when you start trying to argue the side that I'm on, because that just won't be a good sign for me being right.

Big words from you as usual...

One doesn't need to be an expert to know Ep3 has no chances whatsoever for even a nomination for best picture...