Sorry about the KKKs.

Was it the box office that doomed its run at the big dance?

Was it the fantasy/remake genre?

Too soon after the LOTR lovefest?

All 3? Or something else?

My best guess would be Lord's Syndrome. The box office was still excellent and the movie was well received. It's just one of those years where either the Academy is sick of a particular director, or has taken a different route and decided its time to honor smaller works. I wouldn't say the movie isn't up to snuff, this just wasn't he right year for it to conquer.

I didn't see why it was so much more Oscar-y than the average action/adventure blockbuster. Never ever seemed like a possible nominee in my opinion. The Oscar nominees in the past (besides LOTR) have also seemed to have more real or historical type stories.

Yes. It wasn't that good.

Other: it actually wasn't a very good movie...

Other: people suck

Probably a combination of the three options, plus it lost a lot of the Holiday blockbuster buzz to Narnia..

Die



Die

Ditto.

But It had great reviews... not as great as to get a BP nom to a blockbuster, unless the box-office is out-of-this-world huge. So I guess It´s a combination of all those factors.

It wasn't that good of a film. There is no other way to say it. It dragged, it was boring and it was trite.

Too cartoony. When they are machine gunning spiders off a guy's back with a tommy gun, you start to realize this isn't going to get a bp nom. Jackson needs to relearn the idea that less can sometimes be more, which he forgot after Fellowship.

I didnt bother with including quality as an option (RT ratings)

Good Luck and Good Night 94% (COTC 95%)
Capote 91% (COTC 100%)
Brokeback Mountain 86% (COTC 90%)
Kong 84% (COTC 76%)
Munich 78% (C0TC 59%)
Crash 77% (COTC 76%)

The film lacked weight when Kong was off screen,w hen he i on screen it works so well, when's he's not notsomuch, combine that was a BO that did not live up LOTR, the fact that Jackson has just one and a slew of Indies that got good critical ratings and no space for Kong.

I thought Kong was better then ROTK.

It was a good film but knowhere near great,that is why it didnt get nominated.

For those who say it didn't get nominated because it wasn't that good I present to you...






Crash

Again, that's why I didn't include quality as a reason. It's far too subjective and yeah, look at Crash, it had less critical acclaim. Heck, so did Munich for that matter. Quality wasn't a factor.

One interesting thing is that PJ could have shaved 30 minutes off the film, which would have added box office dollars, but in turn, would that have diminished it's cred with critics?

I think it's box office, plain and simple. The movie needed to break out with audiences in a Titanic-like way, perhaps even making just over $300 mill would have been enough to get it into the race. But instead it unexpectedly got its ass handed to it by the Jesus-lion movie.

I think it was the editing. Being about 50 minutes shorter would've been a massive help.

Crash is one of those supposedly social conscious films that mkes us feels good, Kong is about a giant gorilla...so its not just quality but subject. A film as bad as Crash about something else would not get the same love.

Na, at this point I think that really fucked them over more then just about anything. Someone put it best when they said that there just wasn't demand for a three hour remake of King Kong. I still don't know if it would have done that much better, but the length was the one thing that critics seemed to point out as well as audiences. They really could have shaved off twenty minutes before they ran into Kong, and after that maybe a little trimming towards the end, as it did kinda drag with how many times he might or might not have been dead. Don't get me wrong, it's my second favorite movie of the year, but if there was any problem it had, it was the length.

Agreed, I's put Kong in my top five but there are obviosu things that oculd go, like Jaime Bell. his character goes nowhere and just takes up time. In the end though those flaws did nto sotp me from loving th eiflm but I can see someone feeling it was to long or did not hold their attention.

I'm still pissed that Mrs. Mighty-Joe-Young-cum-Monster got a nomination for *that movie* before Watts for Kong. That's the tragedy.

I think it didn't get nominated because it just wasn't that good. Sure, it had good special effects and a cool story, but it was nothing really special. And it was so dang long!!

Looking back now, War of the Worlds seemed more likely to get a nominee than King Kong.

I suspect the main objection to Jackson's emetic remake was affection amongst Academy members for the 1933 original, which his version does nothing to soften the memory of. It's a case of so what if the new version is twice as long as the original, has tons of CG and is more violent than the original? That doesn't make it better and it sure as hell doesn't make it Best Picture material. Also, Jackson's softening of KK's nature was always going to be viewed as an unforgivable sin by just about everybody who watched and fell in love with the original (which is just about everyone).