King Kong enters the Oscar Race

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 2:09am

And is *currently* in the top spot for Best Picture, Director, and most all the tech awards.

So, it would seem the Best Picture race is between King Kong, Munich, and Brokeback Mountain, possibly Memoirs of a Geisha.

I am so excited about seeing KK now!! :)

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 5:25am

It looks really good.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 7:18am

I'm going at the earliest available opportunity but my word it's so LONG. 187 minutes. Sheesh.

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 8:14am

just hearing the titles for best picture (which i think will change), i hope a smaller, non-CG movie wins.

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 8:16am

Why?

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 8:19am

because (typically) plot, character development and good acting takes a back seat in big budget, computer graphic-ladden films. it would be nice if a relatively smaller film like munich or brokeback would win over a kong.

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 8:25am

But you haven't seen KING KONG, so how do you know that it isn't the best film? In three hours, there has to be some character and plot development. Stop being so judgemental!

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 8:40am

"In three hours, there has to be some character and plot development."

have you seen lord of the rings?

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 08:40 AM

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 8:41am

Oh, how I hated that film!!! Judge away!

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 9:26am

Intriguing. But RobbO, in another thread you said you haven't seen Rings. So how do you know there's no plot or character development (of which, I believe, there is plenty).

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 9:45am

if you look at the achievements of peter jackson's LOTR films, acting is not the main aspect that comes to mind. the films, in terms of academy awards, are more technical achievements (sound, editing, etc.) than they are about specific oscar-worthy performances.

in three films, jackson only garnered one acting nomination for sir ian mckellen, whereas in previous years best picture contenders have two, three, or four performances up for acting nods.

with that said, my only point was that i'd like to see a plot or character-driven film win over a film in which the star is a CGI ape.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 09:45 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 9:46am

Look for wildcard nominees, i.e. last summer's CRASH. People in the business are apes--t over it, as opposed to a pic about an ape: writers, actors,directors alike. What KONG has against it: brilliant or not, it's a remake of a masterpiece, one of the movies that defines movies.

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:03am

Cannot. Wait.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:37am

because (typically) plot, character development and good acting takes a back seat in big budget, computer graphic-ladden films.

From the major reviews of KONG that are coming out, this is not true: in fact, the reason the film is so long is because the first hour focuses on character development -- unheard of in an action/adventure film.

RobbO, you have your causal reasoning reversed: the reason why only one actor (Sir Ian McKellen) was nominated from the Rings movies is because Hollywood has a disdain for performances from fantasy movies. The Lord of the Rings movies were frequently lauded for their unusually high calibre of acting, from Elijah Wood to Cate Blanchett to Viggo Mortensen. I think Bernard Hill and Billy Boyd give two of the strongest performances of 2002 and 2003, respectively, and it was a real crime they weren't recognized (particularly Bernard Hill, whose King Theoden had the grand Shakespearean depth of a Henry V).

For THE TWO TOWERS, there was a push to nominate Andy Serkis for playing Gollum, and when THE RETURN OF THE KING came out a lot of people were rooting for Sean Astin's performance as Sam, but the Academy wouldn't budge. Remember that RETURN OF THE KING won the Screen Actor's Guild award for best ensemble.

The fact that only McKellen has been nominated says less about the Rings movies and more about the Academy.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 11:37 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:46am

Anyone know what Sir Ian's Oscar date is up to these days? And if you find him, give him my number .....

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:47am

if the acting in the movies had warranted it, the nominations would have been there. any other reason is simply conjecture as to what the academy members think or like.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:54am

Anyone know what Sir Ian's Oscar date is up to these days? And if you find him, give him my number .....

I think he went back to New Zealand.

As for McKellen, I believe he's reprising his role as Widow Twankey in the ALADDIN pantomime on the West End. He'll also be Professor Teabing in THE DAVINCI CODE (*ugh* and *barf*, but he's perfectly cast), and will be performing as KING LEAR next year with the RSC, which I'm very excited about.

if the acting in the movies had warranted it, the nominations would have been there. any other reason is simply conjecture as to what the academy members think or like.

That's assuming the Academy is the authority on good acting, and we know that's not the case. CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON didn't receive any acting nominations either, but wasn't Michelle Yeoh deserving of a nod? Likewise, Ang Lee's THE ICE STORM is a bonanza of brilliant acting performances (Sigourney Weaver, Joan Allen, Kevin Klein), but received no nominations from the Academy.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 11:54 AM

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:56am

Bluewizard said:

"From the major reviews of KONG that are coming out, this is not true: in fact, the reason the film is so long is because the first hour focuses on character development -- unheard of in an action/adventure film. "

And it was the most boring hour. The acting is of the superficial variety. And very dull.

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:58am

the thread is about kong "entering the oscar race" so in this thread, the academy is the authority as it is the only institution being mentioned by the original poster.

oh yeah, and what DAME said.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:01pm

I was basing my statements on the major reviews that have come out -- I'm withholding my own personal judgment for now.

But I have seen the RINGS films, and I thought the acting was strong and multifaceted there.

And RobbO (you know I love you), your original comments were in regards to acting and character development in general and in RINGS, not about how the acting awards.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 12:01 PM

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:03pm

i'll concede the acting may be good in the LOTR movies but i still root for the underdog and would want a smaller, "independentish" movie to win top honors at the oscars.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:03pm

The weekend before the oscars my partner and I went dancing at this monthly club called Dragstrip. Ian was there dancing with what next week would be his oscar date. He didn't look to happy to be there. He was nice. We took a pic with them. I have it framed in my home office.


And I hated those Ring films. I was also bored by Titanic.. so what do i know.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:05pm

Well, I'm certainly rooting for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Ang Lee deserves a damn Oscar.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:06pm

Me too! I have now seen all the serious contenders and Brokeback is hands down my favorite. I hope it does very well in award season because I think it will be the only ay narrow minded people will go.

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:06pm

titanic also is not a film known for it's oscar performances. sure, the academy threw them a few acting noms but all in all, like LOTR, it was more of a filmmaking achievement (i.e. best picture) than an acting or screenplay revelation.