King Kong enters the Oscar Race- Page 2

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:07pm

I have to be honest, Dame labelling a movie's character development as "boring" and "superficial" really doesn't surprise me.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:08pm

Why don't you wait till you see the movie before you say what surprises you or not?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:08pm

titanic also is not a film known for it's oscar performances.

That's because TITANIC's screenplay was an embarassment. But it had a good cast that made what they could of the material. Not to bring up RINGS again, but it has a famously complex narrative with strong characters.

But speaking of TITANIC, what is Gloria Stuart up to these days? I thought her career would have been revived after TITANIC, but she has since disappeared off the radar again.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 12:08 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:09pm

That's a good question. How old would she be now?

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:10pm

i hear she and ian mckellen are dating....

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:11pm

LOL. She is way too young for him.

[popcultureboy]

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

Dame, you interrupted an intelligent thread on the theories about LOST when the second season premiered to ask whether Matthew Fox took his shirt off. So yeah, that you find character development boring, no real shock.

[BlueWizard]

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

According to IMDb, she's 95.

Last time I saw her, she was introducing GODS AND MONSTERS at the Golden Globes in 1998.

Apparently she played an "Old Lady" in a 2004 film called LAND OF PLENTY.

LOL. She is way too young for him.

Did you see Ian's Oscar date?

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

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:13pm

popcultureboy,
LOL. Yeah.. you got me there. You think he will take his shirt off this week? And just to clarify.. I don't find character deveopment boring. In this particular movie.. there was no character development.. just plot set up.

And yes..I do watch Lost just to see Matt Fox with his shirt off. I guarantee you I am not the only one.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 12:13 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:32pm

I've heard the "remakes never win Oscars" comment. And it IS a negative against KK. However, so was being a fantasy film for ROTK. It wouldn't shock me to see Jackson go against the odds again.

I think the acting in LOTR is stellar. I think huge casts often have trouble getting nominations due to screen time and splitting the votes. You have to really stick out like McKellan in FOTR and Dench in Shakespeare in Love to get past that hurdle. But, there were plenty of performance in all 3 LOTR films to merit nominations.

So far, KK only has acting Oscar buzz for Naomi Watts.

excerpt from oscarwatch.com:

"It's hard to imagine Peter Jackson topping his Lord of the Rings series but his King Kong comes pretty close to doing the job. It is one of the best movies of the year and guaranteed to be unlike anything ever put to screen. Just a quick heads up. The three hours fly by. Grown men cry. And Naomi Watts steals the show. "

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:35pm

I am sorry. But the three hours do not fly by. And you can ask anyone that has already seen the film since that seems to be the general consensus. And Naomi Watts does not steal any show.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 12:35 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:38pm

Well, clearly not "anyone" agrees with you. I know it may be difficult for you to accept this, but your opinions are not rule of the land.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:43pm

Here is what I don't understand. If KING KONG is supposed to be his homage to the original film that inspired him to be a film maker to begin with, how can Jackson's version be TWICE AS LONG? If the original was so brilliant, why did he feel the need to improve it? And I am not talking about special effects advancements since the original version was made.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:46pm

Who says he thinks he is trying to improve it? In fact, I believe he specifically said that that was not his intention.

This is a film he has loved since he was a kid. I would imagine he is

1. expanding the world of the film from his imagination

2. telling the story the way it might be told today--the way we make movies today

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:49pm

JRB,
Don't get bent out of shape. I enjoyed the film and I am sure you will too. The first hours is very boring.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:50pm

I haven't seen the film yet (obviously), but I've been keeping up with the reviews. The minor reviews (from Internet bloggers, et al) say that the first hour is a detriment, but the major reviewers (notably the London Times and the Daily Mail) are saying the three hours fly by and they wouldn't shave a minute off. Virtually all the reviews have been positive, if not full-out raves, so far. So this is gonna be interesting.

I've heard the "remakes never win Oscars" comment. And it IS a negative against KK. However, so was being a fantasy film for ROTK. It wouldn't shock me to see Jackson go against the odds again.

True, but even with RETURN OF THE KING's sweep, I still don't give the Academy much credence. The Academy had to practically have its arm twisted to recognize the RINGS films, and it was only after three successively-successful and acclaimed times that they finally gave in (remember FELLOWSHIP? It was heads and shoulders above everyone else the best film of 2001, yet the half-baked A BEAUTIFUL MIND took the top prize). After every critic's circle on this side of Jupiter named ROTK the best film of 2003, it would have been a huge scandal if the Academy ignored Jackson's trilogy again.

If the original was so brilliant, why did he feel the need to improve it?

Actually, Jackson has explicitly refused to say he was "improving" the original.

Who knows why it wasn't shortened? From an article in the Washington Post (I think), apparently he got the studio heads to watch it and give him any recommendations on how it should be trimmed, but they said it was fine.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 12:50 PM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:54pm

2. telling the story the way it might be told today--the way we make movies today.

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine is the only one in her group that HATED The English Patient. A friend of hers tells her it is even BETTER the second time! And Elaine asks, "What, did they make it LONGER?!!?"

And why remake it if you you don't intend to "improve" on the original.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:55pm

Makes sense that the major reviewers love the first hour and the bloggers don't. It's the same mentality that hated the first half of Titanic. "Let's get to the action and the deaths!"

Well, I bet I will love the first hour. When done well, I love soaking up the world of a film.

And, Dame, it probably doesn't help that I have no respect for you or your opinions in the first place. I'll try to keep that in mind whenever you post.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:57pm

And why remake it if you you don't intend to "improve" on the original.

To pay homage to it.

Again, according to various articles, Jackson originally envisioned (and budgeted) the film to be 2 hours 15 minutes. But during the editing process, he just felt that it needed 3 hours to tell the story properly (we'll all be the judge of that soon). So the length wasn't intentional: he's paying for it out of his own pocket.

I'm as worried and skeptical as anyone about the length of the film, but I'm not going to form an opinion until after I see it. I will say, though, that I'm excited to see the recreation of 1930s New York in the first hour of the film.

BTW, love that Seinfeld episode. Like Elaine, I found THE ENGLISH PATIENT overrated. It was like a slower, more pretentious and less romantic version of CASABLANCA.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 12:57 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 1:03pm

'It's the same mentality that hated the first half of Titanic.'

The first hour of TITANIC was brutal because the script was terrible and offered nothing to for the very good actors to play. Not saying KING KONG is the same way...but TITANIC may not have been the best choice, my dear jrb.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 1:04pm

I'm not so sure Munich will make it in the Oscar running. Buzz is very mixed. Walk the Line is a more likely candidate. And I think The Producers might slip in there as well (most likely to win the Golden Globe for Best Picture Musical/Comedy).

I'm thinking the Oscar nominees may stack up like this:

Walk the Line
Brokeback Mountain
Memoirs of a Geisha
King Kong
The Producers

With Munich and Capote as wild cards. Crash and Good Night and Good Luck might be the underdogs, but I doubt they'll make it in the race. Crash was released too early and Good Night and Good Luck received more mixed reviews than the others.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 1:04pm

Well, it certainly was for me in my "argument" that KK could win the Oscar.

And, the fact that I actually love Titanic. (and I'm NOT ashamed to admit it!!)

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 1:09pm

Darlin' boy...

Your argument was bloggers treated the first hour of TITANIC the same way as the first hour of KING KONG because they wanted deaths and action. As opposed to the fact that the first hour was just plain brutal (SPITTING OFF THE SIDE OF THE TITANIC?????????).

Of course you can love it! Just as I love GIRLS JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN...but that first hour is still BRUUUUUUUUUUUUUTAL!!!!!!!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 1:11pm

I think MUNICH will definitely make the line up, and probably be the frontrunner to win (see my thread for why) but I think its very possible something less controversial could do a sneak attack. I'm not sure we have a studio this year, though, with the balls or savvy to do it. If say the Weisnsteins were behind GEISHA - it could pull a Shakespeare in Love, but I doubt Sony is going to be able to wield that shrewd an Oscar race.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 1:16pm

jrb_actor,
Whatever. I still wont sleep with you. Maybe you shouldn't lie about your weight before meeting someone. ( You brought out the knives first).