Neither does King Kong, but if they were going to pick one or the other, it wouldn't be KK.

I admit (something Mav isn't able to) that i'm somewhat biased towards PJ (hey, who can blame me, he did a terrific job adapting my favorite book ), however, i'm not arguing about PJ here, this is about Ep3 being eligible for a best pic Oscar, which it is simply not.

I really don't think anybody takes your opinion as an educated one, which it simply is not.

Episode III is *eligible* for every single award this year accept Best Actress (they aren't running a candidate) animated film, animated short, best song, documentary, documentary short form and foreign film.

There's no point in arguing with a jealous fanboy...

Theoreticly...

I wouldn't say that Ep3 has absolutely zero chance of a nod. You never know with the Academy.



Why Mav, have you or members of the Academy seen a special screen of King Kong?
How can you judge that they wouldn't pick KK over Ep3.

And if you're basing it on politics, anyone with any kind of Oscar knowledge of the past 5 years or so would undoubtedly conclude that the Academy would be more inclined to pick KK over SW without havng seen either.

Hardly. Why exactly would they pick KK? Share this Oscar knowledge of the past 5 years with all of us.

Are. you. retarded.

Can't you read?

"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."

ROTS was released in May, summer blockbuster season. ROTS is tagged in with the detested prequel trilogy. ROTS is Sci-Fi. ROTS is very very cut short in the acting department.

KK is released in December, prime Oscar season. KK is 3 hours long, is a period piece, and is an epic. KK has an Oscar winning director in its corner. KK has deep acting cred on its side in Brody, Watts, and to a lesser extent Jack Black.

Revenge of the Sith has nothing, I repeat, nothing on King Kong in terms of being set-up for Oscar Best Picture potential.

Hey you stupid ignorant asshole, watch your fucking attitude.

Gladiator was released in may.


Star Wars was nominated.


We don't know what Kong will be like.


That just helps the movie (if the length does help it), it doesn't help its Oscar chances.


That just helps the movie, it doesn't help its Oscar chances.


That is debatable.


Episode III comes from an Oscar nominated director.


Star Wars has Ewan McGreggor as well as Ian.


In my opinion, I agree with this, but your argument isn't as 100% sound as you claim.

Generally though, December IS a better Oscar-month than May, by far. Gladiator made it, but thats one movie among 90% holiday season winners. We can bring up exceptions to all of our reasoning about Oscar-season, and we would get nowhere. The point is that KK has has much more in its corner that points to Oscar possibilities than ROTS ever had. ROTS, however great it was, had no shot at Oscar when it was released. What Lucas put out WAS the best he could possibly do, and it still won't get close. King Kong has multiple other shots in its corner that point to Oscar possibility.

Mav is looking at it like they're on equal footing, and saying if they won't go to Lucas then they won't go to Jackson. But they're not on equal footing. In generalization:

December beats May Oscar-wise
Period piece and epic beats Sci-fi. (For the record I do think being a period piece helps Oscar chances)
3 hours is always an Oscar-ploy
Jackson beats Lucas. Jackson won Best Director just 2 years ago, Lucas was barely nominated 28 years ago. Hes fresh, and is still on the rise in the hopes to reach superstardom. This is likely Lucas's last gasp, as SW is finally over.
Brody and Watts, in generalization, ARE better actors than most of SW's cast. Ian is good, but hes supporting and playing an evil character.

I'm not saying KK is going to be nominated. What I am saying, is that KK's possibilities------------x100> ROTS's possibilities. Easily.

Which is why Maverick is allowed to have his opinion. Your comment was that it was 100% fact. It definately is not.


This statement doesn't make snese.

The best reasoning for Star Wars and Lucas not being nominated hasn't even come up.

The best reasoning is that during the feud with the guilds in regards to how Lucas got screwed over on Empire, he quit the Director's Guild and the Writer's Guild. He hates unions, and has also routinely come up against organizations such as SAG. When you piss off SAG, the Director's Guild and Writer's Guild, a lot of your opportunity for acknowledgement in these guildish run events (all members of the academy are in one guild or another) hurts it.

It's also why he probably will have a tough time getting a Lifetime achievement award.

Kid, if you keep up your argumentative shit, I'm gonna send you home whining to mama, I promise.

You're right, they aren't on equal footing. Show me one example of a remake (2nd remake) that has ever won best picture or even been nominated, and then throw in the fantasy aspect on top of that, and then throw in Jackson's overwhelming accolades 3 years in a row with a one year break.

It's got no shot. You are the one who has proved time and again at these forums that you can't take your head out of your ass long enough to see anything from any perspective but your own. You have seriously humilated yourself in one discussion after another, and have now got a reputation for throwing dumb arguments out one after another.

In closing, who's judgement do you think I'll be trusting, mine or yours?

My mistake if I didn't clarify, the 'He' in 'Hes still on the...' was referring to Peter Jackson.

Robert Rodriguez will probably learn the same lesson. I think it's time they let it go. It's as bad as not letting Pete Rose into the baseball hall of fame.

Ah hah, but it was. Read it again.

I said "King Kong is released in December, which is prime Oscar month"

King Kong IS released in December, and although there are exceptions, December of all the months IS the prime Oscar month.

Whatever. I'm done in this thread for a while.

Titanic.

Fucky PJ and lucas fanboys,always making threads funny!

I remember thinking that Million Dollar Baby's chances for the Oscar might've been tarnished by Mystic River's multiple nominations (and ultimate snubbing) the year before, and a general feeling that Eastwood had already been given his due for Unforgiven.

Then, of course, Million Dollar Baby turned out to be quite brilliant, and all bets were off.

Likewise, it's true Jackson's recent win for ROTK might harm his chances of being nominated again this year. Even if it's a great film and well worthy of nomination, it'll probably be an uphill struggle for Jackson to get recognised again so soon. The film will have to be a masterpiece if it stands any chance of winning the Oscar.

That said, the fact that it's a fantasy/adventure with a giant ape in the lead role should have no bearing on its Oscar chances, just as ROTK being a fantasy/adventure with a hobbit in the lead role had no bearing on its Oscar chances. I remember a few people back on BOM claimed the academy would never award a fantasy film the Oscar for Best Picture. Their reasoning? It had never happened before, there was no precedent. In the end, the lack of precedent mattered very little. The film was that good.

At present, if there is a precedent for King Kong to be nominated, it's the fact that it's being made by someone who's managed to break Academy precedent numerous times before.

BOOO


HOORAY

Awww...



Awww!

Confirmed... loyal hates Million Dollar Baby.

Confirmed... loyal likes Me You And Everyone We Know.

I go back and forth on this issue.