The only remake I can think of, with serious Oscar potential that was actually good enough to be nominated is The Magnificent Seven, and it wasn't nominated (it's a remake of Seven Samurai, btw).

The original Ten Commandments wasn't a big deal (it was also a C. B. DeMille film) and the original Ben-Hur wasn't a big deal either (or is at least not remembered after the remake).

Although, having said that. Reaching back to the 1940s and 1950s looking for "remakes" is a bit weird, because some of those stories were being brought to color, or brought to big budgets or brought for different reasons than most remakes are brought to the screen now for.

The early Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur, especially the latter, were HUGE. The original Ben-Hur was the third or fourth highest grossing silent film of all time. It was massive. The most expensive film made up to that point, it was the first mega-event in American cinema (unless you want to count Birth of a Nation). It (along with The Big Parade) turned MGM into the powerhouse it became for the next 4 decades. Voters in 1959.....they had seen it. Some had probably helped make the thing.

Furthermore, MGM slapped a score on it and continued to re-release it throughout the 30s and 40s? Why? It kept making gobs of money for them. Ben-Hur was anything but forgotten come 1959.

Which led MGM to remake the movie, literally, to save the studio from going under. They knew everyone loved the original...were still willing to watch it with no sound except the score....so imagine it in Cinemascope! With dialogue! And Color! (although the original had some seqences in two-strip technicolor).

My point here is that I don't think Kong's chances are hurt one little, tiny bit by the remake factor. It's unimportant. The word we should be worrying about is GENRE, the reason Kong is a long shot.

bumps

I'm liking Kong's chances more and more every day.

Side note for much more knowledgeable Oscar buffs here:

The Warren Beatty movie Heaven Can Wait (Best Picture nominee) was a remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, right?

Nice catch, Valley Guy!

Yes, Beatty's Heaven Can Wait, nominated for, I believe, 9 Oscars including Best Picture, is a remake.

I really enjoyed the movie the whole way through, but the last 5 minutes or so, with Beatty's desperate grab for some pathos/importance/"serious movie street cred" brings the whole thing crashing down in a painful way. If ever a rotten ending torpedoed an otherwise wonderful movie, it's this one.

The more time passes, the more I'm feelng a nomination for Kong. A huge amount of attention to technicals is a given, but with a year like what we have, I don't think it's out of the question.

I wonder how Universal is going to play Kong.

It wouldn't be too hard for Kong to get the fifth (or sixth!) slot Golden Globe in drama (being that Walk the Line, Producers, etc. are all comedy/musical)

It wouldn't be too hard to get a PGA nomination.

Have you seen any of the new TV spots? They're really selling it as that big epic of the winter. The TV spot with The Poseidon Adventure focused on the scene with Jack Black in front of the massive stage: "Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... KONG!" Bookended with two moments of Ann Darrow and Kong's interactions (from what I can tell, those are the scenes that Peter Jackson completely nailed), it had a little action montage at the end but still looked damn classy by and large.

Yeah, which is why I think people missed the point of the second trailer. Trailer #2 primarily highlighted Ann and Kong (and the movie set up). It wasn't a money-shot trailer.

They have the big blockbuster audience I think, they are trying to sell the story. It's an interesting marketing campaign.

Good point there. They don't really need to have the trailer be like The Day After Tomorrow with a minute long stretch of epic orchestral music mixed with random action. The trailer is much more story based, as it seems to unfold in chronological order. Kudos for them not revealing too much either as Universal has often done with this sort of ad.

Also, what do you think of how they've released the posters? We didn't even see any until October, and after that teaser was out for two weeks, theaters have been flooded with posters and cardboard stand-ups featuring a number of different designs with both Ann and Kong on them. It's a much different way of going about it then the norm, but I think it's a nice change of pace.

Really, the Kong poster/advertising campaign is the same as the Rings films. There really wasn't a lot of Rings advertising before November.

Yup

Remember how despite being a benemoth, ROTK didn't have a single trailer released till September?

Remember how ROTK didn't really need advertisement as it was the highly anticipated 3rd of a hugely popular series?

Kong is not ROTK, Kong is FOTR.

I just hope Universal's low profile marketing approach won't backfire...

I don't think that's a very accurate comparison. King Kong is a huge piece of pop culture. Ask anyone on the street and they could tell you that Kong is a giant gorilla. Plenty of people have read LOTR, but at least in America, Kong is a huge pop culture presence.

Also, Peter Jackson and his three LOTR films are well known now. You could probably sell a significant amount of tickets just by saying it was directed by him.

Kong is not like FOTR.

true, but i think his point, and i agree very much, is Kong hasnt been a movie in 30 years and 70 years...

people know about him, and the story, sure...

but its definitely not apt to compare it too ROTK..."it was the highly anticipated 3rd of a hugely popular series". all you needed for ROTK, really, was a big teaser poster saying "ROTK, Dec. 17th".


all that said...i dont think lack of marketing is gonna be a problem.

If I was to compare a recent film to KK, it would be Jurassic Park. That said, KK still carries a bit of superiority over similar films because of Jackson's Oscar success.

Well that and thusfar I think that Kong has had considerably more marketing then Return of the King. Two trailers, numerous TV spots, posters and huge cardboard stand-ins all over theaters, they're really pulling out all the stops on this one. This is definitely a big marketing campaign, maybe the biggest of the winter.

I saw Kong in a Samsung cell phone ad.

Universal is much more tied into marketing than New Line seems to be.

If one was to compare Kong to any of the LOTR films it would have to be The Two Towers.
The Two Towers already had Felloship establish both the series' critical and box office success and everyone was very interested in seeing how this one was going to play out. Plus, the TTT trailer, I think really changed the series from LOTR fans to the most general appeal it will have recieved. Alot of people I know didn't even watch Fellowsip in theatres but were dying to see TTT because they caught up with the series over the year long break.

King Kong, while not part of a series, has the LOTR series as its foundation much like TTT has Fellowship.

Exactly.

And honestly folks, without any biases...would we all consider Kong if it wasn't for LOTR and Jackson?

I say no and no!

Would we have considered Gangs of New York or The Aviator if it wasn't Scorsese? No and No.

Don't be such an idiot Lecter, you know how much the people making a particular film goes into a film's chances.

Lord of the Rings and Jackson are HUGE factors in getting Kong nominated. None of us are denying that.

That doesn't mean that Kong = a LOTR movie, it's a different beast.

And it's not Towers either Raffiki, just stop trying to find an equal comparison.

No, adnaroo, there is a big difference there.

GONY and The Aviator are Oscar-material by themselves. Even without Scorcese, I am very sure they would have been considered, maybe not as early as these two were, but still.

King Kong is a movie about a giant ape wrecking havoc.

Do you see a difference, Oscars-wise, between that synopsis and the one that is a biopic of a mentally-challenged man who contributed lived during the Golden Ages of Hollywood?

Why have you become so aggressive all of a sudden?

First off, yes we would have considered Gangs of New York and The Aviator if it weren't Scorcese. They are both somewhat Oscar pedigree, Aviator much more. Once the films were released, Gangs probably wouldn't be too strong in contention but The Aviator, yes... all the way!

Second.... I'm not one for comparing Kong to the LOTR movies. I distinctly said "If one was to compare...". And I only said that because others were pointing out even more propostrous ideas.

It's supposed to be a discussion. I know sometimes I get out of hand when I'm all into it, so I'll say the same thing some have said to me in the past.... Just chill!

Bullshit. Without Scorsese (or another big director) no studio would have opened those two movies or even paid for them to be produced for the Oscar season. These movies were produced (maybe not by Scorsese) but by WB and Miramax solely to grab Oscars.


We all agree on this. We all agree that this is why the film isn't in the top of the predictions. However, if this issue is not that big of a deal then Kong would be considered a FRONTRUNNER for a nomination. As it is, it's most of our 6th or 7th (or lower) picks.


Yes. Nobody's denying that. Which is why Kong is a possibily not a sure thing.

Again you have missed the argument by miles Lecter. It's not about Kong being a "sure thing" it's about Kong being a very big POSSIBILITY.