that's a bit much, no?

This year's race will be known as the year of the "hads". Had Cinderella Man been released in the fall, had Munich been properly marketed, had Kong been trimmed... Most of the films in contention are there because of the folly of others.

I thought it was already discussed that the "mimic the Oscars" worry was unfounded? I'd rather have more time to see the great films that regular theatres don't play, so I can vote accordingly. Just my opinion.

And Downfall, you're right. I just never get to it because it isn't the most appealing film for me, but I know that if I rent it and finally watch it, I'm sure I'm in for something good since so many respectable posters here love it.

PEACE, Mike.

You ARE in for something good! Make sure you see it before voting, if possible.

And yes, we have discussed it which is why the deadline is after the announcement of the noms. Original plans had the deadline at the end of January. Still we wanted them at least before the winners are announced simply because when the Oscars are over, people usually move on and stop caring about any awards for the films of the previous year.

Had Kong not been a second remake about a giant monkey probaby had a lot more to do with things than anything to do with editing. It was just nothing that was going to be seriously considered because of that, no matter how much editing was done.

My comments also weren't referring to anybody posting on this site, it was just in reference to those on other sites who are supposed to be experts and acted like anything but.

Even Cinderella Man and Munich don't have critical support enough to suggest they would have made it "had" things went down differently in their release and campaigns. Nothing about Munich suggests it would have ever been a frontrunner, no matter how much of a push it was given, yet they were ready to award it 6 months ago. That just doesn't come off as credible to me when I see website experts doing that kind of stuff.

Cinderella Man certainly has enough critical support requeired for a Best Picture nominee. Here, I summed it up:

http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16462

Mav, I don't think you can blame places like Oscarwatch for throwing themselves against Munich at first. With absolutely nothing else on the horizon, what else can you do? The site has to operate for most of the year without anything to coverage. Speculation is just that-speculation. Moreover, Munich turned out to be a damn fine movie worthy of that Oscar. It's gotten a strong critical response (for the most part) and it's been doing fine enough on Top 10 lists and at smaller awards shows. That, and two big GG nominations are nothing to downplay. I don't think anyone has really misfired here. Things just didn't play out perfectly for Munich.

Not enough to make it a serious contender or something that could bump Walk the Line.

Well, I think they need to learn the difference between what a frontrunner is and what looks good on paper.

What's the difference six months out? Or, now. Compare Munich and Crash critically. Even though Crash will probably end up with a BP nomination over Munich, it doesn't have any advantage on paper. And, from months out, how can one logically put it, having a first time director, ahead of a Speilberg picture?

The difference is that nothing had even been seen 6 months ago from Munich, while Crash and Cinderella Man had been seen.

If you subscribe to awarding and praising films before they've been screened, honestly, I'm probably not going to take you seriously, either. No offense, but it's one thing to look at things objectively and a completely different thing to start calling something a frontrunner all year just because Spielberg (who has been given plenty already) directed it, and I'm saying that as somebody who considers Spielberg to be the best.

Two movies might have been released, but last time I checked there are 5 films up for BP review. As an Oscar site, how can you not pick out a few other contenders? I don't see what the big deal is, considering Oscarwatch offers commentary. It's biased. That's the point of commentary, right? They're not even that far off, considering Munich is still in the race for a big award or two. I don't fault them for reviewing the facts and picking the biggest name over the smaller ones. When you're so far away, what else can you do?

Last time I checked, when there are TWO movies in contention, the movie that hasn't been screened or even filmed doesn't move ahead of them and become a frontrunner.

Oscarwatch has a bit more responsibility to all of these than any of us do. Would people have seriously have been calling Munich the frontrunner to win it all or even considering Kong if they weren't going on and on about it? That's their right, but it's also my right to not give them credibility until they earn it. They didn't earn it this year with that nonsense. Not from my POV.

Until the bottom dropped on RT, EVERYONE minus a few were talking about the second coming of Kong. We shouldn't single out Oscarwatch.

I guess I expect Oscarwatch, since they are the #1 source of awards season information on the net, to look at the bigger picture. We are allowed to put blinders on without worrying about being responsible, sites like Oscarwatch.com should be more accountable than that. They didn't appear to care if they were or not, and that's disappointing to me. Even Sasha has commented on being called out for that KK stuff.

In Poland's defense, he was the main proponent of Capote and The Constant Gardener all year.


The motto of Oscarwatch is "nobody knows anything".

The problem I'm having is that people are now "auditing" the season, and when they are auditing the season, they forget all the reasoning and just remember the predictions.

The idea of "holding someone accountable" for what is essentially a game is really pathetic.

It's not a game to them.

Is that sour grapes over your supporting Kong with nothing concrete, too?

Of course it's a game to them. Even if they make money, it's a game, it's all a game.


This is what I'm takling about. There is nothing "concrete".

It's only educated guesses, and hopes, and putting together stats and analysis. It doesn't matter whether you are like us... no names on an unimportant website or some gossip rag reporter for USA Today.

You can't hold anybody to task for making guesses or having discussion.

Well, when we discuss it on a messageboard, it's guesswork. You know full well how I used logic and history to say that Kong never had a chance. The results backed that up 100%.

Neither of us is accountable for any of that.

When it's taken to the stage, as Oscarwatch foolishly did, that's when it becomes accountable. That's how website's gain and lose credibility and gets people coming back for more. These people have more invested than members of a website forum, so they need to come off more logical, not report on their hopes and wishes and convince people that any of that matters.

The concrete evidence against KK having no chance was overwhelming. Nothing suggested BP considerations. This is what sites like OW are supposed to exist for, not to give false support and false hopes to others. The whole KK campaign (that she was called out for and remarked about it) will be remembered by me the next time she says anything Oscar related. That's the price of flubbing it so badly on the big stage. David Poland, last I saw, was still trying to deny Clooney for GNAGL.

I said previously, and I'll say it again. Even though Kong isn't nominated, I still don't believe that a lot of what you said had any validity. Some of your reasoning made very little sense. That's just difference of opinion.

That said, I knew you were going to have these sort of, "I told you so" discussions, and honestly, it's beginning to wear on my nerves a bit. I mean, you've seen it yourself, how many times do I need to "apologize" for Brokeback Mountain or Capote or acknowledge that even though I don't like Crash, it's getting nominated.


You can expect NOTHING from a site who's owner continuously reports on anything that "may" lead Oscarish and who continually restates that nobody, however great the statistics, knows the outcome until the night of the awards.


No it wasn't, not really. It just didn't happen. We can only guess as to why not, and that's not "concrete" as you say, either. We will never know how close Kong or The Constant Gardener or Transamerica or Syriana got to being nominated for Best Picture. They just weren't *the final five*.

Nobody's arguments have been proven or disproven this year completely. It never happens. Even the post-Oscar reasoning is all guesswork, and can be questioned again later as well (Chocolat?)

I never saw an argument for KK (the second remake) that didn't speak of fanboyism. I know that aggrivates you to hear, but I can't think of another way to put it. The results speak for themselves and back up everything I said. You can stick to telling me that I took a lucky guess if you wish, but it doesn't make it true.



Your constant defense and sensitivity whenever it's discussed is wearing on my nerves, honestly. Do you own stock in KK or Peter Jackson that you always get bent out of shape by it being pointed out that KK was never a consideration? Comeon, andaroo, admit it, if it had been considered, you would be singing from the mountain tops...lol I've been pretty good about not rubbing it in, considering how much I could.



I knew KK wasn't going to be considered. I knew it was a waste of time talking about it. I'm not the only one who knew better.



Yes it was. Step back and look at the situation objectively. Everything I said...EVERYTHING...were the reasons KK wasn't considered. This isn't a case of hindsight. KK was not considered. It didn't even get the guild support the Kong fans were expecting, that's how little it was considered to be more than what I always said it was, a popcorn movie. Popcorn movies, regardless of quality (Spider-Man 2) don't get considered for BP. Neither do remakes. Neither do second remakes. neither do second remakes about Giant apes that was lifted from a classic that will always be seen as superior. All of these arguments are not points I'm bringing up for the first time, but they are all the reason PJ won't be at this year's Oscars. I would have said that if it was my favorite film of the year. I certainly wasn't preaching SM 2 last year, and KK had nothing on it. Quite the contrary.



There is guesswork and then there are obvious things. King Kong and Fantastic Four getting a BP nom? Never gonna happen. Crash? It was possible.

Noami Watts getting a best actress nom for reprising a role that Fay Wray would always own? Never gonna happen. (a point I also made several times when people where trying to argue for Watts, who I felt was one of the top 5 performances of the year for actresses)

See, it's all about thinking like them, not hoping they think like us. I have done that all season. That's why I knew KK had no chance and that Sith had no chance.

Which is why we can never communicate on this subject, because despite our conversations, you continuously feel the need to press this issue and revisit it, over, and over, and over, and over, and over.


The thing is, it doesn't make it true either way. It could be a lucky guess, it could be what actually happened. We just don't know. You can't prove any of this to anybody. Maybe to yourself. We will never know if Peter Jackson would have been the 6th Oscar "nominated" director. We don't know what kind of support it had or did not have and what kind of reasoning went into people's decisions other than the few who speak up.


You just can't prove it. It's a theory. Nothing you can say, will bring any validity to yours (or mine, or anybody else's) arguments.

It's a game. You scored a point. What do you want out of it? A medal? Written in a stone tablet? Do you think Oscarwatch, Poland, Gold Derby should be shut down? Should we shut down the forums and stop having discussions?

I can prove it. When one movie after another disappointed (and KK didn't disappoint) they STILL went all the way back to April to find a movie that WASN'T King Kong. They would have went to Cinderella Man next. Something else next. Peter Jackson had been given enough 2 years ago, which was another point I kept having to make.

Anyway, the SAG awards are ready to start. Let's enjoy them.

Winners:

PICTURE – Brokeback Mountain
DIRECTOR – Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
ACTOR – Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
ACTRESS – Naomi Watts, King Kong
SUPPORTING ACTOR – Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
SUPPORTING ACTRESS – Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
ENSEMBLE – Crash
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY – Crash
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY – Brokeback Mountain
NON-FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM – 2046
ANIMATED FILM – Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of Were-Rabbit
CINEMATOGRAPHY – 2046
EDITING – The Constant Gardener
ART DIRECTION – King Kong
COSTUME DESIGN – The Memoirs of a Geisha
ORIGINAL SCORE – Brokeback Mountain
ORIGINAL SONG – “A Love That Will Never Grow Old”, Brokeback Mountain
SOUND MIXING – King Kong
SOUND EDITING – War of the Worlds
VISUAL EFFECTS – King Kong
MAKEUP – Sin City

Brokeback Mountain – 7
King Kong – 4
Crash – 2
The Constant Gardener – 2
2046 – 2
Wallace and Gromit – 1
Memoirs of a Geisha – 1
War of the Worlds – 1
Sin City - 1

Look back at INOCA and our own awards, we could find striking similarities, and I found that interesting because both consist of just general cinema lovers. It seems like once the group has enough people to cover different tastes and who have seen enough films, the nominations and winners tend to converge. Crash bashing is just as strong and vocal at OscarWatch forum as it has been here, but it still ends up with two awards.