SubscribeCan 'King Kong' climb to best picture heights?
With one fist clutching Naomi Watts, expect to see a big hairy ape use his other paw to grab best picture bids at the Golden Globes and Oscars.
Impossible, you say? Especially at the Oscars where voters usually prefer snootier, arty fare like "Lost in Translation," "The Hours" and "In the Bedroom"?
Ha! That's usually true, but I stand by this prediction anyway — shoulder to shoulder (or shoulder to ankle) with "King Kong".
Here's why: for starters, the movie is directed by Peter Jackson, who's proven he can get academy voters to gobble up popcorn pix. Not only did "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" win best picture, but it tied the all-time Oscar record and actually topped it by becoming the biggest undefeated champ in the kudos' history.
Sure, "King Kong" is in trouble Down Under as Jackson replaces its music composer at the last sec and the pic appears to be running out of control, spilling over three hours. But it's obviously great even without a final, polished score. Recently, "Kong" got a rousing ovation from a screening audience in New Zealand, which saw the pic with only a temp, rough score in place. And in terms of its length: Has everyone already forgotten that "Return of the King" was 3 hours, 21 minutes long?
It's significant that Jackson has doubled the running time of the 1933 original. That's allowed him to do three things.
1.) Flesh out the love story between Naomi and Adrien Brody. Assuming that story works, "Kong" could have the same dual attraction that blockbuster "Titanic" did: a wild romantic heart throbbing along with the fast pulse of an action pic.
2.) Load up on dazzling special effects while taking ample time to explore the spooky, misty wilds of Skull Island, thus adding stronger emotional elements.
3.) Expand the psychological complexity of the movie's lead characters, thus giving them more substance, while also fleshing out the plot so it can better explore the theme of commercial man exploiting innocent beast.
Obviously, this "King Kong" will have more substance, which heightens its award chances. And there's every reason to believe that the man who gave Oscar voters "Return of the King" might continue to champion the return of the blockbuster to the best picture races. Globe voters have never pooh-poohed them and Oscar voters have only done so recently. Look back at Oscar history and you can spy lots of blockbusters once up for the top prize, including "Jaws," "The Towering Inferno" and "Airport." Surely, academy voters could have renewed respect for them while a crisis of plunging ticket sales currently plagues the box office.
Furthermore, there's a quirk of Oscar voting that should help "Kong" climb up to the top award rungs while shimmying up the Empire State Building. Remember how nomination voting works: academy members are restricted to their peer-group categories plus best picture. A sound engineer gets to vote in three categories and will probably list "Kong" in all of them: the loudest movies almost always get bids for sound awards, after all. With that big ape's deafening roar ringing in their mind's ear, they're all the more likely to list it in among their five faves for nest pic.
That's how big, sprawling epic movies so often get nominated for best picture. They get swept along with the tide of voting in the tech/crafts races. And remember what usually happens to the movie with the most nominations: in 17 out of the past 20 years, it's won best picture.
Yikes! Can this "King" really seize the same Oscar crown that Jackson's last "King" did?
It's a big too early to make that prediction.
The best "fantasy" movie of the year was BATMAN BEGINS. It was very well acted as well. Narnia and Kong won't get nominated. But a nomination for the Dark Knight would be cool...especially since all the other movies were so...not BATMAN..and very poor.
Posted by: Patrick Wilson | November 10, 2005 at 06:08 PM
I agree with you on those main points. The movie does look amazing, and i love Peter Jackon's work. Howevere, the film dosen't seem to have the same intricat story line as LOTR had, nor as a compeling either. But this is what i get from the trailer, soi could be completely wrong. Another thing that made LOTR so great, was the fact that it had never been done before, and "Kong" has, twice. And to CGOutcast "...look at who worked on it, directors writers and such, that will usually lend a hand at finding a good movie..." I do look at those, things, i have to, i am a film student. However, just because a great filmmaker has put out a great film dosen't mean that everything he's makes will be as good. Steven Spielberg has made amazing films, but he also has made crape, al a "1941". And the same goes for every filmmaker. Know don't get me wrong, i think King Kong will be amazing, just not Best Picture material. Sorry that was so long winded.
Posted by: Patrick McGee | November 10, 2005 at 03:34 PM
Ok Patrick like i said before, when I first looked at trailers and posters for lord of the rings I started thinking "man who wants to see a movie that long about some elves and trolls seems boring" you are judging the movie all wrong, i like going by directors, and peter jackson aint no pushover. I saw Jarhead last night, good movie by the way, and the preview for kong played right before the movie, anyway ive seen the preview many times here at home and seeing it on the big screen just made it even more epic and grand. I am extremely eager to see this movie, yea you never know if its gonna be good but never judge a movie off face value, look at who worked on it, directors writers and such, that will usually lend a hand at finding a good movie...
Posted by: CGOutcast | November 08, 2005 at 09:50 AM
"King Kong" will most likely get a lot of nominations in the technical catagories, but Best Picture? Come one. That's like me saying "Revenege of the Sith" or "Harry Potter" has a chance at Best Picture. Sure they may get nominations, and meybe best director isn't to far out of reach, Best Picture I don't think so. "Lord of the Rings" was an amazing and visually stunning film, based on a story that eveybody loved. And King Kong is about a big munkey. A three hour long movie about a big monkey.
Posted by: Patrick McGee | November 08, 2005 at 06:32 AM
Also significant is the fact that Universal is confident about this picture they've scheduled early screenings for critics with a temp score. They're not even doing this for Cinderella Man.
Posted by: OhHellYeah | November 07, 2005 at 11:14 AM
Sorry, Narnia won't be nominated. It's getting zero buzz in those circles. And it's buzz that counts.
Posted by: OhHellYeah | November 07, 2005 at 11:11 AM
Seems like a huge stretch. Especially since LOTR was a dazzling LOOKING series of films, but preposterously weak in so many other ways. It had an epic, heartbreaking, beloved story from Tolkien powering it that he decimated, but the source material was so powerful and the technical filmmaking so amazing it was hard to resist.
He's not going to have that this time.
Of course that swill Titanic won best pic, so anything can happen, but I'm laying heavy money against.
Posted by: Dave Cullen | November 06, 2005 at 12:46 PM
"The fact that C S Lewis and J R R Tolkien were good friends and wrote their books about the same time does not make Narnia a sure thing in fact history has proven that with the exception of the Rings Trilogy no other scifi fantasy has ever won a Best Picture Nomination..."
Huh??? surely you mean that no other sci-fi/fantasy movie has won a Best Pic Oscar, not a nom, right? After all, if that were the case then STAR WARS, E.T., RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and THE WIZARD OF OZ weren't nommed for Best Pic, but they were. Heck, one could even even argue that nominees from the past 10 years like BABE and CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON were fantasy movies too. But RETURN OF THE KING is currently the only one to win Best Pic.
The difference between TITANIC and KING KONG at the Oscars is simple. The other TITANIC movies weren't considered one of the greatest and most classic movies in history. TITANIC had been made as a movie starring Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck and it only won a best orig. screenplay Oscar and wasn't beloved that much. I hadn't even heard of it until the 1997 TITANIC came out. And then there was A NIGHT TO REMEMBER and hardly anyone has seen it, even though some argue it's still the best and most accurate movie made about the TITANIC. But still it's not considered one of the greatest movies ever made like the original KING KONG movie. And then there was a TV movie of TITANIC starring George C. Scott and Catherine Zeta-Jones (before she became popular) the year before the James Cameron movie and it sucked. KING KONG has been remade before in the 1970s and it sucked, and while I doubt that PJ's version of KONG will suck at all (I expect it to be very good actually), it has WAAAAAY more to live up to than TITANIC did. NARNIA doesn't have as much to live up to as KING KONG does and it's chances are stronger as a result. Still, I guess that doesn't mean that it'll be nommed for Best Pic though, does it? But I think it will.
Posted by: The Movie Geek | November 06, 2005 at 09:52 AM
Ok so I am a huge King Kong fan though must say that I sincerely wish Andrew all the best as he is a fellow New Zealander. Man the possibility of having both King Kong and The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe nominated would be totally awesome and hey I would be happy either way. Still on a more serious note, a point to observe must be made to The Movie Geek and that is that Titanic had practically been made to death before James Cameron's version won a Best Picture Oscar so the been their done that theory does not really hold much water plus King Kong as much as it is heavily influenced by the 1933 original is still not so much a remake than a new interpretation of a classic ill fated love story. The fact that C S Lewis and J R R Tolkien were good friends and wrote their books about the same time does not make Narnia a sure thing in fact history has proven that with the exception of the Rings Trilogy no other scifi fantasy has ever won a Best Picture Nomination so with that said I guess that basically means that no matter how great either film may be etc they are both outsiders to a category that is normally dominated by True Story adaptions or real out there Artsy pieces, though there has definately been some notable exceptions a long the way so at the end of the day who knows. - I would like to raise by glass to both Peter and Andrew and just finish with good luck my fellow kiwi's may the best film win or at least get a nomination
Posted by: Malasiah | November 06, 2005 at 01:39 AM
Hey Tommy. Your right, there is gonna be a huge blockbuster movie nommed for Best Pic, and it's gonna be a sci-fi/fantasy-type of movie too. And it's gonna be made by a New Zealand director. Only problem is, it ain't gonna be KING KONG. It's gonna be THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH, & THE WARDROBE, got it? KING KONG is a remake of one of the best and most beloved classic movies in the entire history of cinema and the Oscars will never give it a Best Pic nom. THE LION, THE WITCH, & THE WARDROBE doesn't have to live up to that. It's more along the lines of LORD OF THE RINGS because it wasn't made as a movie before except as an animated movie on TV and it's based on a classic and beloved fantasy book. That means that the Oscars won't look at it and say "been there, done that" like they will when the see KING KONG. Plus, J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were great friends and wrote both their stories at the same time so its only fitting that the Oscars go for THE LION, THE WITCH, & THE WARDROBE over KING KONG. Yeah, it's not as mature as LOTR, but they nommed other kid movies before, like MARY POPPINS, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, and BABE, plus screenplay noms for TOY STORY, FINDING NEMO, SHREK, and THE INCREDIBLES, a best actor nom for Johnny Depp in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, and they'll continue it with NARNIA. In case you haven't noticed, all but two of those are Disney movies and one of them is an Andrew Adamson movie. Plus, let's not forget they nommed E.T. too. Once the NARNIA bandwagon starts rolling, everyone's gonna be jumping on it.
Posted by: The Movie Geek | November 05, 2005 at 08:56 PM
To many people are writing King Kong off as just another monster flick featuring an overgrown ape, This is no Mighty Joe Young or Godzilla - This is King Kong the movie that in 1933 saved RKO from potential bankruptsy (though yes it hasn't escaped me in regards to it never being nominated for an Oscar) to become one of the most iconic movies of all time. You need to get your head past the fact that King Kong in this the 2005 edition is a big monkey surrounded by big budget special effects, as this is the one that Peter Jackson is hoping will make you all forget those that have come before it. Now an Oscar candidate for best picture in 2006 I most definately think so WHY you may deservedly ask?. Well simply put King Kong is more than just awe inspiring special effects but a character piece at heart - An epic love story engulfed in tragedy much like James Camerons Titanic. Something that we all know from the rings trilogy that Peter Jackson is right at home with. He is also right at home with being an under dog and in the race for the Oscars that is exactly where a lot of you are placing Peter Jackson and his King Kong movie as the under dog, a big money earner but nothing more. One thing that seems to be lost on a lot of you is this is not simply a technical marvel but an emotional master piece and if we look back at previous Best Picture Winners - Titanic, Gladiator, Braveheart, Out of Africa, Chariots of Fire and the list goes on. We note that these previous winners have been big draw cards not just because of big notable performances but by bringing their audience to their knees with a double helping of tear jerking emotion, and though emotion alone does not a best picture candidate make it sure does go along way to adding a lot of promise. Still hey this film has a larger than life story I'm sure, some interesting casting choices i.e Adrien Brody and Jack Black, a three time Oscar winning director at the helm Peter Jackson (with whom this was the reason he became a film maker in the first place due to the 1933 King Kong being his favourite movie of all time), Oscar Winning Special Effects team Weta Digital and Weta Workshop, some pre theatrical release controversy in the form of the last minute replacement of Oscar winning composer Howard Shore and some on set safety issues to add a little colour to the behind the scenes story, Enough money invested in it to save a third world country and finally and more importantly it was made right here in New Zealand, so man it has to win and I stand behind the big prediction that has been made that it will. Bring that baby home Pete we know YOU CAN DO IT!!!!.
Posted by: Malasiah | November 05, 2005 at 01:52 PM
To many people are writing King Kong off as just another monster flick featuring an overgrown ape, This is no Mighty Joe Young or Godzilla - This is King Kong the movie that in 1933 saved RKO from potential bankruptsy (though yes it hasn't escaped me in regards to it never being nominated for an Oscar) to become one of the most iconic movies of all time. You need to get your head past the fact that King Kong in this the 2005 edition is a big monkey surrounded by big budget special effects, as this is the one that Peter Jackson is hoping will make you all forget those that have come before it. Now an Oscar candidate for best picture in 2006 I most definately think so WHY you may deservedly ask?. Well simply put King Kong is more than just awe inspiring special effects but a character piece at heart - An epic love story engulfed in tragedy much like James Camerons Titanic. Something that we all know from the rings trilogy that Peter Jackson is right at home with. He is also right at home with being an under dog and in the race for the Oscars that is exactly where a lot of you are placing Peter Jackson and his King Kong movie as the under dog, a big money earner but nothing more. One thing that seems to be lost on a lot of you is this is not simply a technical marvel but an emotional master piece and if we look back at previous Best Picture Winners - Titanic, Gladiator, Braveheart, Out of Africa, Chariots of Fire and the list goes on. We note that these previous winners have been big draw cards not just because of big notable performances but by bringing their audience to their knees with a double helping of tear jerking emotion, and though emotion alone does not a best picture candidate make it sure does go along way to adding a lot of promise. Still hey this film has a larger than life story I'm sure, some interesting casting choices i.e Adrien Brody and Jack Black, a three time Oscar winning director at the helm Peter Jackson (with whom this was the reason he became a film maker in the first place due to the 1933 King Kong being his favourite movie of all time), Oscar Winning Special Effects team Weta Digital and Weta Workshop, some pre theatrical release controversy in the form of the last minute replacement of Oscar winning composer Howard Shore and some on set safety issues to add a little colour to the behind the scenes story, Enough money invested in it to save a third world country and finally and more importantly it was made right here in New Zealand, so man it has to win and I stand behind the big prediction that has been made that it will. Bring that baby home Pete we know YOU CAN DO IT!!!!.
Posted by: Malasiah | November 05, 2005 at 01:46 PM
I don't know why Lord of The Ring andTitanic got Oscars. I know: they made a lot of money. Both are not great movies.
Posted by: Welington | November 05, 2005 at 01:12 PM
Ok, so far I've heard what is expected of people for a movie like this, but just think if you will, I had no idea what Lord of the Rings was truly about before the movies, I never read the books. I looked at it like some of you are looking at King Kong, for example, a little midget taking a ring and being chased by demons and fights with trolls, goblins, and such. I mean come on you can look at Lord of the Rings and make the same narrow viewpoint that its too much Fantasy, of course it had a HUGE fan base before the movies came out but still, to become a blockbuster like it did shows that it was interesting enough for people to get into it becuase of the way Peter Jackson portrayed it on the Big Screen. I think no one should shoot down a movie saying it has no chances when you dont even know the NEW plot, same iconic images but a re-interpretation of it. So in closing I would just like to say this movie has great potential, being directed by a man who has loved King Kong since he was a child, thats whats most important to me about this film, he cares deeply about making this movie good. Don't shoot down movies without knowing the key to any GREAT movie, a good story. I'm a little tired of war films and things based on true events getting all the credit when there are soo many great stories out there that are just as good... judge a movie by its story and character elements not that there is a BIG APE on the screen, I can say Lord of the Rings is unbelievable because it has a wizard and trolls, but I would be lying because it was an awesome Trilogy.
Posted by: CGOutcast | November 05, 2005 at 10:47 AM
I think Kong will be the financial blockbuster it's intended to be. It will garner Oscars but NOT best picture. There MIGHT be a surprise. The one NO ONE has mentioned so far. JACK BLACK. Jack Black is one of the most watchable actors out there. He is good real good. He has been in a lot of very good movies and ALWAYS steals the scenes he is in. The Academy has a tendendcy to ignore comedians with the excetpion of Robin Williams who got his award unjustly. He deserved it for 1 Hour Photo but not for Good Will Hunting. Jack Black is the real thing and audiences know it and love it. People like to watch him wondering what he will do or say next because he is unpredictable and manages to do the right thing for any scene he is in. But like most funny men he is not considered serious. I find it hypocritical that actors all claim the difficulty of 'doing' comedy but when it comes time to pass out the awards which are always hosted by comedians by the way, the funnny people lag behind. If Kong makes the box office it's supposed to it will be because of the 2 800 lb. gorillas and NOT Adrien Brody which I think is a poor choice for the romantic lead in an action movie especially when he has to compete with the energy of Jack Black.
Posted by: joe Hall | November 05, 2005 at 08:55 AM
Kudos to you Tom for having the balls to predict Kong. Too many people are underestimating this film because it's "popcorn". Not in Peter Jackson's hands. Besides, Oscar races are so much more interesting when we have less conventional contenders. Open your minds people! Kong is the PERFECT antidote to a season that just may become bogged down by "message" movies (Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana, etc.).
Posted by: OhHellYeah | November 05, 2005 at 01:01 AM
King Kong IS goingh to get nomimated for best picture, and its going to WIN, and anyone who doesn't think so doesn't know what they're talking about because they are full of poop. Samuel Jackson won witrh Lord of the rings, didn't he? And hes gong to win again, and anyone who doesn't think so doesn't like movies to begin with and their brains are filled with poop, because they are great big poopyheads!!!!!
Posted by: cc | November 04, 2005 at 08:27 PM
Oscar curse? If the Oscar curse holds true then why is Rob Marshall's latest movie, Memoirs of a Geisha, being touted as a potential best picture contender? Shouldn't his win for Chicago mean that his next flick would be cursed when it came to getting nominations??
Posted by: GLA | November 04, 2005 at 06:45 PM
I'm skeptical. Has no one heard of the Oscar curse? Everytime a director sweeps the awards, his follow-up is either a disaster or is shut out of the awards. So many examples: Redford followed Ordinary People with Milagro Beanfield War, Brooks followed Terms of Endearment with Broadcast News (fine film, but no golden boys), Spielberg's first serrious film after Schindler's List was teh dreadful Amistad, Ron Howard followed Beautiful Mind with the disappointing Missing, so on and so on.
Posted by: I,Claudius | November 04, 2005 at 04:17 PM
i'm probably going to avoid this film for as long as i can. why? because i wept during the original, i wept through the remake, and i'm not looking forward to this new one, watching King Kong drop like a stone from "the twin towers", itself an awful thing. and i am a huge fan of peter jackson's. his films, and in particular lotr trilogy, is nothing short of astonishing. but the anthropocentricity of man is too much for me to bear. i hope it wins, but if it does, i'll be shocked. oscars are similar to figure-skating. it's not really about the best performance, and i dont believe it ever has been, although sometimes the best picture actually does win. coincidence. when i want to see a list of the best films, i watch cannes.
Posted by: babypook | November 04, 2005 at 04:08 PM
Although Peter Jackson propelled The Lord of the Rings Trilogy to massive Oscar gold, the thought of KIng Kong being just as big is a bit out there. The LOTR trilogy brought something new to the big screen which is hard to come by when releasing a movie of fiction. I have no doubt that moviegoers will bump King Kong up to the top of the box office, but top box office hits are not always Academy worthy. Especially if the movie is a mythical story about an 800 pound "Thing" (see-Hulk). The story does not capture a new realm of cinema. One reason is because this story has been done before, without the new technological advances we have come accustomed to which is why the original is such a classic. Most movies that have a classic status cannot be redone for the better. Lets call it what it is going to be, "a cinematic copycay" with mindnumbing visuals. Not Academy-worthy!!!
Posted by: RDS | November 04, 2005 at 02:45 PM
Tom, you disappoint me. This is quite a bold prediction, one that I don't think has the slightest chance of happening. I'm sure the film is great, but Best Picture? Please. The reason: the source material. "King Kong" just ain't "The Lord of the Rings", no matter how you slice it. One is a classic based on an extremely well-respected and beloved series of books (the reason it was able to overcome the Academy's aversion to fantasy), and the other is about a big monkey with dinosaurs. Spielberg is a well-respected director whose films often take major technical awards, but did "Jurassic Park" have a shot at Best Picture? Of course not. I think that the people in the technical peer-groups will be able to distinguish between the technical achievements of the film and its Best Picture chances. In 1999, The Matrix swept every technical category, but no serious talk of a Best Picture nomination ever. You think the people who wrote "I, Robot" on their ballot for visual effects last year also had it on their Best Picture ballot? I sure hope not. "Jaws", "Towering Inferno" and "Airport" might be notable exceptions, but they don't make it the rule. The movie will clean up in the technical categories, but I think that is where it will end. It just doesn't feel like Oscar.
Posted by: notachance | November 04, 2005 at 02:29 PM
Sounds like a certain Mr. O'Neil reads the comments to his blog. :)
Posted by: whileiwhat | November 04, 2005 at 01:05 PM
Sounds liek a certain Mr. O'Neil reads the comments to his blog. :)
Posted by: whileiwhat | November 04, 2005 at 01:04 PM