Revenge of the Sith lost to Narnia? What a fucking joke! They can take that Oscar and stick it up their Brokeback Mountain!

I thought one of the most interesting moments of tonight's "ceremony" was the montage of so-called "epic" films, accompanied by the subtle digs at the DVD format and its shortcomings when compared to the theater viewing experience. Two things about this seemed particularly hypocritical:

• Hollywood's pissing its collective pants over fading attendance and blaming home video for causing it, BUT it seems unlikely they're going to stop shoveling DVDs on us anytime soon;

• A good 75% of those "epic" films were movies that got shit on when Oscar noms for their respective years of eligibility were announced. It was especially hypocritical to include a clip from ROTS in there. Epic enough that we should see it on the big screen, but not epic enough to warrant even a nomination for VFX, right?

And why the fuck is the VFX category limited to 3 nominees anyway?

True. Not to mention that there were dozens of references to Star Wars throughout the show.

I'm done with the Oscars. I thought ROTS should have gotten more than one nomination. I had some hope for ROTS when LOTR won. Clearly they are still pissed at George. I'm with you Lucas: FUCK THE OSCARS!

I can't believe Crash won. I mean, it's an OK movie, but a four year old could've not only understood its message, but probably written it. And the fact that it was written by a white guy makes me laugh at it all the more, and yes, the movie is laughable in many places.

ROTS was robbed in a plethora of categories, and the fact that King Kong took all the visual+audio categories is a joke, and just shows how bad the Academy is on Peter Jackson's balls.

With the exception of Jon Stewart, the Oscars once again blew, it was even poorly produced.

I was also dissappointed John Williams didn't win an oscar for his Memoirs of a Geisha or Munich scores. Instead Brokeback Mountain won for its....13 minute score. It's a shame, both of those scores were very different and unique from JW's more recent work especially Geisha.

The "Jump the Shark" Moment for the Oscars occured 8 years ago, when Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture.

The Oscars have become more and more of an irrelevant joke since then. And yes, the same would have applied had ROTS won an award last night.

Star Wars has more prestigous awards in terms of living on on the hearts and minds of millions of fans worldwide for years in the past and the future. Will Crash carry the same distinction?

ROTS deserved an Oscar nom for visual effects, but not much else.

I agree.

When Ryan lost to Shakespeare in Love the entire film world let out a collective WTF.
I still don't understand how one of the most powerful and influential films, well....ever, was edged by a date flick that was forgotten the year it won an Oscar for Best Picture.

The Oscars are complete shit and an utter waste of time. The obvious snub of Episode III in the categories of VFX, sound, costumes, etc. just make them even more of a joke in my eyes.

RotS should have won for costumes.

I am disappointed Crash won best picture...and George Clooney? Bwahahaha

I bend and spread cheeks to the academy.

You dopey old fucking pricks.....

I think it was just a little too predictable, don't you?

Neither Lucas nor those working for him are going to get any more Oscars. It has nothing to do with quality of work, either. Lucas bucked the system, quit the guilds, and burned his bridges more than 25 years ago. Sure they won sound and special effects Oscars for a long time -when they were only competing against themselves- but now they make sure he doesn't win.

I think the Oscars jumped the shark many times before this year. The fact that a Woody Allen movie won Best Picture in 1977 shows what lousy taste the Academy has. The funniest was Ring Lardner winning the Oscar for Best Screenplay for MASH -after he tried to get his name removed from the script because Robert Altman made so many changes that Lardner didn't want to be associated with it. Raiders of the Lost Ark also got screwed.



I also find it funny how the Oscars dismiss Star Wars, yet they can't help but bring it up. The only movie to have had as much effect on the culture as a whole is probably Birth of a Nation (though that was a very bad effect). George Lucas is supposedly this inept filmmaker, yet he set off two cultural atomic bombs (American Graffitti and Star Wars) that in many ways reshaped popular culture (not just movies). Francis Coppola had one (The Godfather), Scorsese: one (Taxi Driver), Spielberg: one (Jaws) or maybe two if you count Saving Private Ryan. Not since John Ford has a filmmaker's work insinuated itself into society as much as George Lucas has.

Keep telling yourself that. You might believe it someday.

Frack off ass hole.

I was also shocked not to see ROTS at least nominated for VFX. Early in the show Jon Stewart reminded the audience how bad box office revenues were for this past year. Imagine if box office sales had no ROTS this past year, they would definately be screwed. It was the highest grossing film of the year, and no one mentioned that. Maybe if it had been Revenge of the Brokeback Gay Cowboy it may have won. The academy has turned their back on the hundreds if not thousands of talented hard working artists that make Star Wars possible. I'm glad GL makes his films the way he wants.

I don't get why there's this sudden backlash because of ROTS. Phantom Menace deserved many Oscars back in 2000. It didn't get shit (and lost to the Matrix...?). Really, what did Sith bring to the table that Phantom Menace didn't deserve to be recognized for? I can't think of a thing, really.

Couple of reasons, near as I can tell. First is the simple reason that people eagerly await the Oscars every year as if they actually meant something, and then bitch about them after they're over and declare them irrelevant. Happens with regularity. The Oscars are awards that Hollywood gives to itself. The rest of us ought to stop acting as though the ceremony is some kind of referendum on our own tastes. You don't expect Jack Nicholson to give a shit who wins class president at your high school or employee of the year at your company, do you?

The other reason is that there appear to be a lot of Star Wars fans who saw Peter Jackson win a ton of awards for ROTK, and who then convinced themselves that Lucas would be similarly rewarded at the end of his saga as well. I don't want to get into the tired old SW vs. LOTR argument again, but the reasons why Jackson won and Lucas didn't should be apparent to anyone who understands the importance of good screenwriting and the ability to direct actors.

At least TPM and AOTC were nominated for VFX. ROTS wasn't even nominated! It seems like a blatant oversight, not to nominate a movie with a huge amount of high quality visual effects. I like the effects that WETA churns out, but there quality comes and goes throughout their pictures, as if some of the work is sub-contracted out to less talented artists. ILM has always had a high quality standard to their work.
The only good part about this recent academy awards was that Rachel Weisz (actress from the Mummy) won best actress in a supporting role. She is awesome!

I think this year's award winner for Best Song sums up the credibility of the Oscars.

AMEN.

So that's why it didn't even get nominated for VFX? or Costume design? or Sound mixing/design?

No, that's why it didn't win the big prize like ROTK did.

The reason it didn't win (or even get nominated) for the technical awards is still sort of puzzling. Though I will say that if you want some insight into why Kong won for VFX, try watching the 1976 version sometime. I rented it a couple of weeks ago. Jesus.

I'd like to think Jack Nicholson gives a shit about me being employee of the month.

ROTS should've at least had nominations for costumes, sound design, music and VFX. We can debate among ourselves the acting skills (although pretty much everyone seems to agree that McDiarmid owned all his co-stars in ROTS), the best picture bullshit, etc, but there's no technical fault to be found in ROTS.

Other posters had the right idea, Lucas isn't playing The Game and so he loses out as result. In 1999, it really came down to TPM and the Matrix. Either film deserved the award (although you'd think TPM's *volume* of badass effects would put it over the top). In '02 and '05, I don't really see how SW had any realistic competition in the VFX, sound, costumes, etc., categories.

Whatever. Hollywood has itself convinced that it's still relevant, that people care about their political agenda despite falling Academy Awards ratings and a box office year that would've been an absolute disaster without Harry Potter, Star Wars, Batman Begins and Narnia.

It looks like they'll similarly be off the hook with Superman Returns and other blockbusters in '06. So we can look forward to more, YAY, more Memoirs of Brokeback Syriana Crashes!

No, Hollywood has convinced the people that bitch about the Oscars every year that it's still relevant.

If you're referring to me, my list of gripes with Hollywood scarcely has anything to do with the Oscars. The Academy is completely full of shit. We've known that for at least 12 years, it's nothing new. My only point is that the technical aspects of the PT are indisputably great and once again the Academy has shown they have an agenda they grind when they issue awards. By any objective standard, the PT should've gotten a lot more nominations than it did. That it didn't speaks volumes.

Hollywood is out of touch.

Well, I wasn't (if I had been, I'd've said "you" instead of "people"), but I will address some of your comments directly.

The truth of the matter is, the technical triumphs of the Star Wars series were achieved by a crew that had well over a year to spend working on them (for each film) and an unlimited budget, controlled solely by the producer-director who didn't stop spending and didn't stop demanding until he got everything he wanted. Yes, this resulted in a lot of "oohs" and "aahs" from Star Wars fans. But it's not something that Hollywood should reward. It sets a bad precedent and sends the wrong message to the production crews who DON'T have such resources; who bust their asses on low-budget films, who are forced to make things up as they go along, who are capable of getting by with just enough at the very last minute.

If the Academy has an agenda when it comes to technical awards, it's to reward the people who are working far and above what they've shown themselves capable of before, or the people who come from nowhere to sudden prominence. Yes, the FX in ROTS and the rest of the PT are extraordinary, but on the other hand, they were nothing that shouldn't have been expected from Lucas's crew, given the overwhelmingly positive conditions they were working with.

I do think the FX should have at least gotten a nomination, but then again, if ROTS was never going to win that award -- for the reasons I've just mentioned -- then why nominate it?

It can probably be argued that best is best, regardless of how much money is spent or how long it takes. But then you're just turning the Oscars into the World Series (for those of you who don't follow baseball, I'm referring to the fact that the teams with the highest payrolls regularly go deep into the playoffs every year). For all the Academy's faults, very rarely do you see the highest-paid actor walking away with the Best Actor statuette. Titanic and ROTK were their respective years' highest-grossers, but Crash and Million Dollar Baby certainly weren't. There is an effort to strike a balance, and there is always an effort to bestow recognition on talent or work that deserves it. The PT looked phenomenal, but I don't think anyone here will seriously argue that an Oscar would have given ILM any greater recognition than working on absurdly popular Star Wars films had already done.

Look, Lucas and the things he works on aren't going to get any more awards. Part of it is because so many Academy voters probably think "Star Wars? Didn't that win several Oscars already?" and assume a been there/ done that mentality.

The other reason is the fact that the Best Director Oscar almost always goes to whomever the Director's Guild recommends. The Guild (and the WGA) tried to sue to keep The Empire Strikes Back out of theatres and fined Kershner and Lucas into the six figures. Lucas quit both Guilds after that. Every time his friends like Scorsese and Spielberg have asked him to re-join, he has refused and who can blame him? They (the Guilds) tried to fuck him over at a time when every dime to his name was invested in a movie. If they had succeeded, he would have been bankrupted and his career ruined.

There's a better chance of Michael Moore being invited to Bush's house in Crawford, TX than Lucas winning any more Oscars, no matter what he does. Lucas produced Body Heat and Return to Oz, yet kept his name out of the credits for both because he knew a lot of people in the movie business hate him with a passion and would piss all over the movies if his name was on them. That was 20-25 years ago.

Maybe if he used a front to pretend to be the writer or director like blacklisted filmmakers did fifty years ago...

What a load of horseshit! First of all, I doubt the special effects for King Kong or the other nominees were paid for with food stamps. Besides, I thought Peter Jackson was this perfectionist moviemaker. Which is it?

By your logic, movies with major stars and high-calibre supporting actors shouldn't be rewarded since lower budget movies can't afford say, Tom Hanks or Russell Crowe. Movies with higher sound budgets shouldn't win Best Sound over lower budget films either. The list goes on.



So if a well-known great actor (i.e. one with a high salary) turns in the best performance, it shouldn't count? Grading on a curve might be fine for dull kids with low self esteem, but the Oscars are touted as awards for excellence (yes, I know that's a joke), not some sort of ratio between real cost and imagined quality.


Why bother with awards for special effects at all if the best special effects aren't going to be included?



What's wrong with that? Those teams earn the money by fielding teams people want to pay to see. Should a lower-payroll team that makes the playoffs be spotted a few runs to make it "fair"? The NFL has salary caps and shared revenue. What do you get out of that? Teams like Arizona, Cincinnatti, and Detroit that collect their share of money, won't spend any more on players than they absolutely have to and being mediocre-to-bad teams every year. On the off chance that one of the teams should have some success in spite of this scheme, the owner will start dumping the better players, then fire the coach when the team tanks. The best is the best and rewarding failure sets a bad example.



The highest-paid actors earn their salaries the same way the highest-paid athletes or others in show business do: by getting people to pay to watch. Now as Harrison Ford found out, people aren't about to pay good money to watch him in a depressing love story. There's a certain kind of movie that brings in mass audiences, and that's usually the kind of movie Oscar voters look down their noses at: Comedies, action movies and science fiction/ comic book films.



The Oscars are a popularity contest within Hollywood. Nothing more, nothing less. It's like the polls in college sports. They're going to vote on who is the best.



I think the people who work on them care. It's nice to be recognized by your peers. But I'd imagine a number of them are frustrated at turning in better work than the Oscar winners while not even being nominated because so many people have a grudge against the boss.

How many actors directed by Peter Jackson have been nominated for Oscars? 1

How many for Lucas? 2

Lucas was nominated twice for Best Original Screenplay. If he is such a bad screenwiter, why did Star Wars produce more memorable quotes (and more of them) than any film since Casablanca?

Lucas funded the PT out of his own pocket. Jackson did not do the same with King Kong, nor did he spend three years putting it together, nor did he go down the same road he'd already gone down several times. He had a deadline that he had to meet, a budget that he had to work within and he when he needed extra money, he sacrificed part of his own salary. True, it's unlikely that we're going to see him in a breadline anytime soon. But comparing him to someone who throws money at every little problem is specious.



By your logic, there's no difference between actors and technical crews. In fact, in the real world, actors regularly take pay cuts for films they want to be part of. That's why Crash could be made so cheaply. When was the last time you heard of Ben Burtt taking a pay cut?



I said nothing remotely resembling this.



Hey, in your world, does the shortest route from A to B involve starting at Z and working backward? Where the fuck did I say anything about rewarding failure?

First of all, these teams -- and let's make clear that I'm primarily talking about the Yankees and the Braves, even if you aren't -- earn their money because their owners are RICH. They exist in large markets, they have nationwide TV contracts, and they sell a lot of advertising. It wouldn't matter if every player on both teams stunk, they'd still have these things. But because baseball has no limits on payrolls, their owners can afford to buy up whoever they want. The only means that other teams have of competing is to empty their own pockets, but in most cases it's not something they can afford to do for very long, regardless of success. The Florida Marlins won the World Series and then completely fell apart the next year because Wayne Huizenga couldn't afford to keep the team together. The days of the best remaining the best until someone beats them are over.



OK, I don't think I get it. Is it the actor that people pay to watch, or is it the kind of movie? If Harrison Ford appears in an action movie as opposed to a depressing love story, does the assumed success of the former over the latter (according to your premise) have anything to do with Ford, or is he just along for the ride? And where does this "well-known great actor" that you mentioned above fit into this theory?



How many times did one of Lucas's casts win the SAG's Best Acting by an Ensemble award? How many times did Lucas win the Best Director Oscar?



This is a weird kind of barometer of quality, and I'm not sure how you would prove such a thing. In any case, I'm not seeing it. Apart from "may the Force be with you" and "I've got a bad feeling about this" (and that one's debatable), I can't think of any "memorable quotes" that have actually had any mainstream impact. I'd argue that The Godfather had a great deal more.



Is this any more or less valid than you or anyone else in this thread flatly stating that your favorite whatever is the "best" and that it should have won?

There is something that everyone bashing the Oscars in this thread seems to be forgetting. You seem to be forgetting it even as you're saying it. The Oscars are Hollywood's awards FOR THEMSELVES. With the exception of Best Picture and Best Foreign Language film, every nomination for any particular category comes from those working in that category. If ROTS didn't get a nom for FX, that's because there weren't enough FX artists who thought it deserved it. If Lucas hasn't gotten a single nom for director throughout the PT, that's because there weren't enough directors who thought he deserved it.

In 78 years, only 18 directors have won more than once, and only three of those more than twice. Yet you read a thread like this and find people who are practically outraged that George Lucas hasn't won for every film he's directed. Guess what? That puts him in the same group with Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorsese. Francis Ford Coppola did NOT win Best Director for The Godfather, and I doubt anyone can name who did win that year without looking it up.

The Oscars reflect the personal tastes of Academy voters as much as they do their times, and just as box office doesn't determine relevance or quality, sometimes (often) neither do the Oscars. If you're going to piss and moan that the Oscars are irrelevant because of who won the FX award, maybe you should stop and take a deep breath and try to figure out just how relevant the sixth Star Wars film is to anything that's NOT the Star Wars film series. Does that mean that you can no longer enjoy it? Well, it doesn't for me. In fact, in addition to all of the Star Wars films, I still enjoy Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Blade Runner, Goldfinger, Lost Highway, Alien, A Fistful of Dollars, Office Space, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich and any number of etc. etc. films and directors that never even got close to the Best Picture or Best Director Oscars. My taste doesn't depend upon the approval of others. If you feel that what you love must be recognized as the absolute pinnacle of quality by the rest of the world, you're in for a long and difficult road -- not to speak of how you'll have to deal with yourself if you should ever change your own mind about what's "best".

I think what some of us are getting at is the academy is a corrupt bunch of Hollywood elite bastards who don't recognize real talent or real achievements, only the ones they favor. I'm glad to hear the academy awards are losing ratings, probably because we SW fans aren't the only ones pissed about the lack of proper recognition.

ROTS probably wasn't nominated for technical stuff because when you're constantly rolling your eyes at the bad dialogue and acting you tend to not notice them as much.

Haha clever one!

ADMIN EDITED NON-LINE BY LINE VERSION

If Lucas "throws money at every little problem", why did King Kong cost almost a hundred million dollars more than Revenge of the Sith? King Kong cost $207,000,000 compared to $115,000,000, according to IMDB.

I would imagine Russell Crowe makes more than Ben Burtt. What's more, an actor has to bring himself to the job. A sound man or special eefects artist or cinematographer has to have special equipment. So the budget for the crew doesn't have as much leeway as an actor's salary unless you're going to cut certain things out entirely. It's going to cost a certain amount to shoot a movie no matter who does it.

It's implied when you claim the best shouldn't be rewarded if they had bigger budgets, compared with those make the most out of smaller ones.


Then why aren't the Dodgers perennial contenders? Deep pockets can help, but what really makes a team a contender is a commitment to win. Steinbrenner and Turner are constant winners because they will not tolerate losing. You're putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Huizenga could have afforded it, but he just didn't want to fork over the cash. Just like the Oakland A's in the mid 1970s when they purged the team rather than pay them.

Considering Lucas has publicly spurned SAG, WGA and DGA, his chances of ever getting an award from them are about the same as Trotsky's chances of getting an award from the Supreme Soviet in 1939.

While a number of movies have quoted The Godfather and parodied the movie as well, lines from Star Wars, let alone the later films are quoted far more often in movies, TV shows, books -even political speeches than any other movie. And that was before Kevin Smith came along.

I don't care who wins Oscars, since they are and always have been a joke. It's almost as much of a joke as the Grammys where a prog act like Jethro Tull wins for Best Heavy Metal Album, or the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, many of whose inductees never played Rock & Roll; but not quite. I'm making the point that if we take a HUGE leap in logic and assume for the sake of argument that the Oscars (or some other hypothetical awards show) bases its choices on artistic merit, the Prequels should have at least been nominated in some of the technical fields, when in fact they weren't.

No kidding. It's the reason behind those choices that's of interest. While there most certainly are people who honestly thought the prequels didn't really have good production design, costumes, sound, etc., there is another reason at work as well. It was become fashionable to bash George Lucas and it has fuckall to do with the quality of his work. Christopher Lee said (paraphrasing -I don't have the actual quote handy) Lucas is resented by many in the movie business because he did things his way and succeeded -and they'll never forgive him for it.

It really came to a head in 1997 when Lucas released Star Wars in theatres. In spite of the fact that the movie had been on VHS, laserdisc, cable and network TV for more than 15 years, it was the most successful film that year until Titanic came out. Then the whole "Lucas ruined the movie business with his blockbusters!" bullshit started in earnest. It became fashionable in the media to attack George Lucas as a detriment to film. Add envy and other forms of petty resentment against the man and it's no wonder he's not very popular in the movie business. The fact that the public votes with their feet and their ticket dollars only causes more resentment.

Box office has more to do with relevance and quality than a Most Popular poll among Academy members since it's an objective standard.

No, I'm arguing that the Oscars have nothing to do with film quality and everything to do with a popularity contest among a select few.

Quite a lot, actually. I remember all the right-wing hacks getting bent out of shape over the movie's political implications. On that score, the movie certainly struck a nerve. It might have been a factor in the downward slide in Bush's poll numbers starting in late spring of 2005 -before Cindy Sheehan, before the hurricaines, before the Libby indictment...

My arguments are as follows:

1) Oscars do not reflect quality of work. They are a joke.

2) If, in the unlikely event that the Academy did decide to hand out Oscars and nominations for same based on merit rather than politicking, George Lucas is unlikely to get one, no matter how good his work may be. He is actively disliked by a large number of people in the movie business.

Did I claim I couldn't enjoy a movie without the approval of others? Or the Academy? No and no. So why don't you take your strawman, light it with a match, then shove it WAY up your ass?

That's one hell of a double post.

And yet only merits a "go fuck yourself" in response. Maybe for his next post he can find an even longer way to reiterate that the Oscars are meaningless.

Concession accepted.

Yet not offered. Apparently your experience with hearing "go fuck yourself" so often when expecting "I concede" has resulted in your confusing the two.

Ayatollah Krispies, with due respect, and not trying to start a fight or anything, but as far as the VFX category goes, "Go Fuck Yourself" doesn't in any way address the fact that Jackson's films (of late) cost far more than any of the PT films (whatever your feelings on the quality of the storytelling). Yes, Lucas put his own cash into his films, but the fact is that what he did was to find a way to make the summer blockbuster CHEAPER than anyone else, without the corporate backing of a studio, not throw money at his movies indescriminintly. The guy is a VERY shrewd businessman, interested to a large degree in preserving his little empire, and most of the technical decisions he made were made under the banner of cutting his production and post production costs, and actually being able to pay for the production he envisioned (again, whether anyone else sees his vision as a decent piece of moviemaking is totally irrelevant to the discussion). The arguement that RotS shouldn't have been nominated because of the money involved is irretrievably flawed, because the film that won COST MORE. In any event, the category isn't "Best VFX on a Shoestring Budget", it's not even "Best VFX in Service to a Well-Told Story". It's "Best VFX" period, dot, the end. Whatever else your feelings are on the PT films, there really can't be any credible argument against the quality of the VFX work on those three shows; it was grounbreaking in technique, quality, and just the sheer volume of shots ILM had to turn out. The OTHER problem with your argument is in your assumption that ILM was dealing with not only unlimited money, but unlimited TIME. This is patent nonsense. The films were signed for release dates and a distribution schedule. The exact same time pressures applied to RotS as to any other blockbuster - the filmmaker can keep tinkering up to the deadline (and they all do), but the release date is still the release date. Maybe it didn't deserve to win, but to not even acknowlege the work with a nom is absurd.

Cheers Inv8r_ZIM

Co-sign Inv8r_ZIM's post.

I mean, what the hell, is this communism? Are we to grade movies on a scale or curve? Which movie had the best fucking special effects? Revenge of the Sith. Period. End of story. If we applied the same ass backwards logic of taking into effects the amount of money or effor that goes into a movie, then we'd probably have to consider some student film made in some dude's basement for Best Picture. Just judge the fucking movie as it appears on screen.

Not to mention, that as Inv8r pointed out, King Kong cost more. I like Peter Jackson alright, but he is unquestionably the most overrated director right now, and is a bit of a fat fuck for riding Tolkien's brilliant material to fame and then turning around and having the audacity to think it had anything to do with him. I hope the flop that was King Kong taught him a lesson. I can say without any hesitation that George Lucas is a better filmmaker than Peter Jackson and understands film to such a greater degree than Jackson that it's not even funny. Lucas might not be the best with dealing with actors, but he does understand that film is about the image and approaches film with a degree of subtlety whereas Jackson likes to hit us over the head repeatedly with slow motion, soft-focused, over-exposed imagery that you would use if you were trying to make some crappy spoof movie. If it weren't for Tolkien, Jackson would be NOTHING. He's so fucking lucky that LOTR is friggin amazing, and that it's story was so damn dramatic he could get away with his ridicolously melodramatic style of filmmaking, and amazingly, often enhance it. His style actually worked with LOTR. But it's because of Tolkien.

End of rant.

King Kong was a flop?

Lucas is a better filmmaker?

Yes and yes.

Didn't King Kong actually lose money?

Maybe it did. I don't pay attention and hardly care about ticket sales.

But Lucas being a better filmmaker than Jackson is still funny.

Granted Tolkien was a genius, but Jackson made it work. If you're going to argue Tolkien is the reason that the LOTR films made money, you may be right. But, as the prequels were horrible, they made money because they're STAR WARS, and Lucas has a lot of bonehead followers. If it wasn't for how great the first 3 films were (only one of which directed by Lucas), the prequels would have tanked. The dialogue was horrible. The acting was horrible. The story lines horribly put together.

If Kong was only released only in the US then yes, it may have lost (or come close to losing) money. But when you put in the picture the whole world, no way was Kong a flop nor did it come close to losing money.

I too think Lucas is a hell of a lot better director and film maker than the over-hyped Peter Jackson. I never saw Kong doubt I ever will.

If ROTS is so shitty then why did it do a hell of a lot better in the box office then Kong?? Let's re-cap on the numbers shall we? These numbers by the way are from Box Office Mojo.

Total to make the films:
ROTS costed $113 million
Kong costed $207 million

Yes arguments are valid when you guys say that Kong did cost more. However let's re-cap on who actually made more in theaters.

Opening weekend:

ROTS made $108,435,841

Kong made $50,130,145

Quite a significant gap there as far as who made more, don't you think?


Grand Total: World Wide

ROTS made $848,797,674

Kong made $546,014,423

Surprise, surprise once again quite a big gap in who made more.

Grand Total: Domestic (meaning here in the US)

ROTS made $380,270,577

Kong made $217,906,325

Third times the charm ROTS still made more in everything. It's quite obvious by the numbers that ROTS made a hell of a lot more money in theaters than Kong did. It's also quite obvious not as many people gave a shit about Kong as they did about ROTS. So tell me if ROTS is so bad as some of you idiotic people claim why did it kick Kong's hairy ass in theaters?

Oh I'm sure it's because of the fan base which is most likely true. Not to many people care to go to see a movie about a big over-grown ape who runs around New York City trashing shit then dies after he gets shot off the Empire State building.

Fine. Kong the "actor" kicked the living shit out of Grievous the "actor." Both 1930's New York City and Skull Island were far more believable environments than anything done for ROTS. Everything else in ROTS was just more of what we have already seen. Is that better?

The truth of the matter is that Star Wars fans on a Star Wars message board are not willing to even begin to judge the movies as they appear on screen. And should anyone find fault with anything Star Wars, it's only because they're "idiots" -- right, Raveers?



That pretty much says it all.