Okay - which will get the biggest box office - HP, LOTR or Monsters Inc? (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

yeah but when was the last time a period drama made a decent amount of money?

How about now? "Road to Perdition" should make over $100M.

 

[Craig S]

when was the last time a period drama made a decent amount of money?

I seem to remember this little picture about a boat that sank in 1912 making a few bucks back in 1997-98...

 

[Matt Stone]

yah...it was a minor success.

 

[Craig S]

only hardcore fanboys initially thought the film had a shot at a nomination, much less 13.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm a hardcore fanboy , but here's my initial assessment of FotR' Oscar chances, written about a week before the release (as initial reviews were starting to come in):
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...429#post281429
I didn't do too badly, if I do say so myself. If only FotR had snagged that empty 3rd slot in the Sound Editing category...

Hard to say how TTT will do. I'm sure it will pick up several technical nods at the least. However, I'm of the school of thought that says the best chance for PJ & crew to actually WIN the major awards will be in 2004, when RotK could grab Best Picture & Director as acknowledgement of the excellence of the entire trilogy (assuming, of course, that TTT & RotK equal or surpass the quality of FotR). By that time, the three films will have generated 2-3 BILLION in worldwide revenues (including home video) and, let's face it, that won't hurt RotK's Oscar chances either!

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Will Tank!

...based on a viewing of a trailer.
The prejudgments before seeing the entire finished product continue.
~Edwin

 

[TerryRL]

While Scorsese's films have never been big blockbusters, I do think that "Gangs of New York" will perform very much like "Road to Perdition". I think it'll have a solid opening and display strong legs over it's run. I think it'll also get an added boost from all the Oscar nods it'll probably get (no one pushes for nods harder than Miramax).

In the end, I think 'Gangs' will become Scorsese's first $100 million performer at the box office, as well as Leo's biggest hit movie since "Titanic".

Though DreamWorks has been responsible for the last three Best Picture winners ("American Beauty", "Gladiator", and co-producing "A Beautiful Mind" with Universal), I think 'Gangs' represents Miramax's best shot at stopping that streak.

 

[Tino]

X-Men Will Tank!

What memories that brings back!
For those of you that weren't around, just prior to X-Men's mega opening, Sam Torres started a thread entitled "X-Men will tank" which provoked many heated responses and even a few from Peter Staddon himself. IIRC, most of the posts were chastising Sam for passing judgement on a film that he had not seen yet.
Suffice it to say, Sam was a wee bit wrong in his prediction.
I'm actually surprised by your comments Sam. Do you really think its fair to pass judgement before seeing a film....again?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

What memories that brings back!

Yes, it sure does. But it is not exactly the type of memories I would like to relive.
~Edwin

 

[Seth Paxton]

I think 'Gangs' represents Miramax's best shot at stopping that streak.

And that's the other reason why I list it as THE front runner going into the season.
1) Scorsese has it coming big time, which is one of the Academy's favorite reasons.
2) Miramax has a big Oscar machine that is matched only by Dreamworks.
Tino's friend saw a cut that he thought was only okay, but this was some time ago and many of us think some of the delay's are from recuts. I suspect that the final delay was to put the latest cut into the 2002 Oscar season. That tells me that Miramax thinks they have something on their hands.
As for Spike. I can understand H'wood hatred hurting him, HOWEVER we are coming off a year in which the Academy made an attempt to rectify the treatment of black talent in the Oscars. A winning director would be the next thing on that agenda I would think. What this film has going for it is more white actors in main roles than any other Spike film, and I can see that currying favor more than ever. Should it make a difference? No. But that doesn't mean it won't.
It could well be seen as a sort of olive branch on Spike's part, even if that has nothing to do with his motives (which I feel certain it doesn't, that's not his style).
The key I wanted to point out is that these films still need to deliver. Gangs doesn't have to be the greatest film of the year, but it does need to be damn solid. Some of these other films don't have the benefits that Gangs has (also being a period piece helps), so they need to be even more outstanding.
On the current Oscar Watch front:
I've seen Insomniac and Minority Report...I would be shocked if either saw a nod. Why? What does Insomniac bring to the table that The Pledge didn't? Zero. Only an improved BO, yet still around $70m tops in the early part of the year which means "forgotten". Cop looking for a child killer that ends up stressing and flipping out played by Oscar winning actor with notable young director...sounds familiar. Buh-bye.
Minority Report - how is this in any possible way more Oscar worthy than AI? I mean even by Academy standards. It's much more popcorn fluff than AI was, and AI didn't get a sniff. Gladiator was the closest thing we've had to a popcorn film winning and even that was more dramatic than MR.
Now I enjoyed both these films, I just don't see them getting an Oscar nod.
Add to that that Perdition is being reviewed as a non-Oscar caliber film - good but not great - and I'd say again that we have a slightly unusual case of a clean slate going into NOV-DEC area.
And also as I mentioned before listing out those contenders, they all have to deliver and we can expect AT LEAST half to not do that (at least in any way that will appeal to the Academy's Best Pix standards). From everything I've heard about Full Frontal I think we can put that one out of the running already as being far too experimental.
Again, TTT has new characters, new themes, different plot devices, yet the same core as the last film, which was well-noticed by the Academy. I mean despite it being fantasy, LOTR plays much closer to something like Braveheart (period wartime drama) which gives it a huge benefit over something like Star Wars which was seen more as popcorn entertainment at it's finest (which is why the luster faded for ESB at the Oscars).
I see TTT getting nominated at this point but losing to Gangs (w/ Scorsese also finally getting his Oscar). Perdition might sneak in there, but at this point it would surprise me.
Of course there's no telling what Spider-Man brings to the equation. You know producers love it just because of the huge BO it made.
If anyone can give reasons why some of these other films has a better shot, I'd love to hear them. I just think each one presents it's own Oscar risks and at this point the "potentials" list is much shorter than last years (which had a huge field coming into the season).
Oh, and I can understand and agree with the 2 factors going for ROTK - resolution of plot lines and appreciation of dollars generated/work done. But it's also possible that ROTK may have played out the LOTR hand by then with voters.
A lot of ROTK chances depends on what happens with TTT (both on screen and at the awards).
But since we were talking BO in the beginning, I think if TTT gets 8-10 noms it can hit $300m just like FOTR, perhaps even going beyond it. But I don't see the next Potter film doing quite that.

 

[TerryRL]

I think the deck may be stacked against the remaining two LOTR movies getting Best Picture nods. Not because of a lack of quality on the films part, both will very likely be better than FOTR, I just think the Acadamy will opt to nominate other movies. As was pointed out before, only a few sequels have gotten Best Picture nods and two of those were 'Godfather' movies.

From what I've been hearing, here are ten movies that have a lot of "heat" on them in terms of garnering serious Oscar attention...

"About Schmidt"

"Adaptation"

"Antwone Fisher"

"Catch Me if You Can"

"Chicago"

"Confessions of a Dangerous Mind"

"Dogville"

"Frida"

"Gangs of New York"

"The Hours"

It would be nice if TTT snuck in an award for Best Picture, but I think it'll end up with only technical nods. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if it ended up with a Best Picture nod. If a sci-fi/fantasy film did get a nod for the top award, it might end up being "Solaris".

If FOTR had actually won the Best Picture Oscar than it would be a no-brainer that TTT would snag a nod, but since the movie garnered 13 nods and only won four tech awards (Cinematography, Makeup, Score, Visual Effects), while being completely shut out of the major catagories, doesn't bode to well for the sequels. I do hope I'm wrong though.

I think "Road to Perdition" may snag a Supporting Actor nod for Paul Newman and a Cinematography nod for Conrad Hall, but that'll probably be it.

I think Denzel Washington could nab a directing nod for "Antwone Fisher", the same goes for George Clooney depending on how good "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" turns out. Still, it's going to be difficult to beat Scorsese this year.

As for Spike Lee, I honestly think his best shot at winning an Oscar was for "Do the Right Thing". "Malcolm X" was good, but other than that I haven't really be blown away by Lee's work since "Do the Right Thing" in '89.

Still, this should be an interesting year in terms of the nominations. The fall is definitely going to be interesting.

 

[Brian W.]

If FOTR had actually won the Best Picture Oscar than it would be a no-brainer that TTT would snag a nod

Good point. What do the three sequels that were nominated for Best Picture (Godfather II & III and Bells of St. Mary's) all have in common? The initial film won Best Picture, it wasn't just nominated.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well, to be fair, we should also try to find sequels that are regarded as superior to their Oscar nominated first episodes.
I can see someone saying Empire Strikes Back, but there are two flaws for that film.
1) While we do have some moral theme in there, much of the basic premise is good vs evil popcorn fantasy. I love the film and think it should have seriously been considered anyway, but I can see it passed on this reason.
2) VERY strong competition that year, which makes a HUGE difference. This is Ordinary People, Raging Bull (now there is a coincidence happening ), Coal Miner's Daughter, Elephant Man, Tess, Great Santini, Fame, Brubaker, and Breaker Morant. A few good year for the Oscar crop, perhaps one of the very best actually.
It's a big reason why we are now talking about Scorsese finally getting his this year.
Now what other sequels to Oscar nominated films are there? And which of those is generally regarded as an improvement? I will have to research for now because I just can't think of any off the top of my head.
But we want to compare apples to apples here, so that means only a list of sequels to Oscar-nominated films where the sequel is rated at least equal to, or better than, the original. Of those, which ones got passed over.
Now, if TTT just isn't good enough this is all a moot point anyway. I think we all agree on that.
I mean Rocky WON the Oscar and Rocky 2 didn't get a nomination. Does anyone think that's because the Academy had had enough of Rocky? Hardly the problem there. Rocky 2 just wasn't anywhere near as good.

 

[Seth Paxton]

The closest I can find in the last 25 years is Babe: Pig in the City, and even it is much lower in rating at IMDb than Babe original, plus they switched directors leading to a different tone/style.
In fact, I would make this arugument, that Godfather 3 probably was NOT best picture material and rode the coattails of the first 2 films more than it was hindered by them. (others available in this VERY weak Oscar year - Miller's Crossing, Misery, Hunt for Red October...and that's basically it).
See, that's the thing. Oscar nominated films just don't get good (well regarded) sequels with the same director. It just doesn't happen. That puts LOTR into uncharted territory for something like this. So honestly, I just don't know WHAT that means, but I don't think these sequel stats have a single thing to do with that except maybe to say that IF TTT is equal to FOTR with the same director (of course) then we have only one other recent (25 years or so) example to look at...Godfather 1 & 2. And those were just 2 years apart AND the argument could be made that it would be EASIER to pass on G2 since they had already rewarded the original (as we know they like to spread it around).

 

[TerryRL]

TTT and ROTK will both probably be superior to FOTR. The best of the lot will likely be ROTK. I see the point you're making, it's just I don't have that much confidence in the acadamy giving either film a Best Picture nod. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Plus, as Brian pointed out, the sequels that were nominated had the benefit of following a film that won Best Picture. "The Godfather Part III" was in the enviable position of following two predacessors that both won Best Picture, which gave it a decided advantage over other films that year.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Again though, we have 1 example showing the Academy shunning a good sequel (ESB), but we have 3 examples that they love good sequels (G 2&3, and see below). Now the sample space is way too small to go with that point, I agree, but there is just very little that shows they avoid sequels that are top notch films. Just because the chances to do so doesn't happen, and when it has they have gone with it.

In fact, we have another sequel that DID win an Oscar yet the first film WASN'T EVEN NOMINATED...Silence of the Lambs. So now that's 2 examples FOR good sequels WINNING even plus another nomination (last 30 years just to keep it in terms of modern voters), and 1 example of a good sequel being skipped.

Really guys, how is this a point again? There is more evidence that good sequels WIN than there is that they don't even get nominated.

In fact the main evidence against it is the fantasy thing, moreso than being a sequel. ESB is the one film that I can see TTT matching up in history with. However, one thing that LOTR has going for it that OT doesn't is that LOTR plays much more serious than popcorn fun.

If there is a difference that will get it nominated, that's it. The sequel thing means nothing because it hardly factors in (more positive than negative), it's the relationship with Star Wars/ESB that might be the bad sign. Then again, had 1980 been as thin as 1990, I think it would have been very likely that ESB would have been nominated.

Let me restate too that I'm not hopeful one way or the other (except that I would think an Oscar nom would mean that TTT has turned out very good). I just think it actually has a good chance based on history. After all, this is the first time the sequel to an Oscar nominated film was also filmed at the same time.

 

[Tino]

Seth

Regarding my friend who saw a three hour plus roughcut print of Gangs a few months ago, he did say it was OK, however he recently told me that with a few minor cuts and tweaks, that it has the potential to be one of the years best films and a big boxoffice hit.

And he reiterated again that Daniel Day Lewis OWNS this film and surely will get, and perhaps even win, an Oscar for this role.

 

[Dave Mansell]

Tino, what was your friends opinion on the violence in GONY? I've heard that it is quite high, which might be a factor against the film from an academy perspective.

 

[Craig S]

Violence didn't hurt either Braveheart or Gladiator with the Academy.

 

[Matt Pelham]

or The Godfather, Godfather II, Platoon, etc.

as long as the violence is nessessary and not gratuitous I think the Academy will be OK. Scorsese's other pictures (Goodfellas, Taxi Driver) have been pretty gory and still racked up awards and nominations. I don't think the violence will be a problem.

 

[Tino]

Dave
I spoke to my friend who has seen Gangs Of New York and he said it is a typically violent Scorsese film. He said the violence was necessary to the story and not gratuitous. Perhaps a bit more violent than Gladiator for example.