[kevin]

That can be argued indeed. It's also worth noting that the oscars won by The Return of the King are generally accepted as oscars for the entire trilogy, but I don't see why King Kong (2005) shouldn't have been a Best Picture nominee at least the year it came out. It was a darned sight better than Crash in my eyes. Look how long it took Scorcese to win an oscar, and it wasn't even his best film he won for. It was a case of, better give him one soon before it's too late. But does his lack of one prior detract from the quality of his previous work? How Ron Howard won one i'll never know!!

[jtrek79]

We 2 share the same thought,well done my friend

[Digginonrand]

Ricardo M. -- Definitely deserving of a nomination in the second film. Awesome performance!

[Leathart]

Originally Posted by jtrek79

Ok true,give oscars to dramas and stuff,but my opinion is that oscars go to unworthy features about 80%.I mean, they give 12 oscars to lord of the rings or star wars and alfred hitckoc(the guy who re-invented cinema as we know it) has none.Its all politics man,you cant compete spielberg or lucas,they own the business,thats why every FLOP they make is an academy nominee or winner

Uh, Spielberg has deserved more than he has won IMO. Being that he is the greatest director of all time and all. I'm not that much of a fan of Lucas so say what you will about him...

[MissionTrek08]

I think it's vastly more important that TREK be a solid, good film and story so that it may continue telling TREK stories (hopefully they'll also stay high-quality).

By the time Oscars are given out for 2009 films, Abrams' TREK will already be on DVD, so any nominations or wins would have no effect on its box office -- and were the film still playing by Feb 2010, TREK wouldn't NEED any boost to its box office by then!

Awards bring prestige to studios for promotional purposes, recognition to individuals for their own work, but more often than not Oscars and such simply give the film benchmarks in history. It's a great calling card, but it guarantees nothing for a film itself except a little additional notoriety.

TREK has thrived and survived for 40 years without huge award wins, and I expect it will continue to do so in 2009 and beyond.

[jtrek79]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

I think it's vastly more important that TREK be a solid, good film and story so that it may continue telling TREK stories (hopefully they'll also stay high-quality).

By the time Oscars are given out for 2009 films, Abrams' TREK will already be on DVD, so any nominations or wins would have no effect on its box office -- and were the film still playing by Feb 2010, TREK wouldn't NEED any boost to its box office by then!

Awards bring prestige to studios for promotional purposes, recognition to individuals for their own work, but more often than not Oscars and such simply give the film benchmarks in history. It's a great calling card, but it guarantees nothing for a film itself except a little additional notoriety.

TREK has thrived and survived for 40 years without huge award wins, and I expect it will continue to do so in 2009 and beyond.

True my friend mission,but lets not forget that star trek as a series has 30+ emmys.

[BlackBox]

w/Shat I think we're looking at a performance at least = to the new batman

w/o Shat I think it will still do well but that they will regret the decision not to go w/Shat

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by jtrek79

True my friend mission,but lets not forget that star trek as a series has 30+ emmys.

True enough, but since this is a feature film and the topic was largely centered on Oscar nominations/wins, I wasn't going to introduce TV series awards since one really doesn't relate to the other.

[vuedoc]

For a Best Picture Oscar, you have to look both at the substance of the film and its execution. That's why Star Wars was nominated because Lucas gave us something that was never shown before and he did a damn good job of it. Even so, it lost out to a movie that granted was awesome, but didn't really present anything fresh and new- but it was a more "traditional" film. Today, there's very little that is "new" in special effects so that alone will keep sci-fi films out of the Best Pic running. I just don't think that sci-fi today is judged by The Academy as the story on its own merit.

[jtrek79]

Look,i am not saying starwars or lotr are bad films,they just dont deserve oscars,perhaps in sfx area,as i said there are directors out there like Zil dasen,or bergman,far better than spielberg or lucas or cameron.As for star trek i am too in deeply love with it,soooo..... i want an oscar