That's not what the Oscars are (or should be) about, though. The voters don't sit there and think "Hmm, which movie entertained the most people? OK, I guess I have to vote for that one."
I have zero interest in seeing Brokeback, but it's breaking records for per-theater box office. By your logic, that means the Oscar people will HAVE to consider it for the top awards.
Seeing how the Oscar for Best Pic has gone to such crowd pleasers as Titanic, Return of the King and Chicago, I don't see Oscar ignoring popular flicks.
A friend who has seen Kong and was only looking for a good adventure pic, btw, tells me it's very long, especially the beginning, and doesn't live up to the promise of its opening. He did like it a lot, but I think Jackson, a terrific filmmaker, has his own storytelling problems. The LOTR films--which I loved--have a lot of clunky storytelling, and a lot of silliness. (And I didn't have a problem with the multiple endings, per se, but I'm in the minority there.)
"That's not what the Oscars are (or should be) about, though. The voters don't sit there and think "Hmm, which movie entertained the most people? OK, I guess I have to vote for that one."
But they do--Titanic was that kind of film and commentators are always saying" they like the OLD hollywood blockbuster type films of yesterday
By the way I REALLY did make a mistake in not writing BROKEBACK,but it does seem an interesting one
Don't be misled by that $100,000 per theater figure for Bareback Mountin.
It is playing in five (count'em), five theaters. Of course it will play to standing room only in San Francisco, West Hollywood, the East Village, Fire Island, and Provincetown. But outside those venues it will be the box office smash that "Saved", "Kinsley", and "De-Lovely" were.
BTW, I adore Naomi Watts and am happy to see her doing well.