Harry Potter and the Little Golden Man

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Harry Potter and the Little Golden Man

Is it about time for a Harry Potter movie to win an Oscar for Best Picture? MovieBob thinks it very well could be.

Read Full Article
 

Lazarus Long

New member
Nov 20, 2008
806
0
0
Interesting. The series as a whole is indeed an impressive undertaking, even just from a logistical standpoint. I could get behind the series receiving some kind of special award, like a version of lifetime achievement.
But you're also right that while being good for what they are, individually they're not in-a-fair-world Best Picture material. Although in the interest of full disclosure I could be wrong about the more recent ones. I lost interest in the series around the third one. I think it was Harry Potter and the MacGuffin of Deus Ex Machina.
 

Seventh Actuality

New member
Apr 23, 2010
551
0
0
Hmm, interesting article, but I'm getting a litte tired of intermissions that are just expanding on what the reviews already said. Even if you're talking about the same film, the level of overlap seems redundant.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Well, when you put it that way...

When you lay it all out like that, Bob, it is incredibly impressive, and deserves some recognition.

Lazarus Long said:
I lost interest in the series around the third one. I think it was Harry Potter and the MacGuffin of Deus Ex Machina.
Interesting, I found the first two books fairly pedestrian (if well-crafted) children's fantasy with a hint of promise. But it wasn't until the third book when the things that happened before Harry was born became more prominent that I was hooked. The series starts with Harry as The Chosen One, but soon it's revealed while Harry is important, the world isn't all about him.

I suppose that was the real strength of the HP series. In other children's fiction, especially fantasy fiction, adults tend to be either neglectful, well-meaning but useless, or mean-spirited villains, but they're almost universally static and undeveloped characters. Rowling hinted at hidden depths and backstories for the Hogwarts faculty pretty early on, and eventually expanded them into fully-fledged characters with a complex intertwined history, goals, passions, frailties and failures.
 

Sabrestar

New member
Apr 13, 2010
432
0
0
Falseprophet said:
I suppose that was the real strength of the HP series. In other children's fiction, especially fantasy fiction, adults tend to be either neglectful, well-meaning but useless, or mean-spirited villains, but they're almost universally static and undeveloped characters. Rowling hinted at hidden depths and backstories for the Hogwarts faculty pretty early on, and eventually expanded them into fully-fledged characters with a complex intertwined history, goals, passions, frailties and failures.
Amen to that. Rowling created a world, a bona fide believable and fully-fleshed-out world that everyone could picture even before the movies, and made (at least within itself) sense. It was, well, grokkable. Successful world-building is the Holy Grail for aspiring amateurs like myself, and she pulled it off. That's what makes it work so well, and be so popular with everyone. And it's still a fully-fledged world with lots of opportunities for narrative beyond what she's written.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
I hear what Bob is saying in regard to the sheer scale of the movie series. It was certainly one hell of an undertaking.

However, I find myself unable to be impressed. I thoroughly enjoyed the books, but the movies never managed to get more than a "meh" from me.
 

pppppppppppppppppp

New member
Jun 23, 2011
1,519
0
0
I like the article, MovieBob, but the typos are really bugging me!

Having seen it, I think that along with a best pic nomination, it'll win visual effects, a sound category, and possibly cinematography assuming that nothing much flashier comes along. I personally hate the idea of awarding actors, directors, or movie series' "lifetime achievement" awards. I'd rather have the Academy objectively judge films than give an Oscar to whoever's "in line to get one".
 

Crimson_Dragoon

Biologist Supreme
Jul 29, 2009
795
0
0
I will have to disagree with you that Deathly Hollows will be viewed as an individual movie, because that doesn't seem to be what happened with Lord of the Rings. Fellowship and Two Towers were completely ignored by the Academy, but Return of the King came in and swept the Oscars with 11 wins. It always felt to me that they were awarding the series as a whole, not just Return of the King, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see something similar with the Harry Potter films.
 

Tireseas_v1legacy

Plop plop plop
Sep 28, 2009
2,419
0
0
Daniel Radcliffe is already in a new movie (The Woman in Black [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596365/])and in a Broadway musical (How to Succeed in business... [http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=488364]).

Emma Watson already is in post-production of two movies (My Week with Marilyn [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655420/], The Perks of Being a Wallflower [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1659337/]) while pursuing a college degree.

Rupert Grint is in post-production of one movie (Comrade [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876277/]) and is in pre-production of three others (Eddie the Eagle [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1083452/], Cross Country [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1444683/],Wartime Wanderers [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956702/])

With the loads that their pursuing, they'll get their Oscars eventually.
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
Hrm Bob, I like your reviews, but you basically re-hashed the same sentiment in two different medium.

That I said, I do agree. I would feel warm and fuzzy if awards were dumped on it, just for the vastness of the undertaking.
 

THEoriginalBRIEN

New member
Aug 23, 2010
131
0
0
I wasn't going to bother reading the article and just chime in woth "Again, Movie Bob doesn't know what he's talking about" based on the headline.
But I did read the article, and although some fair points are made, Movie Bob still doesn't know what he's talking about. Then again, I haven't seen the film yet (seeing it tonight).
After the horrible taste the last two movies left in my eyes my expectations are low and even if I consider it to be on par with the series' high points (movies 1-3 and 5), Harry Potter still just doesn't seem like Oscar material. I always believed The Dark Knight and Wall-E deserved best picture nominations because along with pushing their respective genres forward in every aspect, they also had strong definable message at their core and commentary on the human condition. Harry Potter just doesn't have that. The books didn't and the movies don't either. They're great fantasy-mystery stories, but ultimately we're looking at Star Wars with wizards and Star Wars (rightfully) never secured a best picture nom either.
A special achievement award? Most certainly. I'd be outraged if everyone involved with the series weren't commended for the scale of the endeavor and their (mostly) successful execution of it. But where LOTR made a point to let each film stand on its own as a great piece of a series, many of the Potter films rely on each other and their source to fill in the gaps in their stories. Despite my low expectations for HP7p2, I have high hopes for it to exceed them. But with this year's Best Picture category shrinking down to "between 5 and 10" (hopefully 7?) nominees, I doubt there will be room for it among solid pictures that can stand on their own.
 

Doive

New member
Nov 6, 2010
165
0
0
You say that the lord of the rings trilogy was seen as niche and go on to imply that a fair few people didn't like the films, yet all three were nominated for best picture, with the third winning it. Some say Return of the king won best picture to recognise the trilogy, which seems fair. The difference is that none of the harry potter films so far have been any better or even as good as other films released the same years. Special achievement, possibly, but we all know it won't win best picture.
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
I'm a fan of the special Oscar scenario.

If you look at it the only sequels that ever won had everything else in their series at least nominated. To see a "Part 8" nominated for best picture when parts 1 through 7 never saw anything better than a nomination for art direction would be a little outside the cards for the academy. But hell, you never know with the bloat in nomination slots anything could happen. As far as nomination summer blockbusters go Harry Potter is one hell of a lot more deserving than Inception was last year.

I also find my self hoping that Harry Potter doesn't get nominated so, come January, nothing can impede me from crossing my fingers and going "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo..."
 

Mylinkay Asdara

Waiting watcher
Nov 28, 2010
934
0
0
I refused to see the movies when the books became delayed for their production. So I say HP1 and HP2 in theaters, but never the others out of my indignation that a 'writer' who'd already made lavish amounts of money would delay their writing - that which they started out with and created the - for the production of movies for the sole purpose of raking in more monies. As I saw it.

I read all the books, as soon as they were available, generally multiple times after an initial cover to cover within the first 24 hours. Books 1, 2, and 3 I read in one weekend (didn't know the series existed before that) and I had to wait like everyone else for the rest - Book 4 was excellent and I liked where the ideas were going. Book 5 would have been the last really solid title (in my opinion) IF it had served its full function as a bridge between Book 4 and Book 6, but it fell down on the job with that somewhat and Book 6 came off as a left turn made for reasons unknown. Book 7 was decent, but entirely too long for what it was - and I had no interest in the Harry-Ron-Hermione camping trip that dominates the book. How it could be that the three most lucky and clever wizards at Hogwarts school with fairly outstanding wit and intellect for their age could decide that wandering around aimlessly was going to produce a solution to the biggest crisis of wizard-kind I will never comprehend. Like many people, I was perturbed by the feeling of the Epilog. It felt more like a "LEAVE ME ALONE" note from J.K. than anything else.

The movies look cool though. They look better than the books were, and that makes me tempted to see them. I figure, since I took myself out of the HP game when the last book closed in my hand, I'll just wait until the fervor dies down and put the DVD set on my Christmas list.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Doive said:
You say that the lord of the rings trilogy was seen as niche and go on to imply that a fair few people didn't like the films, yet all three were nominated for best picture, with the third winning it. Some say Return of the king won best picture to recognise the trilogy, which seems fair. The difference is that none of the harry potter films so far have been any better or even as good as other films released the same years. Special achievement, possibly, but we all know it won't win best picture.
It could win best picture for the same reason RoTK won it. Just because Harry Potter wasn't nominated every single time for best picture doesn't mean it doesn't fit into the same scenario.
 

PhunkyPhazon

New member
Dec 23, 2009
1,967
0
0
I'm not sure there was ever a ten year long contract with these movies, or that they were committed to filming ALL of the books. As well as all that uncertainty whether the franchise would remain popular or good, I remember reading interviews back in the early days when I was still young enough to be reading Nickolodeon Magazine. They would interview the main cast after every movie, and they would always ask how many more of these they're planning on making. And each time it was always the same answer. "We're definitely going to adapt the next book, but after that we'll see."

Maybe they just weren't allowed to talk about it, otherwise it doesn't seem like they ever thought the project would get this huge. If anything it's like they just wanted to cash in on the franchise while it was still popular.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
They are mere abbeviated counterparts. Don't make comments like this unless you have read the books. You can't compare them to something you haven't experienced.

Also, I don't rate films 3, 4, 5 or 6 at all. I think they're utter garbage frankly. I think the problem with Potter is that people got so caught up in the phenomenon, then the 'oh my god they're really going to finish these adaptations,' that they forgot to honestly judge the movies on any sort of standards or quality.
 

Genixma

New member
Sep 22, 2009
594
0
0
If they don't I'm not only going to expect it I'm going to laugh because I know people will rage on forums who were caught in Phenomenon.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
I really don't care for Harry Potter but I can respect the effort that went into this massive undertaking though.

... but I'm still not gonna watch it.
 

Penguin_Factory

New member
Sep 13, 2010
197
0
0
Until I read this article, I had never really stepped back to consider the series as a whole (mostly because I vastly prefer the later entries to the earlier ones). When I skipped ahead and saw Bob describing the series as "Hollywood's moon landings" I initially reacted with incredulity, but thinking about it...... you know what, you're right. It is a big achievement.
 

The Bandit

New member
Feb 5, 2008
967
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
They are mere abbeviated counterparts. Don't make comments like this unless you have read the books. You can't compare them to something you haven't experienced.

Also, I don't rate films 3, 4, 5 or 6 at all. I think they're utter garbage frankly. I think the problem with Potter is that people got so caught up in the phenomenon, then the 'oh my god they're really going to finish these adaptations,' that they forgot to honestly judge the movies on any sort of standards or quality.
And the problem with the hardcore book crowd is that they believe that if the movie doesn't follow every single plot line then it's trash. The fact is, Rowling desperately needed an editor, and, while her publisher didn't come through, the movies were happy to oblige.

The first two movies- the ones that weren't abbreviated- were the worst ones. They were so long and tedious, it didn't matter how epic the climax was, the viewer couldn't help but be bored by the end.
 

moviedork

New member
Mar 25, 2011
159
0
0
How could you say that LOTR is a niche audience? Those films each made more money than any of the Harry Potter films, as well as getting nominated for a lot more academy awards (all three best picture-one win-and two best directors-one win). You're hyping Potter up too much.

Plus how do Nolan's Batman movies appeal to just fanboys? TDK is the third highest domestic money maker. Obviously fanboys went to it a lot, but not enough to put it at #3 all-time in the North American box office!

As for Academy Award nominations- technical...yes, other awards...it's too early to tell!
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
There's no way that it doesn't get nominated for Best Picture; they're nominating everything in the book these days. As far as winning though, I'm of two minds about that.

1. The last mainstream film that won was Return of the King which came out in 2003. Its been a string of indie/art films since then with a number of high profile 'snubs' i could see the Academy voters throwing a bone to the masses, so to speak.

2. It'll be up against The Tree of Life, which the whole film world has a hard-on for at the moment. It's eminently possible htat this film will sidle along in the last month before voting and win out from under whoever's thought to be the frontrunner at the time, a la Hurt Locker.

The second scenario seems more likely to me, in which case we'll have a repeat of last years Old Hollywood v. New Hollywood proxy battle between The KIngs Speech and The Social Network. Which history shows the old guard as the clear favorite time and time again.
 

Zechnophobe

New member
Feb 4, 2010
1,077
0
0
MovieBob said:
MovieBob: Harry Potter and the Little Golden Man

Is it about time for a Harry Potter movie to win an Oscar for Best Picture? MovieBob thinks it very well could be.

Read Full Article
Hah, my initial reaction was "Wait, does that mean it's time for them to make an actually good Harry Potter Movie?"

The bitter me is always like that though.

Honestly though, I've been very sad for each HP that's come out after, like, the third. The plots seem very disjointed flitting from one scene to the next, and there is either a lot not spoken in the movie, or very little reason for a lot of actions.

Take Part 1 of Deathly Hollows. We have an entire lead up with the fecund poly-juice potion... lots of giggles and time taken with it... and then it fails IMMEDIATELY. And the characters don't even seem that particularly put off.

It wasn't even explained why a poly juice potion would effect a magical tracking device.

In general, the story can't figure out if it is 'high fantasy' ala Tolkein, or token fantasy ala Susan Cooper. We have powerful magics and absolute evils... but still light candles in the darkness.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
The "risk" as I see it when it came to the first movie seems, to me, like Hollywood being greedy and wanting in on all that money J.K. Rowling was raking in, not caring about the books or continuity itself. They made the movies when Harry Potter was at the height of its popularity. It's questionable to see if it would still be as successful if they tried to make the movies after the series was said and done...
 

millertime059

New member
Jan 7, 2011
51
0
0
I feel those who are dismissing the movies, or decrying them as unworthy of such praise really need to step back and examine them more objectively.

Full disclosure, I'm 26 and thus missed the boat the first time around. I had neither watched any of the movies or read any of the books until last October. I saw all of the movies without any prior knowledge of the series. I have since read all the books, and rewatched the movies.

The movies stand on their own, and have many merits. They generally got better as the series progressed.

The books are fantastic in their own right.

Some things work better as literary devices than cinematic ones. All the carping about how 'the movies changed the books and therefore are inferior' is quite frankly utter tripe. Certain things that were in the book, even great parts, could not have been filmed without ruining the flow of the story. Perfect example - Half Blood Prince. All the flashback stuff. It makes little more than a cameo. Great swaths of backstory cut. Thing is the movie is better for it. Flashbacks need to be carefully administered, in the book Rowling gets away with it because it serves to bring much more depth to the character of Voldemort. In the movie it would have dragged pacing down unacceptably. Same with much of the stuff on the half blood prince. That said the movies add lots of little incidental details to enrich the world. They hint at depth and scope without the need for pointless exposition. Careful viewers, or those who read the books will notice little things that make repeat views worthwhile, and even neseccary.

What the books do that is most noteworthy is character development. Where most movies have shallow arcs and 2d characters HP gives life to so many. Even those that seem to be stock tropes usually get some development to make them more believable. Dumbledores flaw, when revealed, not only hits on a visceral level (and you see it in Harry's character) but also retroactively makes the other books and movies better. Harry's flaw subverts audience expectations but also drives the fifth story. Sorry son, you may think you're special and right, but good intentions can produce bad outcomes when you act rashly and foolishly. This is the series greatest strength, and this is the one thing the movies focused on most. It's why the movies are good adaptations even when they changed plot points, they didn't change the characters at the stories heart.
 

K_Dub

New member
Oct 19, 2008
523
0
0
When you put it that way Bob, I wouldn't be surprised to at all to see HP recieve a nomination or some kind of award. It damn well deserves both in my opinion.
 

The Electro Gypsy

New member
Aug 10, 2010
107
0
0
From a purely monetary standpoint, definitely. From any of the series deserving an award for being good, definitely not.
 

Darth Sea Bass

New member
Mar 3, 2009
1,139
0
0
I could live with the films getting a special needs oscar or any of the technicals i just don't know if i'd feel comfortable with them getting any of the top nominations.

Saying that this years looking pretty sparse in the best picture category so why the hell not give it a shot this year.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I have to admit, I do consider the films as abbreviate not as good version of the books and apart from the middle part of the last film, they deserve that.

But I also agree that the actors are a testament to something monumental. Pictures of the Philosophers Stone just shocked me completely, I was one of the few people who will ever get to grow up alongside a series of books that grew up with me, and a set of films where the actors grew up with me too and that's pretty crazy
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
I also find my self hoping that Harry Potter doesn't get nominated so, come January, nothing can impede me from crossing my fingers and going "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo..."
That came out in 2009 du... Oh, you mean the English language one. No fucking chance. It's not even an original film, and Daniel Craig as Blomkvist? No. No, no, no, no, NO.

But IMO, Tree of Life is gonna walk away with the best picture, the Academy eats that kind of shit up.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
walrusaurus said:
1. The last mainstream film that won was Return of the King which came out in 2003. Its been a string of indie/art films since then with a number of high profile 'snubs' i could see the Academy voters throwing a bone to the masses, so to speak.
Um... the winners since ROTK were Million Dollar Baby, Crash, Departed, No Country For Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire, Hurt Locker and King's Speech - NONE of which are "arthouse" by any definition and maybe three of which are "indie" only by the broadest possible definition of the word.

walrusaurus said:
2. It'll be up against The Tree of Life, which the whole film world has a hard-on for at the moment. It's eminently possible htat this film will sidle along in the last month before voting and win out from under whoever's thought to be the frontrunner at the time, a la Hurt Locker.
"Tree of Life" isn't even garaunteed a nomination, from where I sit. I'D nominate it - it's a magnificient film - but it's extremely divisive within the industry and doesn't have any of the social-commentary aspect that can sometimes carry a non-traditional film to a nod; though I wouldn't rule out a "surprise" visual effects nomination or a Supporting Actress for Jessica Chastain.

Right now, the Big Dog at this year's Oscars is "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." It's got everything - a lead actor everyone in the biz loves, based on a book that everyone is reading (which possibly means a big boxoffice a'la DaVinci Code) and if so it's a "mainstream" hit for David Fincher to win the Best Picture award he's "owed" for the snubbing of "Social Network." Unless of course it sucks, but again - DAVID FINCHER. Probably not ;)
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
Yeah, another year of listening to fanboys repeat the empty and meaningless threat of, "if this movie does not win, then we will boycott the oscars for the rest of our lives."

It got old when the Return of the King us up for the award. It was pathetic when it was the Dark Knight. Now with potter, it is just sad.
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
Tin Man said:
Mikeyfell said:
I also find my self hoping that Harry Potter doesn't get nominated so, come January, nothing can impede me from crossing my fingers and going "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo..."
That came out in 2009 du... Oh, you mean the English language one. No fucking chance. It's not even an original film, and Daniel Craig as Blomkvist? No. No, no, no, no, NO.

But IMO, Tree of Life is gonna walk away with the best picture, the Academy eats that kind of shit up.
dude seriously, more than half of the best picture hves been an adaptation.
A few have even been remakes. The Departed was a remake of a Chinese movie called Infernal Affairs and it won best picture.

I'm worried about Daniel Craig too but with David Fincher directing and Steven Zaillian writing I think it could happen (at least let Fincher win directer. He deserves it!) **Note** I have not seen this movie yet it may suck


And Tree of Life came out really early in the year, they might forget it happened.
 

Toriver

Lvl 20 Hedgehog Wizard
Jan 25, 2010
1,364
0
0
Sorry Bob, but while I would like to agree with you that the film (and series) will get some sort of recognition from the Academy, I just don't see it happening.

1) Its own status as an institution, as you put it in your video review, instead of just a book or film series, will be a big part of its downfall. The movies can easily be seen as a cash-in on a series of books that was already insanely popular with the public at the time the first movie was produced (and still is insanely popular today). And in the eyes of a great many people, there are other parts of the Harry Potter "institution" that are much better than the films. The Academy doesn't like to reward cash-ins. The LotR trilogy (gonna use this example a lot, sorry, but it fits) was based on a trilogy of books that, while regarded by many as the greatest fantasy literature ever written, still had a relatively small hardcore fanbase at the time, so when Fellowship of the Ring was released, it was still opening up a new world that was only well-known by a niche readership. Even at the time Sorcerer's Stone was released, the book series was already wildly popular among children and was gaining serious popularity with adults. You may even be able to recall the huge buzz in the UK about finding the children to play the heroic trio. I grew up in the USA and I remember that. That movies would be made of such a franchise, and that they would rake in serious cash, was a surprise to no-one.

2) While the series has gotten much "darker" and maturely-themed over time, as the books did, it still has the burden of being a family-oriented series, as you said yourself in the article. There have only been four films geared towards children or families that have been nominated for Best Picture in my lifetime: Beauty and the Beast, Babe, Up, and Toy Story 3. I don't believe anyone took any of those four seriously as actual contenders to win, especially not the two Pixar films, due to the expanded nomination roster and the presence of the Best Animated Feature category. Though Harry Potter is not animated, it still has that "family film" or "kids' movie" perception about it. That comes from the first two or three installments. You said it yourself: sometimes some decisions are made that aren't based on the movies as stand-alone projects, but in view of other factors. This last installment of Harry Potter must be able to overcome the vision that its predecessors give the series: well-made films, but as films themselves (without looking at the series as a whole), nothing to be amazed at.

3) Speaking of that dichotomy between the series and each stand-alone film, here's something interesting: everything that you are mentioning Harry Potter has done, has been done before, except for watching child actors grow up over a span of eight movies. We only have to look at nerds' beloved sci-fi films to see it, namely the Star Trek and Star Wars films. The original Star Trek series has six films, spanning two decades in their release. No cast changes to major crew members on the ship were made in that time. To this day, William Shatner will always be James T. Kirk, and Leonard Nimoy will be Spock. The new film's cast had to do their best to try to both give their own take on the characters AND draw from the work of their predecessors to provide a believable sense that these people will grow into the Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc. that we know.
As for a longer-length series that weaves into one narrative, the Star Wars films are a prime example of that. While done in something of a reverse order, one could argue that the only film in the series that could be completely and totally independent of the other films is Episode 4, due to it being the first film that was actually produced in the series. The other episodes to some degree draw on what fans already know of the Star Wars universe in order to be fully understood, just like you point out about Harry Potter. While they are not as totally integrated into one narrative as the later Potter installments are, the same concept exists with Star Wars. In fact, with Harry Potter, this was even easier to do, because even if it was as of yet unfinished, there was already outside source material for them to work with, and a good deal of it is based on places that already exist. The entire universe in which Star Wars exists had to be created by George Lucas in a believable way in order for it to work. With these things in mind, the accomplishments of Harry Potter seem less impressive to me.

4) This film needs to show that it can hold its own as a great stand-alone film in its own right, which is something that its predecessors, especially the first part of the 7th book, just haven't been able to do as effectively as parts of other well-known series, such as the Godfather films and the LotR films. Each part of the Godfather and LotR trilogies, especially the first two parts of the Godfather, was seen as an individual piece of film-making that could stand with the best of all time on its own, as well as adding to a larger project that in the end would become two all-time great film franchises. While the Harry Potter series can certainly be looked at as a great accomplishment as a whole, when viewing each part individually, they don't seem like much more than what other series are offering. Let me put this in other terms: The Godfather was special, one of the greatest films of all time. It was the first part of the Godfather trilogy, one of the greatest movie series of all time. The Harry Potter series, as a series, may have some merit to being a great series when you put them together. But each Harry Potter film on its own isn't very special. So unless the last film is truly something special, I don't see it going anywhere. If Hollywood loved this franchise so much for its art, earlier parts would have seen nominations. I think Hollywood just loves this franchise for the money it makes them. And as I said in my first point, the Academy doesn't reward money, it rewards art.

5) Because of the new rule on the number of nominees, we can probably expect to see a more protracted roster this year in response to criticism of the pool being too large in the previous two years, and when push comes to shove, I can see Harry Potter being a "snub" victim in this regard. It's a fantasy film, a sequel, none of its predecessors has been nominated for anything major, and there are bound to be higher-quality stand-alone films out there that deserve a spot.

6) Look at the types of films you are saying this movie is influencing. The Avengers? Really, Bob? Is that the best you can come up with? I love my Marvel movies as much as I am sure you do, but as much as The Dark Knight has paved the way for superhero movies to be taken seriously by the Academy, I don't think we're quite at the level that Avengers is going to be anything impressive to them. And then to claim that Harry Potter's artistic legacy is to pave the way for the comic book continuity used by that movie isn't really much of an argument there. When another series of films that the Academy would take more seriously begins to use such a continuity in the time after Potter is finished, then we can talk about such a legacy. But if the only example you can come up with is The Avengers, that doesn't say much.

I love your work, Bob, and I agree with you most of the time, but on this one, I just can't, and those are my reasons.
 

Gunnyboy

New member
Sep 25, 2010
103
0
0
Star Wars (rightfully) never secured a best picture nom either.
What? It was nominated for 10 awards, including Best Picture, won 6 and probably should have won over Annie Hall.



Potter isn't any good, and never was. None of these films are cinematic or deserve any recognition. In this era of people complaining about sequels and franchises the kingpin of the entire racket, that defines the whole process - Harry Potter - deserves acclaim, why? Because they kept the cast? Because they adapted each book, instead of condensing some to make for better movies? Please.


And if Bob wants to bring up continuity, hell, Tarantino did his own thing like that first.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
A good adaptation shouldn't have audience members rely on the book, and that's why I don't think the film is good enough to get a nomination. My parents didn't like the movie because they didn't know what was going on, and my brother said "FOOLS! YOU HAVE TO READ THE BOOKS!!"
It's a movie; no one should have to read a book to understand a movie.

Although I'm suspecting something like Lord of the Rings, where Return of the King won all the Oscars because the films are meant to be seen as one. Harry Potter Part 2 will get nods for the series as a whole, but won't win 11 Oscars, because LoTR is a better film series :p
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
MovieBob said:
walrusaurus said:
1. The last mainstream film that won was Return of the King which came out in 2003. Its been a string of indie/art films since then with a number of high profile 'snubs' i could see the Academy voters throwing a bone to the masses, so to speak.
Um... the winners since ROTK were Million Dollar Baby, Crash, Departed, No Country For Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire, Hurt Locker and King's Speech - NONE of which are "arthouse" by any definition and maybe three of which are "indie" only by the broadest possible definition of the word.
My point was that none of those films were mainstream hits prior to winning the Oscar, and some not even then. I had actually forgotten about The Departed, which did moderately well if i remember correctly. Even so that came out in 2006; still 5 years ago.

Your points about the Tree of LIfe are good However, I will be surprised if The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo gets as grand a reception as you think, seeing as the Dutch version is still relatively new. It only came through my city for the first time last summer. On a semi-related note, are the books that popular? I haven't heard anything about them in my social circle. Definitely not Da Vinci Code level of interest if nothing else.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
moviedork said:
How could you say that LOTR is a niche audience? Those films each made more money than any of the Harry Potter films
Fact Check: While Return of the King did outsell all of the first 7 Potter films, Two Towers was beat by HP 1, 5, 6, 7; and Fellowship topped only the third HP film.

Taken as a series Lord of the Rings grossed 2.9 billion over three films, or roughly 970 million each. While Harry Potter is at 6.5 billion (after the first 7 films) equaling roughly 930 million per film. For those keeping track at home thats a 4% difference.

And now you know.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
Tin Man said:
Mikeyfell said:
I also find my self hoping that Harry Potter doesn't get nominated so, come January, nothing can impede me from crossing my fingers and going "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo..."
That came out in 2009 du... Oh, you mean the English language one. No fucking chance. It's not even an original film, and Daniel Craig as Blomkvist? No. No, no, no, no, NO.

But IMO, Tree of Life is gonna walk away with the best picture, the Academy eats that kind of shit up.
dude seriously, more than half of the best picture hves been an adaptation.
A few have even been remakes. The Departed was a remake of a Chinese movie called Infernal Affairs and it won best picture.
I should've been clearer lol, I didn't mean adaptations(cause the film in the OP is one lol), I meant it's a remake of another film. Not one that switches certain key things up to effect the feel, like The Departed, but a complete fucking rewrite of a film that only came out a couple of years ago...

I would be honestly be a bit disgusted if that version got a nomination, when the good Swedish versions didn't get a well deserved nod. Not even the brilliant Noomi Rapace was in with a shout.
 

Jake Martinez

New member
Apr 2, 2010
590
0
0
First of all, I think there was an argument made for some of the previous Harry Potter movies to get an oscar on technical merits and depending on the year/movie they might have been robbed.

But after that, the ones that people really care about (directing, writing, acting), none of the films deserve a win in these categories.

I have seen every single HP movie, multiple time, (my wife is a big fan) and while some of them are enjoyable (and yes, some of them are down right cringe worthy), none of them stand out as being oscar worthy.

One of the limitations (and possibily, one of the good things about the series actually) is the enormous amount of screen time given to the three child (well young adult now) lead actors. From a purists stand point with the books, I really like that the series stuck with this approach, even though from a movie perspective, they are all fairly rotten actors.

This is the limitation the series has worked against - it is,ultimately, a movie about children, starring children, for children. Children are not always the best performers, and frankly when doing a long series of movies like these ones, they were kind of "stuck" with the crop of kids they picked up when they were bloody eight years old. You find a casting director that can spot an eight year old that will be able to turn in an oscar worthy performance in 5-10 years, and you'll have found someone who has very bloody likely signed a pack with the devil.

Anyway, all that being said, Harry Potter doesn't need to win an oscar to justify your enjoyment of the films, or your care of the characters, or source material, or to prove how good the books are or any other such nonsense. In fact, I would be somewhat cynical if the series was awarded some sort of prize as a nod. At this point it would almost be like saying, "Here's an award for having the... guts?? will??? determination??? to cash in on a crazy popular phenomina and make several by the books movies for a large fan base over the last ten years!"

It's not very inspiring if you think of it that way, is it??
 

moviedork

New member
Mar 25, 2011
159
0
0
walrusaurus said:
moviedork said:
How could you say that LOTR is a niche audience? Those films each made more money than any of the Harry Potter films
Fact Check: While Return of the King did outsell all of the first 7 Potter films, Two Towers was beat by HP 1, 5, 6, 7; and Fellowship topped only the third HP film.

Taken as a series Lord of the Rings grossed 2.9 billion over three films, or roughly 970 million each. While Harry Potter is at 6.5 billion (after the first 7 films) equaling roughly 930 million per film. For those keeping track at home thats a 4% difference.

And now you know.
My answer was based off of domestic totals (Update: I do see now that Sorcerer's Stone barely out grossed Fellowship- my mistake)

Highest Harry Potter Movie: Sorcerer's Stone $317 million
2nd Highest Harry Potter: Half Blood Prince $301 million
LOTR: Return of the King $377 million, Two Towers $341 million, Fellowship $314 million
 

Gunnyboy

New member
Sep 25, 2010
103
0
0
Tin Man said:
Mikeyfell said:
Tin Man said:
Mikeyfell said:
I also find my self hoping that Harry Potter doesn't get nominated so, come January, nothing can impede me from crossing my fingers and going "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo..."
That came out in 2009 du... Oh, you mean the English language one. No fucking chance. It's not even an original film, and Daniel Craig as Blomkvist? No. No, no, no, no, NO.

But IMO, Tree of Life is gonna walk away with the best picture, the Academy eats that kind of shit up.
dude seriously, more than half of the best picture hves been an adaptation.
A few have even been remakes. The Departed was a remake of a Chinese movie called Infernal Affairs and it won best picture.
I should've been clearer lol, I didn't mean adaptations(cause the film in the OP is one lol), I meant it's a remake of another film. Not one that switches certain key things up to effect the feel, like The Departed, but a complete fucking rewrite of a film that only came out a couple of years ago...

I would be honestly be a bit disgusted if that version got a nomination, when the good Swedish versions didn't get a well deserved nod. Not even the brilliant Noomi Rapace was in with a shout.
Zallian adapted the book. They even changed the ending. The Departed wasnt that different from the original.

And save the indignation. The Swede versions werent good at all
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
Tin Man said:
Mikeyfell said:
Tin Man said:
Mikeyfell said:
I also find my self hoping that Harry Potter doesn't get nominated so, come January, nothing can impede me from crossing my fingers and going "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo..."
That came out in 2009 du... Oh, you mean the English language one. No fucking chance. It's not even an original film, and Daniel Craig as Blomkvist? No. No, no, no, no, NO.

But IMO, Tree of Life is gonna walk away with the best picture, the Academy eats that kind of shit up.
dude seriously, more than half of the best picture hves been an adaptation.
A few have even been remakes. The Departed was a remake of a Chinese movie called Infernal Affairs and it won best picture.
I should've been clearer lol, I didn't mean adaptations(cause the film in the OP is one lol), I meant it's a remake of another film. Not one that switches certain key things up to effect the feel, like The Departed, but a complete fucking rewrite of a film that only came out a couple of years ago...

I would be honestly be a bit disgusted if that version got a nomination, when the good Swedish versions didn't get a well deserved nod. Not even the brilliant Noomi Rapace was in with a shout.
Have you seen Infernal Affairs?
The Departed was hardly more than a translation of a 4 year old movie.

The original GWTDT won BAFTAs (Won best foreign language film, Nominated for best actress and best writing for an adaptation) And it did come out in February so it's hardly a mystery that it didn't get any Oscar nods.

If Daniel Craig can act something other than James Bond I think the movie will turn out great.
I think, it's not out yet.
 

XDravond

Something something....
Mar 30, 2011
356
0
0
Well I do not love all the HP films ('cus they are not that great not visually nor audio (though the main theme is just great) and the acting is sometimes plain boring/bad.. and they could probably found some director that would have made them better.
BUT they do deserve some kind of recognition because they pulled of something great. 8 movies with really connected plot (No J.K.Rowling is not the best author ever for this) and decent actors that kept being decent for 10 years... and of course no extreme or major overhaul of the scenery (like Hogwarts castle...) must have been hard to keep the directors from pulling of...

Though I'm not sure "best picture" would be the Oscar to give to well "everyone in and around the Harry Potter movies" because I do not think that theres a specific person that suppose to earn for what so many been "helping" out to put together. Warner Bros have just made tons of money and Rowling has not been the main person for the movies (in my view anyway) and they had to many smaller actors that made the movies better and to many directors to give a single one the price...

So maybe just call everyone of the on stage and give them a big thank you and a "diploma" etc or a micro Oscar or the like each...
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
moviedork said:
walrusaurus said:
moviedork said:
How could you say that LOTR is a niche audience? Those films each made more money than any of the Harry Potter films
Fact Check: While Return of the King did outsell all of the first 7 Potter films, Two Towers was beat by HP 1, 5, 6, 7; and Fellowship topped only the third HP film.

Taken as a series Lord of the Rings grossed 2.9 billion over three films, or roughly 970 million each. While Harry Potter is at 6.5 billion (after the first 7 films) equaling roughly 930 million per film. For those keeping track at home thats a 4% difference.

And now you know.
My answer was based off of domestic totals (Update: I do see now that Sorcerer's Stone barely out grossed Fellowship- my mistake)

Highest Harry Potter Movie: Sorcerer's Stone $317 million
2nd Highest Harry Potter: Half Blood Prince $301 million
LOTR: Return of the King $377 million, Two Towers $341 million, Fellowship $314 million
Fair enough, but it seems odd to ignore 90% of the worlds population when making claims about the size of a films audience.
 

SandroTheMaster

New member
Apr 2, 2009
166
0
0
So... basically you're saying that Harry Potter did in Hollywood what countless series have done on TV over the decades so it deserves special treatment?

Meh... It is still my believe that only a really bad or short book can be truly and faithfully adapted to the big-screens. The Lord of The Rings movies were all so big they should actually count as two features each, and still they left out a lot that was, in fact, crucial. Harry Potter 7 had to be split into 2 lengthy features, padded a lot in the first, but even if they didn't the end result was something that really can only be fully comprehensible to whoever have read the books. Game of Thrones got it down right: A series is more fitting to translate a book than a movie is. Otherwise you're just giving pictures and motion for the people who've read it.
 

moviedork

New member
Mar 25, 2011
159
0
0
walrusaurus said:
Fair enough, but it seems odd to ignore 90% of the worlds population when making claims about the size of a films audience.
I understand it seems odd, and I'll try to look more at the bigger picture when I make claims. I guess I'm so use to the media talking about the domestic success (or lack of) that I tend to forget that generally over 60% of the revenue made is overseas.
 

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
Definitely not win. But it deserves a nomination or some sort of recognition. Part II on it's own is not a best picture film, imo. There have been/will be better films this year for sure.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Sabrestar said:
Falseprophet said:
I suppose that was the real strength of the HP series. In other children's fiction, especially fantasy fiction, adults tend to be either neglectful, well-meaning but useless, or mean-spirited villains, but they're almost universally static and undeveloped characters. Rowling hinted at hidden depths and backstories for the Hogwarts faculty pretty early on, and eventually expanded them into fully-fledged characters with a complex intertwined history, goals, passions, frailties and failures.
Amen to that. Rowling created a world, a bona fide believable and fully-fleshed-out world that everyone could picture even before the movies, and made (at least within itself) sense. It was, well, grokkable. Successful world-building is the Holy Grail for aspiring amateurs like myself, and she pulled it off. That's what makes it work so well, and be so popular with everyone. And it's still a fully-fledged world with lots of opportunities for narrative beyond what she's written.
Absolutely agreed.

That doesnt change the fact that none of the HP movies deserve a Best Picture Oscar. Alan Rickman might deserve one for best supporting actor...but then I'm a huge fan of his and somewhat biased.
 

Reverend Del

New member
Feb 17, 2010
245
0
0
Safaia said:
Give John Williams his god damn Oscar for the music in this series.
No don't. The theme Williams trotted out for the HP series, really is just him idling. He could have done so much better, but he didn't need to. The fact it's still good shows that he has exceptional talent, but this theme is not Oscar worthy.
 

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
tzimize said:
Sabrestar said:
Falseprophet said:
I suppose that was the real strength of the HP series. In other children's fiction, especially fantasy fiction, adults tend to be either neglectful, well-meaning but useless, or mean-spirited villains, but they're almost universally static and undeveloped characters. Rowling hinted at hidden depths and backstories for the Hogwarts faculty pretty early on, and eventually expanded them into fully-fledged characters with a complex intertwined history, goals, passions, frailties and failures.
Amen to that. Rowling created a world, a bona fide believable and fully-fleshed-out world that everyone could picture even before the movies, and made (at least within itself) sense. It was, well, grokkable. Successful world-building is the Holy Grail for aspiring amateurs like myself, and she pulled it off. That's what makes it work so well, and be so popular with everyone. And it's still a fully-fledged world with lots of opportunities for narrative beyond what she's written.
Absolutely agreed.

That doesnt change the fact that none of the HP movies deserve a Best Picture Oscar. Alan Rickman might deserve one for best supporting actor...but then I'm a huge fan of his and somewhat biased.
I would pay Emma Watson with a nomination at least. Maybe not the best vehicle for her to earn one, but I think she can get one some day. She definitely has the ability. I felt so sad when she realized Harry was going to die and started crying.

what the fuck? I have to watch an advertisement just to post captcha? seriously escapist???
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Zing said:
tzimize said:
Sabrestar said:
Falseprophet said:
I suppose that was the real strength of the HP series. In other children's fiction, especially fantasy fiction, adults tend to be either neglectful, well-meaning but useless, or mean-spirited villains, but they're almost universally static and undeveloped characters. Rowling hinted at hidden depths and backstories for the Hogwarts faculty pretty early on, and eventually expanded them into fully-fledged characters with a complex intertwined history, goals, passions, frailties and failures.
Amen to that. Rowling created a world, a bona fide believable and fully-fleshed-out world that everyone could picture even before the movies, and made (at least within itself) sense. It was, well, grokkable. Successful world-building is the Holy Grail for aspiring amateurs like myself, and she pulled it off. That's what makes it work so well, and be so popular with everyone. And it's still a fully-fledged world with lots of opportunities for narrative beyond what she's written.
Absolutely agreed.

That doesnt change the fact that none of the HP movies deserve a Best Picture Oscar. Alan Rickman might deserve one for best supporting actor...but then I'm a huge fan of his and somewhat biased.
I would pay Emma Watson with a nomination at least. Maybe not the best vehicle for her to earn one, but I think she can get one some day. She definitely has the ability. I felt so sad when she realized Harry was going to die and started crying.

what the fuck? I have to watch an advertisement just to post captcha? seriously escapist???
Emma Watson? Oscar worthy? Are you serious? She's pretty cute, but she is not a very good actor, and she is downright awful when you consider good child/young actors (examples: Sophie Turner or Maisie Williams who play Sansa and Arya in Game of Thrones, or Hailee Steinfeld from True Grit).
 

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
tzimize said:
Zing said:
tzimize said:
Sabrestar said:
Falseprophet said:
I suppose that was the real strength of the HP series. In other children's fiction, especially fantasy fiction, adults tend to be either neglectful, well-meaning but useless, or mean-spirited villains, but they're almost universally static and undeveloped characters. Rowling hinted at hidden depths and backstories for the Hogwarts faculty pretty early on, and eventually expanded them into fully-fledged characters with a complex intertwined history, goals, passions, frailties and failures.
Amen to that. Rowling created a world, a bona fide believable and fully-fleshed-out world that everyone could picture even before the movies, and made (at least within itself) sense. It was, well, grokkable. Successful world-building is the Holy Grail for aspiring amateurs like myself, and she pulled it off. That's what makes it work so well, and be so popular with everyone. And it's still a fully-fledged world with lots of opportunities for narrative beyond what she's written.
Absolutely agreed.

That doesnt change the fact that none of the HP movies deserve a Best Picture Oscar. Alan Rickman might deserve one for best supporting actor...but then I'm a huge fan of his and somewhat biased.
I would pay Emma Watson with a nomination at least. Maybe not the best vehicle for her to earn one, but I think she can get one some day. She definitely has the ability. I felt so sad when she realized Harry was going to die and started crying.

what the fuck? I have to watch an advertisement just to post captcha? seriously escapist???
Emma Watson? Oscar worthy? Are you serious? She's pretty cute, but she is not a very good actor, and she is downright awful when you consider good child/young actors (examples: Sophie Turner or Maisie Williams who play Sansa and Arya in Game of Thrones, or Hailee Steinfeld from True Grit).
Why? What's wrong with her performance? From what I've seen she has portrayed impressive range. Just stating something doesn't make it true. Given what she has had to work with, I'd say she's done a great job with the character.

On an unrelated note(but OT): So far my best picture would be Source Code, but the acadamy isn't so into sci-fi, hopefully it at least get's a nomination ala District 9. Not out of the realm with 10 spots up for grabs.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Zing said:
tzimize said:
Zing said:
tzimize said:
Sabrestar said:
Falseprophet said:
I suppose that was the real strength of the HP series. In other children's fiction, especially fantasy fiction, adults tend to be either neglectful, well-meaning but useless, or mean-spirited villains, but they're almost universally static and undeveloped characters. Rowling hinted at hidden depths and backstories for the Hogwarts faculty pretty early on, and eventually expanded them into fully-fledged characters with a complex intertwined history, goals, passions, frailties and failures.
Amen to that. Rowling created a world, a bona fide believable and fully-fleshed-out world that everyone could picture even before the movies, and made (at least within itself) sense. It was, well, grokkable. Successful world-building is the Holy Grail for aspiring amateurs like myself, and she pulled it off. That's what makes it work so well, and be so popular with everyone. And it's still a fully-fledged world with lots of opportunities for narrative beyond what she's written.
Absolutely agreed.

That doesnt change the fact that none of the HP movies deserve a Best Picture Oscar. Alan Rickman might deserve one for best supporting actor...but then I'm a huge fan of his and somewhat biased.
I would pay Emma Watson with a nomination at least. Maybe not the best vehicle for her to earn one, but I think she can get one some day. She definitely has the ability. I felt so sad when she realized Harry was going to die and started crying.

what the fuck? I have to watch an advertisement just to post captcha? seriously escapist???
Emma Watson? Oscar worthy? Are you serious? She's pretty cute, but she is not a very good actor, and she is downright awful when you consider good child/young actors (examples: Sophie Turner or Maisie Williams who play Sansa and Arya in Game of Thrones, or Hailee Steinfeld from True Grit).
Why? What's wrong with her performance? From what I've seen she has portrayed impressive range. Just stating something doesn't make it true. Given what she has had to work with, I'd say she's done a great job with the character.

On an unrelated note(but OT): So far my best picture would be Source Code, but the acadamy isn't so into sci-fi, hopefully it at least get's a nomination ala District 9. Not out of the realm with 10 spots up for grabs.
Well, along with the rest of the child cast of HP its just not very good. Impressive range of emotions? Maybe. In a believable way? Not really. See my previous examples for good acting. A part of the problem might be the script of the films...but still. Snape for example is in the same script but does a great job. Emma watson is not the worst in HP, but thats not exactly praise.
 

Littaly

New member
Jun 26, 2008
1,810
0
0
Aren't you exaggerating a little? I mean, yes, it was a huge undertaking and it's pretty impressive that they made it work (especially the casting of the kids), but considering how incredibly, superiorly, super-popular Harry Potter was back in 2000, it would have surprised me a lot more if they didn't go ahead and make a movie out of it. Even if it turned out half as good as it did, it was still earn them mountains of cash from it. Sure, there were a lot of ways it could have gone wrong, but it's not like it was an all-or-nothing deal, and considering what they had to gain from it, it couldn't exactly have been a hard decision.

Oh look at me, acting like I have a clue of what I'm talking about. I guess I'm just grumpy that the one franchise I could never bring myself to like has gone and become my generations defining work of fiction :-/
 

Birthe

New member
Apr 26, 2010
73
0
0
I'm often thinking how much it matters if you get an Oscar or not, cause there's so many things that got one and have been forgotten and others that didn't get one and are still being talked about, 'cause they were simply so very popular and still are. So yeah personally I'm really not sure what getting an Oscar means anymore, especially since so often the easiest way to get one is just making a movie after this certain Oscar concept.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
Said like that, it rather makes me want to pick up and read the books again--because I've read three of them only once, having moved more or less past the series by the time the fifth book came out. Maybe I'll just watch the movies all over again. Or all of them, since I haven't seen the latter half of the films. Reading this kind of makes me want to.
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
I read the read the first couple of books while working over summer in a book shop. Goblet of Fire had just come out and people where clamouring for it for a Christmas present, we sold more HP books than every other book combined so I was intrigued. I read them at the counter when it was quiet, I'm glad I didn't buy them. Terribly written, yet compelling page turners. Like Dan Brown for Kids. If the writing was better I'd even say Matthew Reilly for Kids. They needed a strong edit to cut the waffle. I can only imagine that the films are more tollerable thanks to their relative brevity. I agree that such a massive undertaking brought to completions deserves some kudos. Kudos, not an Oscar nomination.
 

KirbyKrackle

New member
Apr 25, 2011
119
0
0
I hope that the movie gets "snubbed" just for all the delicious whining from the fans that will ensue. And since when has basing a movie on a thing with a slavering, millions-strong fanbase who will be guaranteed to consume related products no matter how garbage ever been considered risky?

All this article does is give evidence as to why Deathly Hallows might win Best Picture (e.g., bowing to popular sentiment, no matter how ignorant), not why it should.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
With the possible exception of Alan Rickman, there should definitely be no acting noms coming out of this movie. Even Rickman will only be nominated if these years supporting actor roster is relatively weak. Helena Bonham Carter in my opinion has done equally well over the course of the series, but her role in the final flick is pretty minor so i don't expect her to be nominated for it.

Other than that I think its really only deserving of the various technical awards, and the Best Picture nominations as a nod to the series as a whole.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I was incredibly disappointed by the final film to be honest. I felt the ending/epilogue was very undercooked and overall it was just trying to cram everything from the book and felt rushed and lacking of impact as a result. They should have simplified the story so they could focus on a more cohesive and emotional narrative.