Harry Potter and the Little Golden Man

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.