Harry Potter and the Little Golden Man
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Well, when you put it that way...
When you lay it all out like that, Bob, it is incredibly impressive, and deserves some recognition.
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.
When you lay it all out like that, Bob, it is incredibly impressive, and deserves some recognition.
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.Lazarus Long 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.Falseprophet said:
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
