Harry Potter and the Little Golden Man

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

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

so its finnaly here and i dont care danm for the firsht time i feel old(im only 14)

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.

it isent gonna get a oscar you know it.

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.

Lazarus Long:
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.

Falseprophet:

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.

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.

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".

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)and in a Broadway musical (How to Succeed in business...).

Emma Watson already is in post-production of two movies (My Week with Marilyn, The Perks of Being a Wallflower) while pursuing a college degree.

Rupert Grint is in post-production of one movie (Comrade) and is in pre-production of three others (Eddie the Eagle, Cross Country,Wartime Wanderers)

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

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.

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.

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..."

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.

Doive:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MelasZepheos:
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.

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!

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.

MovieBob:
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.

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...

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.

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.

From a purely monetary standpoint, definitely. From any of the series deserving an award for being good, definitely not.

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.

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

Mikeyfell:

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.

walrusaurus:
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:
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 ;)

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.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here