Harry Potter and the Little Golden Man

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Tin Man:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

MovieBob:

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.

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.

moviedork:
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.

Mikeyfell:

Tin Man:

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.

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.

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??

walrusaurus:

moviedork:
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

Tin Man:

Mikeyfell:

Tin Man:

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

Tin Man:

Mikeyfell:

Tin Man:

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.

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...

Give John Williams his god damn Oscar for the music in this series.

moviedork:

walrusaurus:

moviedork:
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.

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.

walrusaurus:

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.

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.

Sabrestar:

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.

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.

Safaia:
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.

tzimize:

Sabrestar:

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.

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???

Zing:

tzimize:

Sabrestar:

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).

tzimize:

Zing:

tzimize:

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.

Zing:

tzimize:

Zing:

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.

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 :-/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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
Register for a free account here