What would it take to get Deathly Hallows an Oscar? Awards season thread

Hi dear friends seeing that its almost Oscar season, I thought to put this up... Since they just started filming Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows... What would it take to get it a few of those Golden statues?

I think that first it'd have to be one movie :whistle:

I think they might have chances with musical score and perhaps visual effects but in terms of any awards for actors or the picture itself I don't think it stands much of a chance.

Even though I personally love every single HP film, I highly doubt any will get an Oscar. I expect maybe a few (3 at most) nominations though.

Peter Jackson as Director? :lol::lol::lol:

I'd expect maybe a special effects nomination, or maybe something else minor, like sound editing, but I think the only category it'd have the slightest chance of winning would be for the effects.

They're also released at the wrong time for Oscars, unless they release the Hallows films in December instead of June/July. Most films that get any real Oscar recognition are released in the last couple of months of the year, so they're fresh in the Academy's mind. And the Acadmey is also very prejudiced when it comes to the major categories (as The Dark Knight and Wall-E proved this year) and purely because of the films genre and demographic, it would instantly be out of the running for consideration. Even if the Hallows films are mind-blowingly awesome (not just to us but critics as well) it wouldn't have much of a chance for anything away from the minor categories.

Perhaps it gets a few technicals.... but they'd really have to come up with something very new for some of the action scenes, or the locations we haven't seen yet.

otherwise, the 'look' of the film is probably too well established to get technical Oscar nominations at this stage.


A score by John Williams (if he consented to come back) could have a chance for a nomination.

Otherwise, with a two-part DH, I'd say the chances are nil.

Well, part I would have a chance at the Oscars. What it really takes is a combination of solid acting and cinematic finesse. Potter has got the finesse part down, though I don't know how much Yates will let the modern American-wannabe preferences within him steer the last two films away from that. But if he can manage to make the first one into an emotional journey as a semi-boring action adventure (as have all the previous ones have been) rather than a full-on blockbuster and get genuinely credible performances out of Radcliffe and the rest of the cast (which I think he can), then it could very well get nominations for the more popular categories and a potential win for best film.

There are two problems with Dark Knight: 1) It's a dummy-head nonsensical action blockbuster for the masses and 2) Nolan is a terrible, MERCIFULLY AWFUL actors' director. Any intensity and awesomeness that comes out of anyone in any of his movies is thanks to that actor's talent and ethic. You can tell it has absolutely nothing to do with Nolan, based off of how poorly the smaller supporting cast acts under his direction. The Academy are not stupid. They see this. They know where to give credit where credit is due and this case, it's Heath Ledger. I definitely think Yates has a shot at nabbing a best director award. Say what you will about Order of the Pheonix from a technical view (and I know I have), but the performances in that film were all top notch. He managed to make Emma Watson MEDIOCRE. Watson. THAT is true directorial talent right there. THAT is what the Academy looks at.

One must also keep in mind the politics that go into it. The Academy held off on major awards for the LotR because they knew it was series and therefore decided to shower the third and final one with awards instead of the second one (which most people expected and wanted). The same could be said for Stuart Craig, who's art direction has been VERY deserving of an Oscar ever since the beginning of the series, but it's clear that the Academy have been holding out for it until the end. The same can be said costume design and visual effects.

I think screenplay, director, acting, editing, costume are all out for contendors. It'd have to be something like special effects or music.

It will probably be nominated for some of the technical awards. No way it will even be considered for the major ones. Return of the King recieved those awards for the whole trilogy, but Potter has been such an uneven and often uninspired franchise that DH will really have to be something spectacular to get there.

There are two problems with Dark Knight: 1) It's a dummy-head nonsensical action blockbuster for the masses and 2) Nolan is a terrible, MERCIFULLY AWFUL actors' director.

I strongly disagree. However this is not the forum for that discussion.


One must also keep in mind the politics that go into it. The Academy held off on major awards for the LotR because they knew it was series and therefore decided to shower the third and final one with awards instead of the second one (which most people expected and wanted).

Yes and no. The first LOTR film was nominated for Best Pic. FOTR also garnered several other noms, including the only acting nod of the whole saga - for Ian McKellan.

So far the HP saga has garnered zero noms so there is nothing to "build on".

Nor has it deserved any IMO, although I agree that it would be nice to see Stuart Craig gain some recognition.

I don't think the costume design is anything special. What costumes strike you as outstanding?

Perhaps special effects or score, I don't see DH winning any major categories. For starters, HP is a franchise and is seen as a blockbuster movie - the Academy rarely recognises those films for awards. Then again, you have the likes of Titanic, which in hindisght, is fairly mediocre, with a haul of 11 Oscars. Lord of the Rings is an exception, as it is truly epic and was handled more evenly than the HP film series. Heath Ledger's nomination for Dark Knight is also an exception, because his performance there was one of a kind, above and beyond anything usually seen in blockbuster films.

Guys... Guys... Play nice and lets be a little more constructive here!...

I held of a little in reacting...

Personally If there were going to be any Oscar nod possibilities I feel, Alan Rickman as Snape could get a nomination, provided he play Snape to his best in the Princes Tale at almost the end of part 2 and yates will have to get one hell of a perfmormance out of Radcliffe at In the forest again chapter. For them to get a best costume and make up they have to do something rather special to the three principal characters in the Ministry break in and Gringots break in, instead of using other characters advanced physical make up instead of CGI would be spectacular.

They will have to make it feel like Lord of the Rings saga to get best picture, make it feel like a HUGE and emotional movie.

The score for sure. Also, some acting nods, like Alan Rickman. Knowing him and his acting, he would defiantly win the award if he gets nominated. He deserves it.

The score for sure. Also, some acting nods, like Alan Rickman. Knowing him and his acting, he would defiantly win the award if he gets nominated. He deserves it.

IMHO, he'd need a LOT more screentime than he has been given in each film so far.


Yes, Judy Dench got her Oscar for a few minutes in Shakespeare in Love. But she's *Judy Dench*, and it was a Weinstein movie, and outrageoulsy canvassed for, too. Rickman is good, but I don't think he gets enough time to show it off. I am also not sure whether non-book readers can actually get the full measure of his performance... :)

r nod possibilities I feel, Alan Rickman as Snape could get a nomination, provided he play Snape to his best in the Princes Tale at almost the end of part 2 ....

But.....even if they film every word of dialogue Rowling wrote in the PT, audiences will still see very little of Rickman, as younger actors will have to play Snape-the-child and Snape-the-adolescent. Rickman will only get the sparring-with-DD-over-Harry montage: two minutes of a job.

Just looking how the Oscars are worse every year.

HP having a chance to win an Oscar... No, that will never happens.

The days of LOTR (and Titanic) are over.
And LOTR didnt get any Oscar for any acting performance, though Ian McKellen was good enough. If he didnt get it, I dont see who else for the same style can.

No, that will never happens.

And personally, I watch the movies I want, I say the best movies/actings are the best I think, I don´t think Oscars movies are the best, Oscars movies are just only one limited style, NOT the best.
Basically not interest in them just because of their Oscar nominations.
I care the less.:relax:

Just looking how the Oscars are worse every year.

HP having a chance to win an Oscar... No, that will never happens.

The days of LOTR (and Titanic) are over.

Moving on from giving record-breaking number of Oscars to films like Titanic means the Oscars are getting better, as far as I'm concerned... :whistle: Though I've nver had great respect for or trust in those awards anyway.

Even if Deathly Hallows doesn't get an Oscar nod, both films (part 1 and 2) will be breaking Guinness World Records, as the films always do. :)

It's an ensemble film and it's children's fantasy on top of that, so they won't get any nominations for the actors. They might get nominations for technical stuff or costumes and make-up. To be honest, I don't think any of the films has been good enough to actually win an Academy Award in any category.

Moving on from giving record-breaking number of Oscars to films like Titanic means the Oscars are getting better, as far as I'm concerned... :whistle: Though I've nver had great respect for or trust in those awards anyway.

The Oscars have always been a very mixed bag. :) I disliked Braveheart and while I enjoyed Titanic (or at least the second half of it :D) I didn't think it deserved however many Oscars it got. The screenplay was AWFUL! Kate Winslet (and the CGI ship!) were the best things in that film.

And LOTR didnt get any Oscar for any acting performance, though Ian McKellen was good enough. If he didnt get it, I dont see who else for the same style can.

Exactly. (Sean Astin was very peeved about that, but never mind. :p )

And the ensemble cast for both LotR and the Potter franchise were (and are) excellent. :cool:

To be honest, I don't think any of the films has been good enough to actually win an Academy Award in any category.

I don't either.

And I really don't think it matters at all. :) I enjoy the HP films for what they are: wonderfully enjoyable entertainment. :tu:

I do think the films could have been better had the film-makers taken a darker, bolder, more visionary approach to adapting Rowling's stories, and translated the more subversive elements in her lively imagination onto the screen.

Deathly Hallows could be the worst Potter movie ever, and if it won a oscar, I wouldn't care. :lol: And vice versa.

I know this topic is about DH and it's oscar chances, so I'll refrain from expressing my feelings on the oscars in general. :whistle:

Moving on from giving record-breaking number of Oscars to films like Titanic means the Oscars are getting better, as far as I'm concerned... :whistle: Though I've nver had great respect for or trust in those awards anyway.

Actually it did get better indeed: Gladiator and LOTR came after Titanic with all the chances to get Oscars and they did.

Titanic opened the door, but the truly-record-sweeping LOTR 3 closed the door for this kind of movie.

Even a very mature, very, Harry Potter it would take some doing to get into the same style of Titanic, Gladiator, and LOTR.
And even being the same style as those movies, I don´t think it would be considered.

So I am really wondering how much it will take to another Titanic to come and open the door.
Hope not 40 years like the breach Ben Hur-Titanic :p

The Oscars have always been a very mixed bag. :) I disliked Braveheart and while I enjoyed Titanic (or at least the second half of it :D) I didn't think it deserved however many Oscars it got. The screenplay was AWFUL! Kate Winslet (and the CGI ship!) were the best things in that film.



Exactly. (Sean Astin was very peeved about that, but never mind. :p )

And the ensemble cast for both LotR and the Potter franchise were (and are) excellent. :cool:



I don't either.

And I really don't think it matters at all. :) I enjoy the HP films for what they are: wonderfully enjoyable entertainment. :tu:



I second all that :tu:

I agree with most of the previous posters that the chances of DH winning any best actor/director/actress/screenplay/supporting actor/actress are nil. However, if John Williams does come back, the score may have a chance to be nominated. Special effects may have a chance too- technical awards would be a better bet.

Also, splitting DH into two, IMO, doesn't really help its Oscar chances, if any. However, I love the HP films, Oscar or not. Its fun, entertaining and we get to visually see the books we've adored so much:):tu:

I think If they have fun doing it I think they can win big but HP is the best in my books :)

I think If they have fun doing it I think they can win big but HP is the best in my books :)


Win what though? What categories do you think DH stands any chance in?

Personally - I think that it will be the end of the series.
Sadly though I doubt that there will be an oscar for Harry.
The only reason that LOTR got them was there would have been uproar if they hadn't.
Nah, the Oscar voters are to snobby and elitist to vote for a fantasy film.

Personally - I think that it will be the end of the series.

Do you mean - there will be Oscars awarded after the last HP film?


The only reason that LOTR got them was there would have been uproar if they hadn't.

And what would this hypothetical "uproar" actually do to AMPAS voters? How would it affect them? Most of them are very old, and no longer work in the industry.


Nah, the Oscar voters are to snobby and elitist to vote for a fantasy film.

They voted for the three LOTR films which were... fantasy films.

If it's going to get an Oscar, it'll get one for part 2 of Deathly Hallows, not part 1. It'll have to be one heck of a movie for it to get an Oscar, though. Have any of the HP movies gotten any big time awards? Anyways, it'll take some great performances, great directing, great special effects, and a great script for it to get an Oscar. I really hope it does, though.

I don't think HP will ever win any Oscar awards. Well, not for acting. Maybe for other areas like technical or lighting. (Just in my opinion).

Hi dear friends seeing that its almost Oscar season, I thought to put this up... Since they just started filming Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows... What would it take to get it a few of those Golden statues?
I remember when I was obsessed with Lord of the Rings and I was always bummed when they never won awards for Best Picture. But when the final movie came out they won it. I see this with a lot of shows that have been on for a while and they never win major awards but as soon as the last season wraps up they get a lot of awards. Maybe the Deathly Hallows movie will be the same way...I believe it will be.

I remember when I was obsessed with Lord of the Rings and I was always bummed when they never won awards for Best Picture. But when the final movie came out they won it. I see this with a lot of shows that have been on for a while and they never win major awards but as soon as the last season wraps up they get a lot of awards. Maybe the Deathly Hallows movie will be the same way...I believe it will be.

But FOTR and TTT were nominated in various categories, FOTR as Best Picture. None of the HP films has been nominated in any category.

Peter Jackson as Director? :lol::lol::lol:

Haha, I definitely second that!

As it is, the only chance DH has at an Oscar is something techinical, like sound editing or visual effects - if they don't much them up, that is.

I don't think a "children's" movie has won a Best Picture Oscar since Mary Poppins and times are much changed since then, so I don't hold out much hope for HP to win a major award. I suppose it's possible one of the last 3 films might win a technical award, as many have said. The acting is unlikely to be singled out for honors--although I guess it would be the height of irony if Michael Gambon was nominated as Best Supporting Actor, given how some of us feel about his portrayal of Dumbledore.

But as I hardly ever enjoy the films that win the Best Picture Oscar, I don't even care that HP is overlooked.

Also, splitting DH into two, IMO, doesn't really help its Oscar chances, if any.

I think you're dead right about that, Lilyrose. :cool:

However, I love the HP films, Oscar or not. Its fun, entertaining and we get to visually see the books we've adored so much:):tu:

My feelings exactly. :tu:

But FOTR and TTT were nominated in various categories, FOTR as Best Picture. None of the HP films has been nominated in any category.

I know, that's why I wrote "best picture" in italics to mean that they never won in that category before Return of the King. I know that they won in other categories and were nominated for best picture for the others but I only really cared about whether they won best picture. As for HP, maybe they could win at least one award, even if it is in a technical, costume, makeup, etc. category. It's the last film(s), I'm sure they would want to go out with a bang. I don't know about an oscar but other awards it might have a chance at winning.

I was thinking and I came to the conclusion that DH: part one has the potential to win an Oscar. It comes out at the end of fall which is the beginning of Oscar movie season, it's an 'intimate' character film, not a big epic climatic action packed film that DH2 will be.

If they play their cards right, DH1 could tell the story of a young man accepting the loss of loved ones and continuing his quest, choosing duty over desire. This constant conflict established in Godric's Hollow and then coming into fruition when the trio learn of the deathly hallows provides for some great drama.

You also have the drama between the trio during the camping scenes, Ron leaving and returning, the drama with the locket, etc.

All of-course in the backdrop of a great war, and the nazi imagery with the pure-blood oppression and the state of the ministry of magic with Magic is Might.

DH1 can be a dark and depressing but soul-searching character piece if made well.

It really can be the Empire Strikes Back of the series.

first of all it would take something that the 1st 6 films are yet to have.... a GOOD director!! oh and re-hire John Williams tocompose the music again :):):)

first of all it would take something that the 1st 6 films are yet to have.... a GOOD director!!

Any suggestions as to who? :)

I don't know if Deathly Hallows would get an Oscar or not. Last time a fantasy film got an Oscar was Lord of the Rings, wasn't it?

Any suggestions as to who? :)

Columbus did an OK job with the first 2...last 3 were atrocious in my opinion! not too excited by the HbP trailors to be honest (thats not to say that ill not be going to watch it on release day:lol:) i dnt really know many directors apart from the obvious...however i can tell bad directing :lol::lol:

Columbus did an OK job with the first 2...last 3 were atrocious in my opinion! not too excited by the HbP trailors to be honest (thats not to say that ill not be going to watch it on release day:lol:) i dnt really know many directors apart from the obvious...however i can tell bad directing :lol::lol:

I much prefer the last three HP films to the first two, myself. :) And in no way regard them as 'atrocious'. :cool: They are hugely enjoyable cinema.

As for 'bad directing', give me Alfonso Cuaron's excellent Children of Men over Christopher Columbus's Mrs Doubtfire any day. ;)

I much prefer the last three HP films to the first two, myself. :) And in no way regard them as 'atrocious'. :cool: They are hugely enjoyable cinema.

As for 'bad directing', give me Alfonso Cuaron's excellent Children of Men over Christopher Columbus's Mrs Doubtfire any day. ;)

But that's hardly being fair. Children of Men and Mrs. Doubtfire are two very different films of very different genres. I think Mrs. Doubfire was a pretty good movie: funny but with some drama and a nice message. Of-course Children of Men is a much more serious and darker movie and I personally prefer it because I appreciate and enjoy dark dramas and science fiction/fantasy more than comedies, but that is hardly fair to compare the two to judge directors.

But that's hardly being fair. Children of Men and Mrs. Doubtfire are two very different films of very different genres. I think Mrs. Doubfire was a pretty good movie: funny but with some drama and a nice message. Of-course Children of Men is a much more serious and darker movie and I personally prefer it because I appreciate and enjoy dark dramas and science fiction/fantasy more than comedies, but that is hardly fair to compare the two to judge directors.

OK, fair enough :) because actually I do find Mrs Doubtfire pretty funny. :lol: I enjoyed Pierce Brosnan sending himself up and Robin Williams is hilarious ... (although there was that unforgivable clunker about 'Mrs Doubtfire' hailing from England when he was putting on a Scottish accent. :rolleyes: )

But I do prefer Cuaron's charming and stylish PoA to the first two HP movies, so is that a fair enough comparison? :cool:

Oddly enough, I dislike his A Little Princess ... but JKR liked it and since WB were the producers, that persuaded her to send the film rights for HP to them! As a film, A Little Princess is fine. :) As an adaptation of the novel, I didn't care for it at all. (They moved the story from London to New York, for one thing. :grumble: )

Whereas his PoA works for me both as an excellent fantasy film and a more-than-decent adaptation of Rowling's work.

Will DH get oscars? Well, yes, if anything else is worse :D

IMO OotP was the best HP movie yet so if HBP is better again and then DH1 is better DH2 has a chance, but I don't expect it to.
None of the movies yet did IMO deserve even a nomination.
While I do like Alan Rickman's performance, I don't think there is anything outstanding, memorable about it, yet. And I agree that jurors probably look at the whole series, and POA ruined the 'movie Snape' for me, though that's no way Rickman's fault.
One thing suprised me when reading the previous posts: No one mentioned Ralph Fiennes. IMO his performance is really good and the rebirth scene in GoF was the best bit of acting I've seen in the HP movies so far. If the movie is any good he is my candidate for best suporting actor for DH.

Whereas his PoA works for me both as an excellent fantasy film and a more-than-decent adaptation of Rowling's work.

ill agree that if i had never read the books, i'd have found PoA really enjoyable...however i have read them, and dislike Cuarons' adaptation of this movie from the book! i just feel he changed far too much from the books!...so ill say this...as a film its very good:), ...as an adaptation its bellow average:(

ill agree that if i had never read the books, i'd have found PoA really enjoyable...however i have read them, and dislike Cuarons' adaptation of this movie from the book! i just feel he changed far too much from the books!...so ill say this...as a film its very good:), ...as an adaptation its bellow average:(

This thread is for discussing the possibility - zero IMO - of DH getting nominated for, or actually winning, Oscar/s.

Um... unfortunately not a very good chance. They might get nominated for best soundtrack or something, but unless some miracle happens they won't win any big ones. Movie adaptations of books generally don't.

Um... unfortunately not a very good chance. They might get nominated for best soundtrack or something, but unless some miracle happens they won't win any big ones. Movie adaptations of books generally don't.

Noms and wins from just the last five years:

Slumdog Millionaire
No Country for Old Men
There Will be Blood
The Departed
Brokeback Mountain
Mystic River
Master and Commander
Lord of the Rings
Cold Mountain

Approx 60% of films are based on material such as novels, plays, short stories. Approx 40% of films are based on original material.

Ampas actually likes adaptations, for reasons which could be debated. That film adaptations of books are rarely award-worthy is the reverse of the truth.

Noms and wins from just the last five years:

The Departed
I do not recall this film being an adaptation of a book.

Approx 60% of films are based on material such as novels, plays, short stories. Approx 40% of films are based on original material.
Do you have a source for this?

I do not recall this film being an adaptation of a book.

My bad! I knew that it was not original and just assumed.... Never assume. It is a remake of a Hong Kong thriller, Infernal Affairs. However, for the purpose of our discussion, it does not count. Strike it, and substitute The Reader.

Do you have a source for this?

Not a quotable one. Industry types who posted on a board where Wimsey and I hung out acknowledged this ratio. However, let's look at this year's Oscar winners for some sort of verification:

Best Pic - Slumdog Millionaire - novel
Best Director - Danny Boyle for Slumdog M - novel
Best Actor - Sean Penn - Milk - original screenplay
Best Actress - Kate Winslet - The Reader - novel
Best Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight - graphic novel
Best Supporting Actress - Penelope Cruz - Vicky (etc.) - original screenplay

That's a ratio of 60:40 adaptations/original work

The previous year was similar with adaptations, There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men picking up 4 of the big 6 awards.

I doubt if an average over the last decade (which I can't be bothered to do) would show less than 50% of the award-worthy films to be adaptations.

Best Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight - graphic novel
TDK is not an adaptation of a graphic novel and I don't think it's an adaptation of a comic either. Just characters from the comics are used.

Arkham Asylum and The Killing Joke are the graphic novels which provided the base material for TDK. Obviously many changes and additions were made but TDK was not a completely original work.

Arkham Asylum and The Killing Joke are the graphic novels which provided the base material for TDK. Obviously many changes and additions were made but TDK was not a completely original work.
I did not know that. Thanks for the clarification.

Edit: The Potter films, in my opinion, should have had more competent directors. The films should have had someone on par with Peter Jackson.

OK, fair enough :) because actually I do find Mrs Doubtfire pretty funny. :lol: I enjoyed Pierce Brosnan sending himself up and Robin Williams is hilarious ... (although there was that unforgivable clunker about 'Mrs Doubtfire' hailing from England when he was putting on a Scottish accent. :rolleyes: )

But I do prefer Cuaron's charming and stylish PoA to the first two HP movies, so is that a fair enough comparison? :cool:

I am almost positive it would take a POA-style film, rather than a Columbus-style, to get DH an Oscar. This would mean one film too, IMHO.

And while I enjoy Mrs. Doubtfire, I think the only Columbus-film where I really, really enjoyed the visual and emotional direction is Rent. That movie had loads more style than the first two HP movies combined, IMO. Of course, he also cut my second favorite song, but... eh :grumble:

Oddly enough, I dislike his A Little Princess ... but JKR liked it and since WB were the producers, that persuaded her to send the film rights for HP to them! As a film, A Little Princess is fine. :) As an adaptation of the novel, I didn't care for it at all. (They moved the story from London to New York, for one thing. :grumble: )

Whereas his PoA works for me both as an excellent fantasy film and a more-than-decent adaptation of Rowling's work.

I actually liked the extreme changes in A Little Princess, and enjoy the film way more than the book :D I think it's because I grew up on the movie and fell in love with that first.

I love the HP films but can readily admit that I doubt there's any way they will ever win an Oscar in a major category. In some more minor categories, possibly. Like many others, I believe that HP's genre and demographics, as well as Oscar "politics," prevent this. I don't think it matters how good the films are.

I love the HP films but can readily admit that I doubt there's any way they will ever win an Oscar in a major category. In some more minor categories, possibly. Like many others, I believe that HP's genre and demographics, as well as Oscar "politics," prevent this. I don't think it matters how good the films are.

Well, RotK proved it CAN be done...and not only that, but they swept the Oscars that year. So a film in the fantasy genre CAN win :p

I think Deathly Hallows certainly has the potential...all the books had Oscar potential really, they just didn't live up to it :relax:

However, I must admit that as much as I love and support the split decision, unfortunately I think it hinders any chances at an Oscar. :sigh:

I could certainly see it still winning for categories such as Special Effects, Cinematography, Score, etc...hell maybe even an acting win :whistle:

I am almost positive it would take a POA-style film, rather than a Columbus-style, to get DH an Oscar. This would mean one film too, IMHO.

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with you. :D

I actually liked the extreme changes in A Little Princess, and enjoy the film way more than the book :D I think it's because I grew up on the movie and fell in love with that first.

That generally seems to be the case. :) It does make a difference if you read the book before seeing the film. :cool:

I could certainly see it still winning for categories such as Special Effects, Cinematography, Score, etc...hell maybe even an acting win :whistle:

No reason why it shouldn't have a fair chance at any of those technical Oscars! Acting, I'm less sure about. Not even the mighty RotK got a crack at that. (Much to Sean Astin's chagrin, but that's just the way it goes.) Both LotR and HP are similar in the sense they both have very fine ensemble casts. It's a little tricky to single any one particular person out.

No reason why it shouldn't have a fair chance at any of those technical Oscars! Acting, I'm less sure about. Not even the mighty RotK got a crack at that. (Much to Sean Astin's chagrin, but that's just the way it goes.) Both LotR and HP are similar in the sense they both have very fine ensemble casts. It's a little tricky to single any one particular person out.

Correct me if I'm wrong Pearl, but I've heard that RotK was deliberately locked out of all the acting categories so as to prevent it winning literally EVERY category that it possibly could for a live-action motion picture :whistle:

Hmm, that also would have a tough one to decide too, wouldn't it? (Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, etc) Who do you give it to? :lol:

Correct me if I'm wrong Pearl, but I've heard that RotK was deliberately locked out of all the acting categories so as to prevent it winning literally EVERY category that it possibly could for a live-action motion picture :whistle:

That wouldn't surprise me, actually. :rotfl:

Hmm, that also would have a tough one to decide too, wouldn't it? (Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, etc) Who do you give it to? :lol:

Not Elijah Wood's Frodo (although Elijah did well in the role). Too much character assassination by Peter Jackson. :shrug:

I always feel that Sean on Mount Doom is like this: 'Hey! Look at me! Oscar-winning performance right over here, folks!' :whistle: :D

My money would have been on Sir Ian McKellan, out of all of them. :cool: But it was an ensemble piece. :)

Although I can't see DH getting in the Best Actor category, I trust that Dan and Alan will knock us out in the screen version of The Prince's Tale. :cool:

That wouldn't surprise me, actually. :rotfl:



Not Elijah Wood's Frodo (although Elijah did well in the role). Too much character assassination by Peter Jackson. :shrug:

I always feel that Sean on Mount Doom is like this: 'Hey! Look at me! Oscar-winning performance right over here, folks!' :whistle: :D

My money would have been on Sir Ian McKellan, out of all of them. :cool: But it was an ensemble piece. :)

Although I can't see DH getting in the Best Actor category, I trust that Dan and Alan will knock us out in the screen version of The Prince's Tale. :cool:

I think Elijah did a terrific job as Frodo especially in ROTK. His transformation from an innocent, kind hearted Hobbit to a suffering and ultimately corrupted soul was so haunting.

I thought you felt movies shouldn't be pure to their book counterparts? Would you be okay with Gambon winning an Oscar for Dumbledore even if he sort of assassinates the character of the book?

Double Standard? :whistle:

Not Elijah Wood's Frodo (although Elijah did well in the role). Too much character assassination by Peter Jackson. :shrug:

And why should that matter? :huh: As you say yourself films and books are different and they should change whatever they can! If his performance of FilmFrodo! was superb he should have been rewarded. It's no different than Snape's character being assassinated by the HP films, yet Alan Rickman playing an incredible FilmSnape! ;)

However, I agree that Elijah wasn't the best actor and didn't deserve an Oscar.

I always feel that Sean on Mount Doom is like this: 'Hey! Look at me! Oscar-winning performance right over here, folks!' :whistle: :D

My money would have been on Sir Ian McKellan, out of all of them. :cool: But it was an ensemble piece. :)

Personally I would have given Best Actor to Viggo Mortenson for Aragorn and Best Supporting Actor to Sean Astin for Sam :cool:

What about the actress categories, did you feel any of the females had a shot at Oscar wins as well? :lol: Liv Tyler perhaps? :D

Although I can't see DH getting in the Best Actor category, I trust that Dan and Alan will knock us out in the screen version of The Prince's Tale. :cool:

Yeah, it's hard to say though. I think Supporting Actor/Actress would be more likely but you never know, maybe Dan will suprise us with a phenomenal performance...that is IF they allow a fantasy film into the acting categories this time around :relax:

I think Elijah did a terrific job as Frodo especially in ROTK. His transformation from an innocent, kind hearted Hobbit to a suffering and ultimately corrupted soul was so haunting.

I've no quarrels with Elijah's acting! :) He did a great job. :tu: I don't like the way that Film Frodo's character was sometimes written. That's the difference. :cool:

I thought you felt movies shouldn't be pure to their book counterparts?

If you think this, you misunderstand my POV. :hmm: I think a film adaptation should be free to adapt the source material in order to make it more effective as cinema. I don't believe in change for the sake of change, but neither do I believe that strict fidelity to the source material always guarantees a better film. Sometimes a more radical approach is called for. And many film adaptations of books prove that point (for better or worse!)

For what it's worth, I do think that Jackson could have been more faithful to Tolkien and succeeded just as well at the box office. But it's a moot point now. :D :)

By the same token, I think that David Yates could transform DH into a fantastic, thrilling, 2.5 hour film to round off the HP film franchise and pull in great box office. But that's a moot point now also. ;)

Would you be okay with Gambon winning an Oscar for Dumbledore even if he sort of assassinates the character of the book?

Yes, absolutely I'd be fine with that. :)

Film Dumbledore is much less offensive to me than Film Frodo because at least he's never made to look like a wimp (whereas Film Frodo is, IMVHO.) I appreciate that devoted Albus fans see it differently. :)

Double Standard? :whistle:

Huh? It's not like I would have complained if Elijah had actually got an Oscar for playing Frodo! :lol:

My perceptions of a book character are quite distinct from the individual merits of a film and what it merits in the way of awards. :cool:

And why should that matter? :huh: As you say yourself films and books are different and they should change whatever they can! If his performance of FilmFrodo! was superb he should have been rewarded. It's no different than Snape's character being assassinated by the HP films, yet Alan Rickman playing an incredible FilmSnape! ;)

I have never argued, ever, for character assassination. (And do you see me complaining about Rickman's Snape?! :D ) In any case, the films do not assassinate Snape's character. :) They dilute his hatred for Harry, but that hardly amounts to assassination. He is very recognisably the Snape of the books (albeit older).

What about the actress categories, did you feel any of the females had a shot at Oscar wins as well? :lol: Liv Tyler perhaps? :D

Not Liv, bless her heart. ;) Although she spoke Elvish beautifully. Miranda Otto and Cate Blanchett were both wonderful.

As for Dan, he's proved himself to me in Equus and My Boy Jack so let's hope he shines in DH.

By the same token, I think that David Yates could transform DH into a fantastic, thrilling, 2.5 hour film to round off the HP film franchise and pull in great box office. But that's a moot point now also. ;)

It would have required at least a 3.5 hr film (much like RotK) and I doubt WB would have ever allowed that :relax:

I'm still curious to see someone's outline for HOW in the world they would cram all the substance from DH into a 2.5 hr film :lol:

Yes, OotP and GoF were longer books which did just that (:grumble:) however as Heyman, Dan, Kloves, and others pointed out themselves...they could cut material from those books (i.e. Quidditch) DH on the other hand, nothing can really be cut...it's all essential to the story :p

Not Liv, bless her heart. ;) Although she spoke Elvish beautifully. Miranda Otto and Cate Blanchett were both wonderful.

Why not? I know Tolkien fans HATE her, but many (including myself) think she played a fantastic Arwen :p

As for Dan, he's proved himself to me in Equus and My Boy Jack so let's hope he shines in DH.

Yes, and I believe he's improved with every HP film as well so I'm really excited to see what he has in store for us with HBP and DH. :tu:

I'm still curious to see someone's outline for HOW in the world they would cram all the substance from DH into a 2.5 hr film :lol:

That's something those who prefer DH as one film are currently working on. ;)

Yes, OotP and GoF were longer books which did just that (:grumble:) however as Heyman, Dan, Kloves, and others pointed out themselves...they could cut material from those books (i.e. Quidditch) DH on the other hand, nothing can really be cut...it's all essential to the story :p

Oh, I think you can make cuts to DH without hurting the essence of the story at all, IMO. :)

But we're getting off-topic. :whistle:

That's something those who prefer DH as one film are currently working on. ;)

Oh cool, well I'll be eagerly awaiting it then :cool: Will it be posted in the DH Split Thread when it's finished? :)

But we're getting off-topic. :whistle:

True, maybe we should move this convo to one of the DH threads :lol:

for DH to get an Oscar? they would have to have:

a part about the Holocaust
an old director who hadn't won yet
an old actor who hadn't won yet.

for DH to get an Oscar? they would have to have:

a part about the Holocaust
an old director who hadn't won yet
an old actor who hadn't won yet.

None of these "criteria" apply to LOTR, which won plenty.

i was joking

My bad! Humour is none too thick on the ground.

no probs.

Merge it back into one film.

Merge it back into one film.

'ear, 'ear!

DH would earn an Oscar nod from me if it was

A) Not split into two films so we could just get the climactic expierence the book had.

B) Fast paced and exciting.

C) Took creative liberties with the Voldemort Harry final conflict scene.

D) Emphasized the emotions of the characters throughout the whole film in regards to everything. Example: Hermione being tortured at Malfoy Manor.

D) Emphasized the emotions of the characters throughout the whole film in regards to everything. Example: Hermione being tortured at Malfoy Manor.


Ya I agree, if they really focused on the emotion of DH, it would be such a good movie. The emotion is what made the book so great, so put it in the movie I say!

Another perception of the film. I think people, most of them, keep getting the films as kid oriented, and thus dont really think it can develop deep topics like I think the story has. It is perceived wrongly,and I dont even think it has chances. Not that I like this of course, ut unfourtunaltely I think this how it is.

It's an ensemble film and it's children's fantasy on top of that, so they won't get any nominations for the actors. They might get nominations for technical stuff or costumes and make-up. To be honest, I don't think any of the films has been good enough to actually win an Academy Award in any category.

This person is right on point.

If Dark Knight wasn't even nominated for Best Picture, Harry Potter has no chance. However, they could possibly be nominated for other categories, like Best Music (something like that, I'm pretty sure that's not the name of the award) and etc..

I'm unsure whether this is appropriate, but here goes. The Oscar Best Picture nominations almost always include films that involve homosexuality, some obscure movie critics said were good but no one has actually seen, or some feel-good rise-from-the-bottom movie.

This would be difficult. Would they consider both parts a collective whole, since Part I and 2 are being released individually? Besides, like someone else said, it's more of an ensemble cast. Maybe some acknowledgment for visual work and music, but not overall. Sorry.

What would it take to get Deathly Hallows an Oscar? Two Words
Judi Dench...see wins everything. Maybe write a new role for her?

I imagined Dench as Umbridge before the role was filled.

I'm unsure whether this is appropriate, but here goes. The Oscar Best Picture nominations almost always include films that involve homosexuality, some obscure movie critics said were good but no one has actually seen, or some feel-good rise-from-the-bottom movie.

I certainly do not think that comment is appropriate, given that it is pretty thoroughly - and objectively - inaccurate. Would you care to do an (objective!) analysis of the BP nominees over the last few years to demonstrate how many "involve homosexuality" vis-a-vis those which do not?

I fail to see what this has to do with Harry Potter.

Let's move on guys, this is indeed off topic :)

For it to be one film.

I really don't think it would be hard at all. Just needs a good musical score. And I have no doubt the acting will be phenomenal. So I think it has a pretty darn good chance.

Mercy and some sense from the Academy.

I have resigned myself to accept that HP films will never win Oscars. Even though some actors.... Alan Rickman for one, absolutely deserve to win in the supporting categories for their performances.

I certainly do not think that comment is appropriate, given that it is pretty thoroughly - and objectively - inaccurate. Would you care to do an (objective!) analysis of the BP nominees over the last few years to demonstrate how many "involve homosexuality" vis-a-vis those which do not?

I fail to see what this has to do with Harry Potter.

Ditto this. I want the films to stick with the book. We have bigger things to worry about in the HP world than who is diddling who and its not worth it to go down that route when the core of the story is so much more important than being politically correct for the sake of getting a statuette.

They would have to show extreme improvement to win anything more than a technical award. Philosopher's Stone was Nominated for Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and Best Original Score at the 74th Academy Awards, these three catagories have gone more and more downhill with each film imo.

It's too early to say anything about what it will specifically take to win an Oscar, but in general it's going to have to be something we haven't seen the likes of in this series thus far.

I think they just have to make it really good and hopefully they are making it two parts so they can make it extremely long, if they did that then they will be able to fit everything in from the books yayayayay :clap:

I think they might have chances with musical score and perhaps visual effects but in terms of any awards for actors or the picture itself I don't think it stands much of a chance.

I agree. But it is a bit sad how some of the actors who really do deserve the award are not recognized, partly because they're foreign I guess. For instance, Tom Felton, who I think is really digging hard towards an Oscar judging from his performance in HBP. I'm at least hoping that Alan Rickman pulls off a good performance in the Prince's Tale in the up-and-coming DH as he does have to do a crying scene (depends how dramatic the director will allow him to make it as Dan's scream in the part where Sirius dies in OOTP was muted because the producers thought it was too ''agonizing'' for a ''kids' movie'').

I agree with Moriath that none of the films have been good enough to garner a major Oscar and this will probably be repeated.

If nothing else the source material has, IMO, a fatal structural flaw by introducing the Hallows in the last book immediately after the concept of the Horcruces.

I agree. But it is a bit sad how some of the actors who really do deserve the award are not recognized, partly because they're foreign I guess.

If you mean "British" - the Brits win Oscars all the time.

For instance, Tom Felton, who I think is really digging hard towards an Oscar judging from his performance in HBP.

How can anyone tell? All we've seen are two minute clips. However effective Felton is, his chance of a nod in such a small supporting role is IMO zero.

Music and special effects are realistically the only awards I can see happening. It wont win BP because it's split in half, while many of the actors are good, the best ones do not have big enough parts to win best actor, the scripts/editing/direction haven't been good enough so far so I don't see why that'd change.

Well I think that they could pull what they did with Lord of The Rings, but idk...

I do hope that it gets some awards...

I think they just have to make it really good and hopefully they are making it two parts so they can make it extremely long, if they did that then they will be able to fit everything in from the books yayayayay :clap:

Well, I don't know if the Academy will consider added length a good reason to give DH an Oscar :). If anything, the lack of adaption to screen, the lack of fixing major plot holes from the book, as well as the lack of conciseness... those will all push DH further from an Oscar than it already was.

that is just never going to happen.

The great actors are simply not given enough to justify a nomination, there's no way it's going to be anything except a technical one and even that is a stretch. LoTR was essentially awarded a ton of statues for the entire series, no one can claim that anything in this series has shown consistent quality on such a level that it would convince the academy to hand out an award. Maybe the special effects with the giants and dragon and spiders (if they're used) possibly the soundtrack but really I see nothing else that has a real chance.

I can't see it. There needs to be a structure to it, and a theme. JKR (much as I love her) is a bit all over the place and inconclusive. GOF was the most structured book, possibly also SS.

LoTR was essentially awarded a ton of statues for the entire series, no one can claim that anything in this series has shown consistent quality on such a level that it would convince the academy to hand out an award.

Yes, exactly. My favorite LOTR is actually number 2, which was about courage in face of uncertain outcomes.

For DH to get Oscars:


Stick to the book!
Get Hans Zimmer to do the soundtrack.
Stick to the book!
Replace most of the actors...OK, I know that won't work...give the good actors and actressess the big parts they deserve (e.g. Maggie Smith). And perhaps inject botox into Emma Watson's eyebrows to calm them down a little :whistle: *joke*
Stick to the book!
Don't allow any other films to be released that year...

For DH to get Oscars:


Stick to the book!
Get Hans Zimmer to do the soundtrack.
Stick to the book!
Replace most of the actors...OK, I know that won't work...give the good actors and actressess the big parts they deserve (e.g. Maggie Smith). And perhaps inject botox into Emma Watson's eyebrows to calm them down a little :whistle: *joke*
Stick to the book!
Don't allow any other films to be released that year...

I would just like to point out that the LotR films didn't win Oscars because they stuck to the book. Indeed, they didn't stick to the book in many respects.

Sticking to the book has nothing to do with how Oscar-worthy a movie is, IMO. :cool:

I know, that wasn't the perspective I was looking at it from. What I meant was that, in the case of Harry Potter, I think the books have a far better story to tell than anything the filmakers have so far been able to come up with themselves. I think that the DH story is great enough to win an Oscar, but obviously this won't happen if it isn't kept to (more or less - I am reasonable, and know they can't include everthing). :)

I know, that wasn't the perspective I was looking at it from. What I meant was that, in the case of Harry Potter, I think the books have a far better story to tell than anything the filmakers have so far been able to come up with themselves.

I love the HP books, but wouldn't personally class them as earth-shattering literature (although their popular status is well deserved). I think the film-makers have probably tended to ignore the darker, more subversive elements of Rowling's imagination (Cuaron got the closest of any of them). Mood-wise, I find the films pretty faithful to Harry's world. I would have welcomed seeing the Harry/Snape antagonism upped in the films.

A more radical and less reverent approach to adapting the books might well have resulted in some cinema classics. I do think they have that potential.

I think that the DH story is great enough to win an Oscar, but obviously this won't happen if it isn't kept to (more or less - I am reasonable, and know they can't include everthing). :)

I'm quite not so convinced about DH being Oscar material :hmm: although I suppose that almost anything is potential Oscar material if the film treatment is that good. :whistle:

I do think that DH is intrinsically cinematic and has the potential to be a very good film. :tu: (Emphasis on film: I am not sold on the virtues of splitting it in half.)

I know, that wasn't the perspective I was looking at it from. What I meant was that, in the case of Harry Potter, I think the books have a far better story to tell than anything the filmakers have so far been able to come up with themselves. I think that the DH story is great enough to win an Oscar, but obviously this won't happen if it isn't kept to (more or less - I am reasonable, and know they can't include everthing). :)

Yeah the story on paper is great but it is very difficult to get a book onto screen, you can't always have all the, for example, descriptions of place and people that the author and readers imagine.

For DH to win an Oscar,in my opinion, it would have to escape from the 'kids film' bracket. I believe it has potential but whether it can succeed, I'm not sure. We shall have to wait and see.

For DH to win an Oscar,in my opinion, it would have to escape from the 'kids film' bracket.

You are absolutely right about that. :tu:

I believe it has potential but whether it can succeed, I'm not sure. We shall have to wait and see.

With Yates seemingly reverting to the Columbus approach for DH, I would say all bets are off. Plus your very relevant point above.

Which isn't to say I'm not looking forward to it though. I've enjoyed all the HP films (even the Columbus ones! :D ) :)

It might garner some technical Oscars. :)

It might garner some technical Oscars. :)

I'd forgotten about that. Dh certainly has room for the tech crew to do some good things.

I love the HP books, but wouldn't personally class them as earth-shattering literature (although their popular status is well deserved). I think the film-makers have probably tended to ignore the darker, more subversive elements of Rowling's imagination (Cuaron got the closest of any of them). Mood-wise, I find the films pretty faithful to Harry's world. I would have welcomed seeing the Harry/Snape antagonism upped in the films.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with all the above points: while I can see that the fairly simplistic writing-style of JKR does not lend itself to being classed as "good literature" (which annoys me - "good literature" apparently has to have socio-economic or psychological basis, characters who are nothing more than literary devices and can't ever have a happy ending unless it was written over 100 years ago :rolleyes:), I would say that their immense popularity was "earth-shattering" - really, it caused nothing short of a reading revolution. You hear of so many people who said that they'd never read a book until they'd read HP and now can't put them down. As for what the film-makers have ignored, I wouldn't say that it is so much the "darker" elements of the story so much as the character development, the sub-plots (Fred and George are, IMO, the best example of this - I feel no connection with the characters in the films because they aren't funny. The actors are fine, but the direction of their lines is terrible, IMO). And this leads into the point about the mood - obviously everyone "feels" Harry's world differently, but for me only the first two films captured this mood.

A more radical and less reverent approach to adapting the books might well have resulted in some cinema classics. I do think they have that potential.

That would be interesting, and would certainly set it up for winning awards. I haven't had that great an experience of "radical" adaptations of books - the Shakespeare adaptations I've seen have all been truly awful, IMO, and I wasn't even a fan of Shakespeare in the first place. But yes, if done well, this idea certainly has potential.

I do think that DH is intrinsically cinematic and has the potential to be a very good film. :tu:

"Intrinsically cinematic" - I couldn't have put it better myself! I agree wholeheartedly with this sentence. :)

Yeah the story on paper is great but it is very difficult to get a book onto screen, you can't always have all the, for example, descriptions of place and people that the author and readers imagine.

That's true. But how hard would it be to have Dumbledore wear half-moon specs, a WHITE beard, pointy hat, and not try to strangle Harry? Lol...

For DH to win an Oscar,in my opinion, it would have to escape from the 'kids film' bracket.

Absolutely. :agree:

That's true. But how hard would it be to have Dumbledore wear half-moon specs, a WHITE beard, pointy hat, and not try to strangle Harry? Lol...


oh dear Jess, still with the 'new Dumbledore' prejudice? I do agree (this time) that a slightly whiter beard may have been preferable. But I doubt that it would hold much weight in deciding whether or not DH got an Oscar!!! :lol:

oh dear Jess, still with the 'new Dumbledore' prejudice? I do agree (this time) that a slightly whiter beard may have been preferable. But I doubt that it would hold much weight in deciding whether or not DH got an Oscar!!! :lol:

:lol: True, but it would keep more of the fans happy (incidentally, who decides who the Oscars go to?) because he is expressly described as such so everyone will be picturing him as that.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with all the above points: while I can see that the fairly simplistic writing-style of JKR does not lend itself to being classed as "good literature" (which annoys me - "good literature" apparently has to have socio-economic or psychological basis, characters who are nothing more than literary devices and can't ever have a happy ending unless it was written over 100 years ago :rolleyes:), I would say that their immense popularity was "earth-shattering" - really, it caused nothing short of a reading revolution. You hear of so many people who said that they'd never read a book until they'd read HP and now can't put them down.

Oh, that is undeniable. :cool: But, just as Rowling opened up the portal for millions, I would hope that HP fans go on to discover all the other wonderful books waiting for them, not least other works of imaginative literature.

As for what the film-makers have ignored, I wouldn't say that it is so much the "darker" elements of the story so much as the character development, the sub-plots (Fred and George are, IMO, the best example of this - I feel no connection with the characters in the films because they aren't funny.

I'm afraid I feel like that about the Twins in the books. :whistle: Sorry. :blush: Fred and George are two of Rowling's characters I don't feel any emotional connection to. Unusual, actually, because I adore her characters. Most of them, anyway!

The actors are fine, but the direction of their lines is terrible, IMO).

It can be. :lol: :agree:

And this leads into the point about the mood - obviously everyone "feels" Harry's world differently, but for me only the first two films captured this mood.

Too American. :) Not massively so, admittedly, but I prefer the more British feel of the later films.

I haven't had that great an experience of "radical" adaptations of books -

Having sat through Peter Jackson's unspeakable liberty-taking, I can say I survived and even liked some of the results. ;)

the Shakespeare adaptations I've seen have all been truly awful, IMO, and I wasn't even a fan of Shakespeare in the first place. But yes, if done well, this idea certainly has potential.

I've seen both traditional and modern interpretations of Shakespeare. Both can work brilliantly.

"Intrinsically cinematic" - I couldn't have put it better myself! I agree wholeheartedly with this sentence. :)

Yep, I thought so the first time I read the book. :)

It just needs to be epic, I dont know... I've been sick for 5 days now and just re- watched Lord of the Rings again and there are sooo many parallels to HP and LotR, and similar in many ways. But it has that epicness about it, like all the battle scenes.
I think like people have sayd it just needs to be less like a kids movie. I think DH is perfect for that though 'cause its far from child friendly to me. Battle scene at the end (aside from the fact its about 1/4 of a book) has the potental to be very epic.

I'm afraid I feel like that about the Twins in the books. :whistle: Sorry. :blush: Fred and George are two of Rowling's characters I don't feel any emotional connection to. Unusual, actually, because I adore her characters. Most of them, anyway!

Huh, that's interesting! But of course, that just goes to show that you can't please all the fans with the films if all the fans get something different from the books. I personally never felt any connection to Sirius (I think because I was quite young when the third and fourth books came out, and there was a long gap between GoF and OOtP, so that I'd actually forgotten him :whistle:), and this was made even worse by the films, in which Sirius really creeps me out.

Too American. :) Not massively so, admittedly, but I prefer the more British feel of the later films.

Really? I feel as if it's the other way round. I think this is mainly due to the costume department (meaning that, à cause d'Alfonso Cuaron, the trio were wearing their own 21st century clothes in a film that was set in the 90's, and fashions in America seem to precede ours by about a decade). Admittedly, I wasn't really thinking in terms of British vs American - for me, I know it's set in Britain and the scenery's in Britain, so it's British, end of - but I suppose the cheesiness in the first two films could be said to be American. But it's the cheese I like - the books are cheesey, after all!

Having sat through Peter Jackson's unspeakable liberty-taking, I can say I survived and even liked some of the results. ;)

Well he did an awesome job (of LOtR) - and the difference between LOtR and HP was that he directed all three and they were, I believe, planned etc as three movies, and as such were consistent with each other, and flowed and supported themselves fully as movies in their own right, whereas HP are, IMO, second-rate movies who owe their success to the popularity of the books, have all been filmed as individual films essentially (due to the constant changing of directors), so are all inconsistent and make very little sense without the support of the books. They are like a very brief (and warped) overview of the Harry Potter series, and the books are the full details.

I've seen both traditional and modern interpretations of Shakespeare. Both can work brilliantly.

Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo di Caprio? And The Tempest with all the nudity iin it? Blech...

For DH to get Oscars:


Stick to the book!
Get Hans Zimmer to do the soundtrack.
Stick to the book!
Replace most of the actors...OK, I know that won't work...give the good actors and actressess the big parts they deserve (e.g. Maggie Smith). And perhaps inject botox into Emma Watson's eyebrows to calm them down a little :whistle: *joke*
Stick to the book!
Don't allow any other films to be released that year...


Ms. Watson's eyebrows have released a statement:

"*wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**w iggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wig gle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggl e**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle* *wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**w iggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wig gle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggl e**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle* *wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**w iggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wig gle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggl e**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle* *wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**w iggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wig gle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle**wiggle*"
For DH to win an Oscar,in my opinion, it would have to escape from the 'kids film' bracket. I believe it has potential but whether it can succeed, I'm not sure. We shall have to wait and see.

They've got mommy's and daddy's to milk for money, they're not changing their approach now. It's really sad though that that pg rating has caused some people to sit there trying to somehow find a way to explain why it's too low. The toning down of many elements has affected a lot of things in a negative way (The relationship between Snape and Harry has not been the same since PoA) but they're not going to change.

They've got mommy's and daddy's to milk for money, they're not changing their approach now. It's really sad though that that pg rating has caused some people to sit there trying to somehow find a way to explain why it's too low. The toning down of many elements has affected a lot of things in a negative way (The relationship between Snape and Harry has not been the same since PoA) but they're not going to change.

Sadly I agree. It's really far too late to change at this stage in the game.

It just needs to be epic, ...

But..... HP isn't epic!


I think like people have sayd it just needs to be less like a kids movie.

But.... these films are adaptations of children's books! I do not know, in real life as opposed to online, any adults (apart from myself) who has any interest in them, or has even read them (except to their kids). Certainly they should make the films accessible to as wide an audience as possible, but they cannot and should not veer them too far from their core audience (meaning: the books' core audience): children.

Expect myself I know quite a few adults (without kids) who read the books (including my former literature professor), still I agree the aimed audience probably was supposed to be and often is younger. That's said many adults enjoy literature for younger people a lot - and the same counts for movies.

I'm afraid this discussion always circles around too much from what actually should be topic of the movie thread when we can't agree on the aimed readership of the series, but I get why the movies can't alter an adventurish fantasy series to an epic novel about good and evil. All this is included in a rather wonderful way (but like in most fantasy literature actually), still it's no adult only material. That's said I don't see why a movie for younger audience shouldn't be 'huge' - or Oscar worthy. It's generally possible imo.

See as the series moved on I didn't see it as a kid's series, if anything kids grew with the series, with Harry. The last three books can not be set on the same spot as the first three and the fourth is really the turning point, where there's not just death but murder specifically.

But..... HP isn't epic!

But.... these films are adaptations of children's books! I do not know, in real life as opposed to online, any adults (apart from myself) who has any interest in them, or has even read them (except to their kids). Certainly they should make the films accessible to as wide an audience as possible, but they cannot and should not veer them too far from their core audience (meaning: the books' core audience): children.

:huh: HP is def an epic hero story. Correction- young adults, not children ;) It's core audience is the teen/20's crowd, same as nearly any film.

See as the series moved on I didn't see it as a kid's series, if anything kids grew with the series, with Harry. The last three books can not be set on the same spot as the first three and the fourth is really the turning point, where there's not just death but murder specifically.

Exactly! :agree:

Hmm, well they just need to stick to the book and try to make the best/most faithful film possible, get great peformances from the actors, lay it all out on the table and go for broke with the special effects, CGI, etc and I think there is a very good shot at multiple Oscars. :tu:

For one they owe it to the series as a whole. I could see the same happening as did with LotR. Saving it all till the end to honor the series.

For DH to win an Oscar,in my opinion, it would have to escape from the 'kids film' bracket. I believe it has potential but whether it can succeed, I'm not sure. We shall have to wait and see.

I agree completely. Like others have stated, it is publicized as a kid's book, and it may have started off that way - 11 year olds, fun little journeys, etc. But as the story went on, a lot more mature factors came into play - love, life, death, the end of the wizarding world, etc. The movies have progressively become darker to match the darkness and increasing maturity of the books, but I think most people that aren't fans of the novels still think of the movies as being aimed at kids (and the PG rating for HBP doesn't help - WHY is it PG when OOTP was PG-13?). And the haughty, "deeper meaning/multiple dimensions", "I want fantastic acting" people I can only imagine run the Oscars won't see that. Let's not forget, though, that "Beauty and the Beast" won 2 oscars (for best music) and was nominated for best picture. I think that movie's in a league of its own, though.

Secondly, to win an Oscar, I think Dan and Emma need help. Dan just needs a little... more. I don't know how to explain it, but he's not outstanding, nor horrible. Kinda meh. And Emma, in my opinion, is just obnoxious. I know she's supposed to be a know-it-all that borders on being annoying, but all the eye brow wiggling and head bobbing and... ugh. There needs to be fantastic acting, and there are a few actors that need to up their abilities.

Lastly, I think DH has a story line that could win an Oscar (any Oscar. Something.). But bringing it to life, translating writing into a movie may be lost. I just hope it does the book, and the entire series, justice.

I don't think it is a childrens book, but it may seem like it was aimed that way, because when it first came out, it was a cartoon on the cover with bright colours and stars and smoke, and it would have drawn children in, and not adults. But once it started to get more out there, it was directing away from children and more teenagers were starting to get into it. And now people of all ages are enjoying it. So I think it has a good chance of winning an Oscar, if they stay true to the last couple of books, and do some really dramatic music and special effects. I don't think being publicized as a childrens book is going to shorten their chances. JMHO.

Unfortunately, Deathly Hallows seems to be the least likely movie to ever receive the kind of critical acclaim needed for an Oscar nomination. The reason is that the great, accomplished actors that the Harry Potter series employs (Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, etc.) have severely diminished roles (except maybe Helena Bonham Carter) in the final installment. While Slumdog Millionaire proved that young actors and actresses can carry a film to the highest stage, don't you think that HP is pigeonholed by the Foreign Press? Look at Lord of the Rings; each film was nominated despite the fact that only The Return of the King won.

PS: I have full faith in the trio as actors, especially Dan. This being said perception is often more important than reality.

ally_xx
I don't think being publicized as a childrens book is going to shorten their chances. JMHO.
While there are many very good children books turned movies the chance of a kid's movie winning a Best Picture Oscar are next to zero if history has taught us anything. I agree with everyone that the end of the series are not kid's stories at all but that's much how they'll be marketed to turn over the most profit IMO.

joelwhyrock I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that the older actors could be Oscar-worthy but do not have big enough roles (something I agree with partially) and that the young cast could be nominated?
The trio are decent enough actors, nothing phenomenal IMO but better than most young adults. I think the main problem they face with Oscar nominations is that none of their characters are Oscar-material. If we look back at past winners of Best Actor for example (keeping it in the 2000s) all the winners played very flawed characters and/or characters with a great deal of depth who endured prejudice and hardship in their lives (some are based on real people which I dare say helps). Now, I'm not saying Harry Potter had an easy ride, but his character lacks the depth and intricacies that other have. He is not a character many adults can identify with. Kids can identify with him on the level of 'I'm a loner, I don't fit in etc' or maybe if they have an unloving family like the Dursleys but even if Daniel was the greatest actor out there, I don't think he has enough to work with.

While there are many very good children books turned movies the chance of a kid's movie winning a Best Picture Oscar are next to zero if history has taught us anything. I agree with everyone that the end of the series are not kid's stories at all but that's much how they'll be marketed to turn over the most profit IMO.

joelwhyrock I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that the older actors could be Oscar-worthy but do not have big enough roles (something I agree with partially) and that the young cast could be nominated?
The trio are decent enough actors, nothing phenomenal IMO but better than most young adults. I think the main problem they face with Oscar nominations is that none of their characters are Oscar-material. If we look back at past winners of Best Actor for example (keeping it in the 2000s) all the winners played very flawed characters and/or characters with a great deal of depth who endured prejudice and hardship in their lives (some are based on real people which I dare say helps). Now, I'm not saying Harry Potter had an easy ride, but his character lacks the depth and intricacies that other have. He is not a character many adults can identify with. Kids can identify with him on the level of 'I'm a loner, I don't fit in etc' or maybe if they have an unloving family like the Dursleys but even if Daniel was the greatest actor out there, I don't think he has enough to work with.

Hmmm, I think the complexity and depth of the characters is HP's greatest strength as a series. It's a shame so much of it was shortchanged and simplified for the films.

Hmmm, I think the complexity and depth of the characters is HP's greatest strength as a series. It's a shame so much of it was shortchanged and simplified for the films.

Well yes that's what I'm talking about. The films.

Well depending on how the opening scenes of Deathly Hallows portray a broken Harry after having lost Dumbledore, it is possible to portray a more tortured character. Look back at the book and count how many times Harry expresses doubt in himself, his mission, and in Dumbledore's plan for him.

See as the series moved on I didn't see it as a kid's series, if anything kids grew with the series, with Harry. The last three books can not be set on the same spot as the first three and the fourth is really the turning point, where there's not just death but murder specifically.
I agree only to a certain point. The interesting aspect of the films is that they are truly following the tone of how the perception of the novels are. It's a children's series trying to be mature where in reality it's really just a children's/young adult series. When you had the previous 2 films have blue lens filters of depression forced into your face, and the current one following this trend of faux-maturity via promotional posters of dark blue with solemn stances but comedic poses; you really are trying to compensate for some obvious shortcomings.

I'm not discounting the message and themes that JKR projects through her writing, it's decent and wholesome. But to compare that calibur of writing with some well deserved Oscar Winners of the past? There is certainly a large divide between those winners and JKR's works. The HP film series have troubles enough trying to make adaptations from her works, they shouldn't complicate things with trying to make it Oscar worthy by any stretch of the imagination aside from technical achievements.

Well depending on how the opening scenes of Deathly Hallows portray a broken Harry after having lost Dumbledore, it is possible to portray a more tortured character. Look back at the book and count how many times Harry expresses doubt in himself, his mission, and in Dumbledore's plan for him.

Ok well if we're talking about best actor nominations let's look at the most recent example. Sean Penn won Best Actor for playing Harvey Milk in the film "Milk". Now for the sake of argument (not that we're arguing :p) let's assume that both Penn and Radcliffe are on equal standing acting ability wise (I'm not saying this is true, it's just for character comparison purposes). Now Harvey Milk was the first openly gay politician who got into office in the US. He fought for gay rights during a very difficult period and he was assassinated years before his time. Harry Potter is an orphaned wizard who goes to wizard school with his two best friends. A feisty brainiac girl and a comic relief boy. They go on adventures together to defeat the Dark Lord while those close to Harry die. Ultimately good prevails and they all live happily ever after.
So that's a very simplistic way of putting it but if you really have a good look at the characters who have won Oscars (well the actors who play them have won) there's a pretty firm criteria for who's in and who's out.

I think acting really is highly unlikely - even more so than all the rest.

Some technicals could be an option - especially if they come up with interesting new visuals for DH - after all, DH is mostly offering new settings, so who knows?

Score - perhaps. Probably only if Williams were to agree to do it, because Williams always gets nominated (and usually quite deservedly so).

Acting - as I said, that's unlikely.

Adapted screenplay? I don't think so. They won't reward the adaptation of half a book. The split makes this one highly unlikely.

So, finally the big prizes: Director and Film.
This would depend on the competition, obviously. At the moment 2011 looks like one tough year to open a movie, with huge competition - although at the moment we only know about the big franchise movies which rarely get Oscars or even nominations.

Otherwise - Yates would have to up his game considerably to get close to being considered..... and as for best picture. That depends on how well DH2 is made, obviously. But again, the adaptation of half a book REALLY has to do something very special to be considered, IMHO.

All in all, I think the chances are very slim indeed, if you look at it realistically.

Ok well if we're talking about best actor nominations let's look at the most recent example. Sean Penn won Best Actor for playing Harvey Milk in the film "Milk". Now for the sake of argument (not that we're arguing :p) let's assume that both Penn and Radcliffe are on equal standing acting ability wise (I'm not saying this is true, it's just for character comparison purposes). Now Harvey Milk was the first openly gay politician who got into office in the US. He fought for gay rights during a very difficult period and he was assassinated years before his time. Harry Potter is an orphaned wizard who goes to wizard school with his two best friends. A feisty brainiac girl and a comic relief boy. They go on adventures together to defeat the Dark Lord while those close to Harry die. Ultimately good prevails and they all live happily ever after.
So that's a very simplistic way of putting it but if you really have a good look at the characters who have won Oscars (well the actors who play them have won) there's a pretty firm criteria for who's in and who's out.



But it's not about who the character [is or the story, it's about the screenplay and the delivery of the actor. If Penn had stunk up the joint it wouldn't have mattered what the subject matter was, it's all down to what the writer gives you and then what the actor puts into it. People have won best supporting Oscars while or being on film for less than two minutes, if the performance is there the nomination, at least, will come.

The stuff has been watered down but if it hadn't, had they hit the tone of the books rather than the perception of them and Radcliffe gave the performance of his life, I think he'd could've pulled a nomination but it's not going to happen the way things are.

One, the scripts aren't set up for that kind of performance to be delivered, if you're wasting someone like Alan Rickman, who even on autopilot can capture Snape, I doubt Radcliffe is going to get something beyond imagination and even if you did I don't think Radcliffe has it in him to deliver the performance. He's not a leading man, he does well playing off better talent but he doesn't seem to be able to carry a scene, he needs time to develop that skill, I think he'll end up doing a lot of stage work after Potter as a way to strengthen himself and to get away from the character but as of now he's not up to it.

P.S. Of course we're not arguing. We're having a calm discussion, *mutters* till the mods ain't looking. :D

I haven't really being keeping up with this thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned. (Although it probably has :lol:)

This is a major must for DH to win an Oscar IMO - a world class Animation team! The CGI characters are among the worst in the movie business IMO!

deansboy
But it's not about who the character [is or the story, it's about the screenplay and the delivery of the actor. If Penn had stunk up the joint it wouldn't have mattered what the subject matter was, it's all down to what the writer gives you and then what the actor puts into it. People have won best supporting Oscars while or being on film for less than two minutes, if the performance is there the nomination, at least, will come.
I don't buy for a second that any character is Oscar-worthy. You haev to have a combination of a brilliant character and exceptional acting. Which is WHY I said we assumed for argument sake that Penn and Radcliffe were both on the same level acting ability-wise. Let's just say hypothetically they were both nominated for Best Actor. Penn would win. Why? Because his character has far more depth than Harry Potter. Milk is more complex. You cant win a BA Oscar just with good acting.

One can take a simple role and run with it, it's about what you put up on screen. Plenty of hard characters have been done well and never had a hint of an Oscar nod. Complexity for the sake of complexity is meaningless. Penn won because he performed his role better than the other nominees not because his role was more complex.

If one makes an allegory of the second wizarding war to World War Two, with the death eaters representing the Nazi's, Voldemort as Hitler and the purification of the wizarding world akin to the holocaust with Harry, Ron and Hermione as three young special, top-secret soldiers seeking to bring down the regime..mixed with the spiritual aspect of someone murdering and splitting their soul to gain immortality verses the other who would gladly accept their death through the power of love, then you've got some heavy subject matter. DH even speaks to the importance of 'house-elves and children's stories' and fairy tales in general with the tale of Beedle the Bard. Dumbledore's comment about 'of-course it's all in your head, Harry but why would that make it any less real?" provides tons of philosophical depth. The Prince's Tale adds a bittersweet and tragic element to the story as do all the deaths. Harry sacrificing himself for the greater good, walking to his own death with the spirits of his loved ones, dying and ultimately choosing to pull his life back together and rise again. The complexity of the characters in regards to Snape, Dumbledore and all the characters really. Harry Potter IS a complex character. It's subtle, but that makes it more realistic. His complexity is not overt, over the top or OVER-complicated. All the characters are complex enough without it being ridiculous.

Sure, there is a happy ending but it's bittersweet because of all the deaths and mental/psychological torment.

And happy endings do happen in real life. As I recall, the Nazi's and Hitler were ultimately defeated.

If a plot-driven geographical in nature fantasy story like LOTR was able to be adapted into a Best Picture, Harry Potter with all it's character depth, moral ambiguity, realistic depiction of death, political subtext, complex themes etc had a good chance. If only the directors were as passionate about the source material.

I will argue to my dying breath that it certainly has potential.

People have won best supporting Oscars while or being on film for less than two minutes, if the performance is there the nomination, at least, will come.
From my understanding the shortest amount of time for a supporting actress/actor nod was 7-8 minutes for Beatrice Straight in Network. Also Judi Dench for 8+ minutes in Shakespeare in love. I'd like to know where you got the fact that some people have won supporting Oscars for less than 2 minutes screentime or at least a nomination since it'll be a great addition to my movie geek knowledge.
If one makes an allegory of the second wizarding war to World War Two, with the death eaters representing the Nazi's, Voldemort as Hitler and the purification of the wizarding world akin to the holocaust with Harry, Ron and Hermione as three young special, top-secret soldiers seeking to bring down the regime..mixed with the spiritual aspect of someone murdering and splitting their soul to gain immortality verses the other who would gladly accept their death through the power of love, then you've got some heavy subject matter. DH even speaks to the importance of 'house-elves and children's stories' and fairy tales in general with the tale of Beedle the Bard. Dumbledore's comment about 'of-course it's all in your head, Harry but why would that make it any less real?" provides tons of philosophical depth. The Prince's Tale adds a bittersweet and tragic element to the story as do all the deaths. Harry sacrificing himself for the greater good, walking to his own death with the spirits of his loved ones, dying and ultimately choosing to pull his life back together and rise again. The complexity of the characters in regards to Snape, Dumbledore and all the characters really. Harry Potter IS a complex character. It's subtle, but that makes it more realistic. His complexity is not overt, over the top or OVER-complicated. All the characters are complex enough without it being ridiculous.
Unfortunately it's the way it's told that it's overcomplicated. I'm not one for oversimplification either but the way the storyline was presented presents more questions than answers and not the ones that requires deep thinking about, but just moderate questions of pacing, structure, mood and tone. There is complexity to the characters, but how we get to that complexity or how it's shown is sort of lacking in calibur. There are children's themes and mature themes for sure, but it's the presentation that fails to bring them together cohesively; of which the films also represent this.

If one makes an allegory of the second wizarding war to World War Two, with the death eaters representing the Nazi's, Voldemort as Hitler and the purification of the wizarding world akin to the holocaust with Harry, Ron and Hermione as three young special, top-secret soldiers seeking to bring down the regime..mixed with the spiritual aspect of someone murdering and splitting their soul to gain immortality verses the other who would gladly accept their death through the power of love, then you've got some heavy subject matter. DH even speaks to the importance of 'house-elves and children's stories' and fairy tales in general with the tale of Beedle the Bard. Dumbledore's comment about 'of-course it's all in your head, Harry but why would that make it any less real?" provides tons of philosophical depth. The Prince's Tale adds a bittersweet and tragic element to the story as do all the deaths. Harry sacrificing himself for the greater good, walking to his own death with the spirits of his loved ones, dying and ultimately choosing to pull his life back together and rise again. The complexity of the characters in regards to Snape, Dumbledore and all the characters really. Harry Potter IS a complex character. It's subtle, but that makes it more realistic. His complexity is not overt, over the top or OVER-complicated. All the characters are complex enough without it being ridiculous.

Sure, there is a happy ending but it's bittersweet because of all the deaths and mental/psychological torment.

And happy endings do happen in real life. As I recall, the Nazi's and Hitler were ultimately defeated.

If a plot-driven geographical in nature fantasy story like LOTR was able to be adapted into a Best Picture, Harry Potter with all it's character depth, moral ambiguity, realistic depiction of death, political subtext, complex themes etc had a good chance. If only the directors were as passionate about the source material.

I will argue to my dying breath that it certainly has potential.

Fantastic post, MoD! :tu: Completely agree :agree: Yep, I would say an allegory like that certainly has a damn good chance! :cool:

And as I said earlier Harry Potter is also a modern day EPIC Hero Story...all the elements of the hero cycle are present, are they not? :p

If one makes an allegory of the second wizarding war to World War Two, with the death eaters representing the Nazi's, Voldemort as Hitler and the purification of the wizarding world akin to the holocaust with Harry, Ron and Hermione as three young special, top-secret soldiers seeking to bring down the regime..mixed with the spiritual aspect of someone murdering and splitting their soul to gain immortality verses the other who would gladly accept their death through the power of love, then you've got some heavy subject matter.


:huh:

Let me just say this: careful with the analogies. World War II isn't a subject to be taken lightly.

Yes, JKR has some intended parallels, but, well.... it isn't that simple (even if some WW II movies, e.g. recently Valkyrie, make it seem so).



Anyway - a serious subject matter alone doesn't make an Oscar-worthy film, let alone an Oscar-worthy film which also has a chance to get the necessary votes (and that's often NOT the same thing!). I think you are right in thinking that lighthearted films are almost never nominated, and in this respect Harry Potter oight to qualify as something that's a lot more serious.

The thing is this: *we* know this. But do the voters of the Academy ecognise that, too? In terms of demographic, most of them aren't the obvious candidates for Potter fandom (although undoubtedly there must be Potter fans among the Academy members).


Ultimately - the question isn't whether HP might be seserving, but whether, given the voting process and so forth, it has a chance. And if you take that into account it has a few additional hurdles to overcome, mostly prejudice of people who will measure the whole series by the earlier films, which were, given the source material, much closer in appearance to 'childrens' fare', and were in part also marketed like that.

This sort of image doesn't wear off easily. I am not sure what WB would have to do to get that changed, but it would take a pretty foridable effort.


Thus, I am NOT saying that HP doesn't have the potential (made in an appropriate way it might have), but I AM saying that it has very little chance to convince the voters anyway.



The question is whether any of the fans here would actually appreciate it if WB were to make DH1 and DH2 in the kind of style (with parallel advertising, too) which mighyt fetch them an Oscar. It would take quite some changes, IMHO.

Very few family films are Oscar nominated. Even the Wizard of Oz, beloved classic, only won in the music category, and clocked a few nominations (including Best Pic actually). However, WoZ featured probably the greatest and best loved entertainer of the 20th century, in an iconic role and singing her signature tune. That's not something that happens even once in a half century.

I'm 99% certain that no actor ever won an Oscar for two minutes in a film.

Fantastic post, MoD! :tu: Completely agree :agree: Yep, I would say an allegory like that certainly has a damn good chance! :cool:

And as I said earlier Harry Potter is also a modern day EPIC Hero Story...all the elements of the hero cycle are present, are they not? :p

Thanks. :)

Yeah, HP is an updated version of the hero's journey. HP (like Star Wars) tells the ancient epic myths of old in a contemporary setting, successfully updating them for the modern era as well as providing it's own spin on things. Making the epic intimate.

Klio, when did I say I take the events of WW2 lightly? :huh: I just made an allegory. WW2, for good or ill, was the myth of our time. Never before (and probably never again) will we have such clearly defined good and evil in a war as we did during world war two. I take value in great stories so it's the other way around. I feel the medium of story-telling is important to a culture and society; stories like HP (and your Lord of the Rings) provide a WORLD mythology that is not limited to a particular culture, religion, nation or idea.) I take the great stories very seriously.

I understand you don't think popular stores like HP are on-par with great literature like the Odyssey, but unfortunately most common regular people don't read these old stories, so stories like HP contain the same themes and ideas of classic literature and modernizes it so the stories are able to be successfully carried down from generation to generation. Mass-popular stories like HP get the messages of the old myths and literature out to a broader audience.

Sure, the language isn't as complicated or beautiful but I'm not a student of linguistics. To me, a passage rises and fall on the meaning it is trying to convey and not so much the manner in which it is constructed. It's important to be literate and compelling, of-course. I just feel people focus too much on the aesthetics of the writing and sidetrack the story itself.

I take offense that you accuse me of making a mockery of serious real life events such as WW2 because that is not my intent. Religions were formed from books, laws and moral codes from the human mind. I do not mean to belittle history by comparing it to fiction. I mean to evoke my opinions on the value and importance of the great stories of our time.

I do agree (and said in my last post) that HP will never win an Oscar because of the perception of the HP franchise. The current films haven't done a splendid job of correcting this unfortunately so I can only hope the films will be re-made in the far future.

Ironically, in a way, the success and popularity of the HP books have hurt it. These are great books and wonderful stories so much more timeless and relevant than the 'passing fad' it's sometimes made out to be.

I do agree (and said in my last post) that HP will never win an Oscar because of the perception of the HP franchise. The current films haven't done a splendid job of correcting this unfortunately so I can only hope the films will be re-made in the far future.

Ironically, in a way, the success and popularity of the HP books have hurt it. These are great books and wonderful stories so much more timeless and relevant than the 'passing fad' it's sometimes made out to be.



Which means we agree.

All this discussion about the worth of Harry Potter as a story is not actually very relevant to this particular discussion, because ultimately, it is the perception of the Academy which counts. And I think we have a pretty good idea of what this perception is - as you yourself are clearly aware.


This is an Oscar discussion. The quality of the source material has very little to do with Oscars. And since I am connected with LotR, I can tell you that I am under no illusion that the quality, (or lack of quality in some respects) of that work had much to do with the Oscars they won. It's basically an unfilmable story - not because of the SFX, but because of its impossible structure, size of the cast, etc.

Harry Potter is a lot more cinematic (and I am not saying that this makes it a worse book - it doesn't. But it's different, and, IMHO, as a story a lot better suited to film adaptation).

Yet, a whole range of factors - not least the perception that it is a 'Children's book' (one I don't share) means that it still doesn't have a chance at the Oscars.

And that we seem to agree on.


And as for the other stuff....

(OK, there was a long reply here, but I decided to owl it, because it's simply not relevant to this discussion. However, let me say that you are accusing me of motives and opinions which are in no way my opinions, and weren't implid in my post, either).

If anyone else wants a copy of my response let me know.

Honestly, an Oscar can be won on a whim sometimes. Take Geraldine Page in Pope of Greenwich Village (kudos to those who know what the h*ll I'm talking about). She had two scenes in the movie and totally stole the picture.

I think some really gritty acting by the leads could garner a nomination, if not a win. I haven't really been impressed by Emma's acting thus far, but I must admit she got a lot better in OotP. Rupert could pull it off. Michael Gambon might be able to do it for HBP, perhaps Alan Rickman, but I doubt that Dan will garner a nod, unfortunately.

Honestly, an Oscar can be won on a whim sometimes. Take Geraldine Page in Pope of Greenwich Village (kudos to those who know what the h*ll I'm talking about). She had two scenes in the movie and totally stole the picture.
She got an Oscar nod for Pope of Greenwich Village, but won in Trip To Bountiful. Just to clarify.

Today the Academy announced that instead of just five nominees for Best Picture they will be nominating ten. So hey, you never know! Maybe it could be nominated for Best Picture! Although I do think it would have a better chance if it wasn't seperated into two parts! :grumble:

Today the Academy announced that instead of just five nominees for Best Picture they will be nominating ten. So hey, you never know! Maybe it could be nominated for Best Picture! Although I do think it would have a better chance if it wasn't seperated into two parts! :grumble:

You beat me to it! I was just going to post it here....

Well, at least I can add some links....

Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005322.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i048f01beefa084a30233497982745c35)



Not sure whether DH2 could have a chance.... HBP probably not, I'd guess, with two more to come in the series.

Entertainment Weekly (http://oscar-watch.ew.com/2009/06/2010-oscars-to-have-10-best-picture-nominees.html?xid=rss-feed-todayslatest-Oscars+expands+Best+Pic+field+to+10) has an early 'Oscar Watch' column and mentioned Up and Star Trek as possible contenders who wouldn't nhave had a chance otherwise.

:hmm:

I was just going to post on that news myself. :lol: I don't really think it raises Deathly Hallows: Part 2's chances very much (just saying Part 2 reminds me of how splitting the film in half seems like it hurts its chances anyway). I think the perception of Harry Potter to the Academy will stay much the same in two-three years' time.

I agree.... but a very high profile movie might just make it into a list of ten - five is a lot harder, and usually includes only 'typical Oscar fodder'.

There is one big problem for DH2, though..... Dare I say it, but there is the Hobbit, which will come out in December of that year. Problem is, that even with ten movies, it's a lot less likely that two films which qualify as 'fantasy' for the outsider will make it. And the hobbit is released in the Holiday slot which is a lot closer to the awards.

Let me make this clear: I don't think it's the same genre - but back in 2001-2003 most people who weren't fans made the mistake all the time, and I can't believe that this will change. Moreover, the hobbit will make a lot of noise.


As far as that particular situation is concerned, though, the only chance DH2 has is that it is the darkest of an ever darkening and maturing series. We'll have to see whether Yates can show that appropriately (we'll be able to tell better after seeing HBP). The Hobbit is supposed to be more lighthearted and 'younger' - but I am not sure whether this is the route Del Toro will choose. Moreover, of course, it'll be a first part (but FotR and even TTT were nominated among five!!)



All in all - this particular race has just become relevant. Before the expansion to ten slots for BP I didn't give either DH2 or the Hobbit a chance.

Michael Gambon might be able to do it for HBP, perhaps Alan Rickman, but I doubt that Dan will garner a nod, unfortunately.

There is an outside chance that Michael Gambon may get what is known as a "due for" Oscar as best supporting actor just as Paul Newman did in the less than stellar Colour of Money.

Really the whole ten thing...changes nothing. Look at the years that HP films had be released and look at the slew of shorlisted nominated films. I guarantee there will be at least 15 other films and roles far more worthy than DH part 1 or 2 for nomination in non-technical categories.

One of my friends here at home said something the other day that I found interesting cause I've had the same thought for quite some time.

It was something along the lines of "I bet you they have held off till the end and will shower the final installment(s) like they did with LotR"

Instead of dishing out Oscars along the way they figured they may as well just wait until the end and honor the series as a whole all at once?

I dunno, just a thought. And I was quite suprised he held this theory because he isn't that interested in Potter. He's read a couple of the books and watched most of the films, but he doesn't think they are of particularly good quality. But I'm glad someone else had this thought.

I guarantee there will be at least 15 other films and roles far more worthy than DH part 1 or 2 for nomination in non-technical categories.

I don't see how you can "gaurantee" anything. :huh: I doubt this will be the case...Hollywood is running out of material, it's all overplayed.

Haven't you noticed how the majority of films nowdays are either adaptations, superheros, sequels/threequels, etc...or all 3 in one :lol:

I'm noticing a severe lack of creativity amongst film releases and less and less "typical Oscar fodder" (as Klio put it) every year.

As such, I suspect there will be more action, fantasy, etc films creeping onto the ballot in the near future. And it's happened before. ;)

Actually, I don't think that there is less 'typical OScar fodder' - just that it looks a little different now. There are more Indie films, some also foreign (think Little Miss Sunshine, or Slumdog Millionaire). These sorts of films aren't immediately obvious to people, because they aren't blockbusters, but they are little sleeper hits which many people eventually see. And something like that makes a lot more money per invested dollar than any of the high-budget blockbusters - which means that companies will continue to make them.

Essentially, I think that there won't be any lack of the typical five choices that were always there.

The extra five slots would have to be shared out between outstanding examples of various 'outsider groups' - e.g. animated (the annual Pixar offering which almost always gets buzz, but not quite enough), foreign, including non-English language in some outstanding cases, the big Christmas blockbusters, and finally the odd summer blockbuster (typical example would be Dark Knight).

Thus, from no chance at all, the situation has now changed to 'a little chance'. But 2011 is shaping up a sa tough year, with plenty of blockbuster follow-ups, and DH2 just one of those.



Concerning the 'final payback Oscar' - well, the momentum for LotR had been groing a lot more obviously: with best Picture nominatiosn for FotR and (very surprisingly!!!) TTT, it has a certain air of inevitability about it. Which the HP films don't, because they have been pretty much overlooked so far.

And DH2 still has the ptoblem that it is the adaptation of half a book. Which makes sense to many fans, but won't make mauch sense to many non-fans, unless the film develops an unearthly amazing inevitable quality, best followed on a similar performance by DH1 (whoich would also make DH2 a box office hit which could make people pay attention to it).

If DH2 doesn't somehow attract special attention it won't have a chance. The series has been going on for so long - and just as Bond movies, people are hardly surprised when another one comes around.

The extra five slots would have to be shared out between outstanding examples of various 'outsider groups' - e.g. animated (the annual Pixar offering which almost always gets buzz, but not quite enough), foreign, including non-English language in some outstanding cases, the big Christmas blockbusters, and finally the odd summer blockbuster (typical example would be Dark Knight).


I don't want to stray too far here, but I thought the animated films had their own category- "Best Animated Picture" :whistle:

She got an Oscar nod for Pope of Greenwich Village, but won in Trip To Bountiful. Just to clarify.

Ahh, yes, that's what I meant. Thank you :lol:

I don't want to stray too far here, but I thought the animated films had their own category- "Best Animated Picture" :whistle:

Why couldn't the best animated feature also be the best picture of the year?

I can see Deathly Hallows receiving an Oscar nomination for a few technical awards, such as for cinematography and visual effects, and perhaps for Best Musical Score, if whoever will be composing the score does an acceptable job, but very little else. As the filmmakers appear to be including as much of the book as is possible, I do not see it receiving Best Adapted Screenplay, for, if they're merely taking as many scenes from the book and putting them into the film, I do not see how much of an "adaptation" it is. With exemplary direction, I may see a few acting nods, but even that is highly unlikely. And without an award-winning script and award-winning acting, I'd rather doubt that Deathly Hallows would even be considered for Best Picture. In short, it would take a lot for it to get a major Oscar, but is more likely to receive a few minor ones.

There is an outside chance that Michael Gambon may get what is known as a "due for" Oscar as best supporting actor just as Paul Newman did in the less than stellar Colour of Money.

Newman had been nominated many times - his first nod was in 1959! He was "owed" as the terminology goes. Gambon is a distinguished, British-based stage actor who makes a film now and then. He has never been Oscar nominated. He is not "owed".

Incidentally, Newman won as Best Actor in a Leading Role. Strange, but true.

:wave:

Hi, Sesquipedalian.... welcome to the boards. I noticed yor fabulous username when you signed up two days ago! :tu:


Why couldn't the best animated feature also be the best picture of the year?

Indeed.... peope have been saying this for a while.

Same goes for foreign language films. It has sometimes happened that one of those made the best picture list, but it is very rare (once? twice?), and sometimes they are simply, well, amomg the bvery best pictures of the year, too!

Actually, I don't think that there is less 'typical OScar fodder' - just that it looks a little different now. There are more Indie films, some also foreign (think Little Miss Sunshine, or Slumdog Millionaire). These sorts of films aren't immediately obvious to people, because they aren't blockbusters, but they are little sleeper hits which many people eventually see. And something like that makes a lot more money per invested dollar than any of the high-budget blockbusters - which means that companies will continue to make them.



Here's my take on this.

Mainstream, studio films used to be of high quality, and one won Best Pic year after year. As studio films have deteriorated in quality, indie films have filled the vacuum and it's now commonplace for indies which few ticket buyers have actually seen, to win major awards.

As there are fewer and fewer good parts in mainstream studio films, artistically ambitious actors take parts in indies, for meagre fees, just for something to get their thespian teeth into. Kate Winslet, forex, hasn't had a hit in years, but has finally won after many nods, mostly for little-seen indie flicks:

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=katewinslet.htm

So "typical Oscar fodder" would be a film like "The Reader", adapted from a novel, and made by a prestigious cast and crew, but not by any means a popular film.

Glancing over the films to be released over the next few months, the "Oscar fodder" pics are pretty obvious, as they meet the above description. Also, the work of the same few directors tends to get garlanded: Scorsese, Ang Lee, David Fincher. Yates is not in that category. Finally, as Sesquipedalian has pointed out (welcome, btw!) the HP films are not really adapted at all. If a director needs five hours to tell a tale for children/young adults, then he and his screenwriter have not done much in the way of adaptation.

Essentially, I think that there won't be any lack of the typical five choices that were always there.

The extra five slots would have to be shared out between outstanding examples of various 'outsider groups' - e.g. animated (the annual Pixar offering which almost always gets buzz, but not quite enough), foreign, including non-English language in some outstanding cases, the big Christmas blockbusters, and finally the odd summer blockbuster (typical example would be Dark Knight).

If DH2 doesn't somehow attract special attention it won't have a chance. The series has been going on for so long - and just as Bond movies, people are hardly surprised when another one comes around.
Yo that Klio. I mean if you just look at the year OoTP came out 2007 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt_year.php?year=2007) there is already 15+ more films on there more deserving on Oscar Accolades than OoTP. While the RT ratings are not a complete indicator of Oscar quality (I mean Knocked Up is on there afterall), amongst the other films you can see Oscar Fodder and with the wealth of indie films and foreign films they certainly show more innovation and creativity than HP and any potential DH two parter under Yates helm.

So "typical Oscar fodder" would be a film like "The Reader", adapted from a novel, and made by a prestigious cast and crew, but not by any means a popular film.

Smaller films also attract the voting members because they highlight the artists upon whose talents the film relies. In your average blockbuster performance is secondary to explosions and other technical trickery.

Yo that Klio. I mean if you just look at the year OoTP came out 2007 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt_year.php?year=2007) there is already 15+ more films on there more deserving on Oscar Accolades than OoTP. While the RT ratings are not a complete indicator of Oscar quality (I mean Knocked Up is on there afterall), amongst the other films you can see Oscar Fodder and with the wealth of indie films and foreign films they certainly show more innovation and creativity than HP and any potential DH two parter under Yates helm.

Knocked Up is an awesome film! :p And I realize the fans don't get to vote on the Oscars, but I don't give much worth to RT critics ratings.

...I realize the fans don't get to vote on the Oscars, but I don't give much worth to RT critics ratings.

Well, in the world of Oscar prognostication RT ratings tend to be seen as a reasonable indicator. Not perfect, but better than most other online rating systems (imdb!!). The Academy doesn't vote ike film fans.... and while it doesn't quite behave like critics, either, it is certainly swayed and impressed by critical acclaim, it seems.

Thus, RT is valid as a crude tool for this kind of thing, whether we agree with it or not.

The fact that we sometimes don't agree with RT is a good sign, because most fans also don't 100% agree with the Oscars most of the time.


Of course, the awards season, and the buzz created at that point is crucial - and we can't do anything but very crude prognosticating before it starts ... which is in January. With the new rule, most bets are off.

...I realize the fans don't get to vote on the Oscars, but I don't give much worth to RT critics ratings.
:shrug:

I know (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5293018&postcount=46).:relax:

As evidenced by this post, (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5279747&postcount=197) you place stock in the RT community/general public as your metric for defining how well reviewed a film is. So using the same list I posted before I went through it to show the differences in critics ratings to RT community ratings. I decided to bold some more Oscar fodder type fare that has more potential for being nominated than OoTP and even at this point either of the DH films.

1. 100% Life of Reilly .......N/A
2. 100% Half Moon: A Musician's Last Journey........71%
3. 100% I for India ........100%
4. 98% The Band's Visit........90%
5. 98% Ten Canoes ........75%
6. 98% The Devil Came On Horseback ........94%
7. 98% For the Bible Tells Me So........98%
8. 98% Grbavica: The Land of My Dreams........82%
9. 98% Nanking ........72%
10. 97% Once 147 ........84%
11. 97% The King Of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters........91%
12. 96% Ratatouille ........95%
13. 96% Persepolis ........94%
14. 96% Deep Water ........91%
15. 96% Chop Shop ........60%
16. 96% Up The Yangtze ........87%
17. 96% Triad Election ........100%
18. 95% 12:08 East of Bucharest ........85%
19. 95% Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea ........86%
20. 95% Pete Seeger - The Power of Song ........100%
21. 95% Steal a Pencil For Me ........100%
22. 95% King Corn ........100%
23. 95% [Rec] ........82%
24. 94% No Country for Old Men ........94%
25. 94% Gone Baby Gone ........85%
26. 94% Away From Her ........92%
27. 94% In the Shadow of the Moon ........90%
28. 94% No End in Sight ........93%
29. 94% My Kid Could Paint That ........87%
30. 94% Lake of Fire ........86%
31. 94% Chris & Don: A Love Story ........66%
32. 94% The Violin ........86%
33. 93% The Bourne Ultimatum ........94%
34. 93% Juno ........89%
35. 93% Sicko ........86%
36. 93% Enchanted ........90%
37. 93% The Diving Bell and the Butterfly ........96%
38. 93% Encounters At the End of the World ........86%
39. 93% This Is England ........94%
40. 92% The Host ........80%
41. 92% An Unreasonable Man ........83%
42. 92% Shotgun Stories ........80%
43. 92% Journey From The Fall ........87%
44. 91% Hairspray ........88%
45. 91% There Will Be Blood........84%
46. 91% The Italian ........74%
47. 91% God Grew Tired of Us ........78%
48. 91% Your Mommy Kills Animals........71%
49. 91% August Evening ........63%
50. 90% Knocked Up ........88%
51. 90% Hot Fuzz ........93%
52. 90% The Simpsons Movie ........90%
53. 90% Michael Clayton ........88%
54. 90% Katyn ........78%
55. 90% Colma: The Musical ........62%
56. 90% Note by Note: The Making of the Steinway L1037........50%
57. 90% Strange Culture ........50%
58. 89% Zodiac........91%
59. 89% The Savages........83%
60. 89% Rescue Dawn........89%
61. 89% Red Road........70%
62. 89% Starter For 10........80%
63. 89% Into Great Silence........62%
64. 89% Stephanie Daley........78%
65. 88% 3:10 to Yuma........92%
66. 88% Eastern Promises........91%
67. 88% Waitress........83%
68. 88% Before the Devil Knows You're Dead ........79%
69. 88% The Wind That Shakes the Barley........83%
70. 88% Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten........88%
71. 88% ShowBusiness: The Road to Broadway........83%
72. 88% Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders........81%
73. 88% The Real Dirt on Farmer John ........85%
74. 88% Syndromes and A Century........81%
75. 88% I Don't Want To Sleep Alone ........80%
76. 88% The Camden 28 ........100%
77. 88% Sacco & Vanzetti ........100%
78. 88% Poison Friends........80%
79. 88% The Pope's Toilet ........88%
80. 87% Superbad........91%
81. 87% The Lookout........90%
82. 87% Control........88%
83. 87% After The Wedding........88%
84. 87% The Unforeseen........75%
85. 86% The Orphanage........91%
86. 86% 2 Days In Paris........79%
87. 86% The Singing Revolution........87%
88. 86% The Prisoner Or: How I Planned To Kill Tony Blair........100%
89. 86% 'Tis Autumn - The Search for Jackie Paris ........N/A
90. 86% Billy The Kid ........100%
91. 85% Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street........89%
92. 85% The Hoax........86%
93. 85% Bridge to Terabithia........77%
94. 85% The Namesake ........85%
95. 85% Paris, Je T'aime ........87%
96. 85% Starting Out in the Evening ........85%
97. 85% Delirious........76%
98. 85% War Dance ........83%
99. 85% Terror's Advocate ........100%
100. 85% Unconscious........63%
Aside from a handful of films, most of the films in that list falls in line with the critics with perhaps only a difference of 5-10% between Critic and RT community. In addition many of the bolded choices (20 of them) are above OoTP's rating both in Critics and RT community and these are only the top 100 rated films on RT. I'm sure there are dozens more films below the 85% mark and 100 list that had and would be nominated over HP. If this is applicable to other years, there will be still 15+ films more Oscar worthy than either DH film determined both by critics and general public/RT community and in this case in tandem and mutual agreement.

This isn't to show the relation of critics to RT community viewing tastes; but following your standard of ignoring the critics and putting more trust in the general audience and applying previous years in which HP has been released there are and will be 15+ more films more Oscar worthy than either DH films.

:shrug:

I know (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5293045&postcount=47).:relax:


Just curious - what does my post which you linked here have to do with this? Were you trying to link something else?






In any case, I think that for the purpose of this thread it is important to separate two very different lines of thought:

1) wishful thinking: what we'd like to happen at the Oscars; including various observations why the oscars aren't fair, invalid, don't reflect general opinion.

2) Oscar predictions: trying to secondguess what the Academy might decide, whether we agree with it or not.


Part of the disputes in here have come about because these two things got mixed up.

I am mainly interested in (2), because (1) is something we can't change anyway. As such, I will sound downbeat to fans, because, frankly, I don't think that on past record, Oscar chances for DH are particularly good. Even after the new BP rule.

Of course, the awards season, and the buzz created at that point is crucial

As is the amount of money the studios are prepared to spend lobbying for votes. A big promotional campaign can be the decider.

As is the amount of money the studios are prepared to spend lobbying for votes. A big promotional campaign can be the decider.

Yes. But only if your movie really is within striking distance.

As is the amount of money the studios are prepared to spend lobbying for votes. A big promotional campaign can be the decider.

Yes but, as already stated, the film has to have a base of critical praise to spring from in the first place. You can see this by looking at the speculation in the first few months of the year, and the reality around December time.

Example: a year ago Australia was considered a possible front runner - big name director, big name stars, huge budget. Then people saw the picture....

Many fall by the wayside in this way, while a few others come from nowhere, e.g. Juno.

The first two LOTR films had won some Oscars and - crucially - both had been nominated as Best Picture. The awards for RotK were the culmination and "reward" if you will.

Yes. But only if your movie really is within striking distance.

I don't deny that, but it is a big factor in the final mix.

I don't deny that, but it is a big factor in the final mix.


Yes. But only as a distinguishing factor among the top few. It has at times made a difference - e.g. the year when crazy lobbying won the Best Picture Oscar for 'Shakespeare in Love' (over Elizabeth(!), Saving Private Ryan(!!), La Vita e Bella and Thin Red Line). It can be done. But you have to be close anyway to do it. E.g. in spite of the extended list, no amount of money and lobbying would get Transformers 2 onto that list.

Up and Star Trek might have a chance, but might need a good deal of effort to do it, so in those cases it might be worth putting some money in.

With HP we'll have to wait how the reactions are, but HBP, as the sixth in a series of eight is probably not worth investing on, either. The situation might be different for DH2, if it is good and well received (whcih doesn't have to be the same thing).

The first two LOTR films had won some Oscars and - crucially - both had been nominated as Best Picture. The awards for RotK were the culmination and "reward" if you will.



I just wrote a lengthy analysis of this over in the Oscars thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5341191#post5341191).

We have had lots of arguments here about HP's chances on the basis of what happened with LotR. It is therefore worth knowing the full facts before conducting such arguments.

I am not sure LotR is a good model for anything, including Harry Potter. What happened there was unprecedented in many ways. Even as a fan of LotR I need to really sit back and try and explain its record, because it's all a bit unlikely when you look at it from an Oscar watching point of view.

I would flatly say it would need a miracle. Movies like this aren't made for the Oscars, unfortunately despite how great they are these movies are made for MTV movie award shows. Unless somehow one of them breaks Titanic's $1.8 billion World record, than and only then will it get an Oscar.

I would flatly say it would need a miracle. Movies like this aren't made for the Oscars, unfortunately despite how great they are these movies are made for MTV movie award shows. Unless somehow one of them breaks Titanic's $1.8 billion World record, than and only then will it get an Oscar.Actually, big box offices tend to turn the Academy off on films. The Dark Knight had spectacular reviews last year, far exceeding that of any of the Oscar nominees for best picture. A big reason why it was not nominated was the huge financial success: in general, many Academy members feel that popular appeal (e.g., Harry Potter) must represent lowest-common-denominator entertainment.

Lord of the Rings was a big exception to this, but no action/adventure film has gotten nominated since then. And, let's face it: the last impression of Harry Potter that many Academy members have is Stone. Until you can make the Academy completely forget about the Columbus films (or completely forget about Columbus, who will get an Oscar nomination about the same time that Michael Bay does), DH could be as good as Rings and still get ignored.

Be made by Pixar and have some sort of heartfelt story incorporated into it.

All jokes aside, I'm remembering some categories, like 'Best Costumes' (though I can't imagine any of the costumes being really elaborate) and, if memory serves, 'Best CGI', in which DH could very possibly win. Though if Star Trek is in the running, maybe not!

Since the story is well known, I don't think it would have a chance at 'Best Screenplay' unless the 'judges' read DH, and saw if there was a suitable translation from book to film.

Since the story is well known, I don't think it would have a chance at 'Best Screenplay' unless the 'judges' read DH, and saw if there was a suitable translation from book to film.First, the Academy does not use "judges": many, if not all, members of the Academy get to vote.

Second, the award is the equivalent of "best screenplay" but for a film that was adapted from an existing work. So, basically "best adapted screenplay" (or whatever the official name is) is "best secondhand screenplay." The vast majority of the Academy members will not have read the original book (even in a case such as HP), so matching the book or even the story told by the book is not an issue. For example, the fact that the Lord of the Rings screenplays were far more different from the original book than have been any of the HP screenplays was not an issue: and the winners frequently are very, very different from the original book. Tolkien fans debate vigorously whether the films told the same story as Tolkien did: clearly, they did not tell a story about Death and Immortality, as Tolkien said the story was, but many Tolkien fans feel that Tolkien himself told a different story! The Academy could not have cared less whether the story matched that of the books: they only cared that it told any story well.

Again, the Academy members are movie-people. They are concerned with how well a film tells a story and delivers a plot & themes. It is not even that they are utterly uninterested in how similar an adaptation is to the original: most of them know that a good movie version of a story must be a lot different if it is to tell the same story. What works for a book often works on film as well as a fish's gills work on land.....


PIXAR films are another issue altogether. They have separate categories for animations, as the Academy has been reluctant to put them on the same level as "normal" films.

Actually, big box offices tend to turn the Academy off on films. The Dark Knight had spectacular reviews last year, far exceeding that of any of the Oscar nominees for best picture. A big reason why it was not nominated was the huge financial success: in general, many Academy members feel that popular appeal (e.g., Harry Potter) must represent lowest-common-denominator entertainment.

That is true. In addition, it seems like the Academy ignores films if they are not typical Oscar material. So, to use your example, The Dark Knight also had its plot going against it. Because it is a superhero film, it is not taken seriously by the Academy even though it was widely raved. So even if HP is absolutely brilliant, the fact that it's a film about magic will work against it because the Academy won't take it seriously.

It's very possible that DH can win technical awards, but I don't know about awards that recognize the story itself or how the actors were.

So even if HP is absolutely brilliant, the fact that it's a film about magic will work against it because the Academy won't take it seriously.Well, that is the problem: the Academy sees Harry Potter as being about magic, when HP stories only have magic in them in the same way that war movies have guns. The actual stories themselves, which inevitably revolve around the hard/right choice(s) vs. the easy/wrong choice(s) for Harry Potter, would be appealing to the Academy (which generally loves character tales) if they could get around the fantastic elements.

That being said, the Academy generally shies away from any action. Even war films do not do as well as they should. I think that action is viewed as a sugar-coating that a good story should not need. Remember, these people are movie-snobs of the first order: but, then, shouldn't they be?

What would it take to get Deathly Hallows an Oscar?

A freakin miracle! Sci-fi/magical movies very rarely get taken seriously when it comes to the Oscars. In fact, big budget, fantasy movies that come in multiples (Star Wars, LotR, etc.) hardly ever get nominated, let alone win.

Even if Deathly Hallows is amazing, as I'm hoping it will be, I don't think the Academy will give it an Oscar. Huge blockbusters (Aside from Lord of the Rings) never seem to get nominated, let alone win. Like when Johnny Depp was nominated for best actor for Pirates 1, he still didn't win, to much dissapointment among fans. I wish the movie would get an Oscar, but I'm not sure it'll happen. There's always hope though, because I have a feeling DH is gonna derserve some recognition! :love:

What would it take? A miracle like no other.

You'd have to hope that the Academy overlooks all the usual uplifting drama films or tear-jerking tragedies when going for a Best Picture. All it takes is a few directors to go around making a slew of movies similar to Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire for the Academy to be set in their decision. Against these odds, sci-fi/fantasy films, no matter how popular or critically acclaimed, have little chance of winning.

I definitely think that the score could get one...or at least a nomination. A nod for special effects would also be something that I could see happening. To get one for the more coveted honours such as best picture, best director etc...I just don't see that happening. I think the movie would have to be terribly dark and gritty to get any recognition in this department. Besides I think that would ruin the film. I watch the movies to be entertained, to laugh and to enjoy watching the series I love portrayed in a different medium. I don't watch these films to nit pick at reasons why it can't win an Oscar.

Well, that is the problem: the Academy sees Harry Potter as being about magic, when HP stories only have magic in them in the same way that war movies have guns. The actual stories themselves, which inevitably revolve around the hard/right choice(s) vs. the easy/wrong choice(s) for Harry Potter, would be appealing to the Academy (which generally loves character tales) if they could get around the fantastic elements.

That being said, the Academy generally shies away from any action. Even war films do not do as well as they should. I think that action is viewed as a sugar-coating that a good story should not need. Remember, these people are movie-snobs of the first order: but, then, shouldn't they be?

Well the academy is made up of practitioners and the format (except best film) looks at the various arts and sciences in isolation so a movie which is heavy in effects or action will often as not scarifice characterisation and dialogue which are the bread and butter skills of an actor, for example.

Well the academy is made up of practitioners and the format (except best film) looks at the various arts and sciences in isolation so a movie which is heavy in effects or action will often as not scarifice characterisation and dialogue which are the bread and butter skills of an actor, for example.Very true and also something that is well worth emphasizing: these people know and revere movie-making as an art-form, and thus as a story-telling format. It is not the "tear-jerkers" or the "uplifting" that the academy likes per se: but the character-driven. It is quite unusual for an epic like Lord of the Rings to win.

Now, Harry Potter stories obviously are character-driven novels rather than plot-driven epics, so in some ways HP might be better suited to grab the academy's attention. The final story in particular might appeal to them: issues of what is the greater good and what it is appropriate to do for a greater good always offer the opportunity for the character moments that appeal to this sort of crowd.

Unfortunately, the fact that there is magic might blind the Academy members to the fact that this really is a character tale with fantastic elements rather than a fantastic epic that has human shaped plot-devices. And, of course, the mere existence of the Columbus films might simply result in most Academy members leaving the DH DVD in its case: they have memories for good and ill, by all accounts!

marvelous visual effects, good screenwriting, editing sound, and music (BRING JOHN WILLIAMS BACK!!)

A new Director, producer and a completely new child cast. Better techniques, music, effects etc which would come with a new director. Improved dialog and sticking to original material.

The academy is a sham anyway, so even if it was technically clever etc - its no guarantee of an Oscar - though good triumphing over evil is right up their clichéd street.
Maybe if they concentrated on the racism angle and exploit it effectively for all it is worth, it might not matter if its badly directed and Yates might be another, in a long line of undeserving winners.

There is no way. The movies are far too rushed. There is no real time for any of the actors to shine, there is no time for the content of the movie to move you emotionally before other things start to happen that need your attention. It would take deathly hallows a lot for something real to happen. I appreciate them seperating the movie into two parts. I just hate that since the other 6 movies were on fast foward DH will have to spend time clearing things up so that the movie can continue on its own... Will they introduce bill? What will happen to Hedwig? The scene where harry is in the side car and hedwig is killed could be an excellent time for an emotional scene. Him trying to force hagrid to turn around while he still has hope for hedwig... thats beautiful... but will the audience even care about Hedwig? As far as I know they havent even mentioned hedwig's name in the movies. What about dobby? Tonks? These are all things that need an emotional connection to the audience. These are just my opinions...

I think that first it'd have to be one movie :whistle:

Yes. Exactly. When I first heard that DH would be split, I knew at once the hopes for HP finally getting an Oscar was shot. The storyline is much more amazing and clear as one cohesive whole, and probably could have gotten something if released say in December as a behemoth sized film like Titanic, which was over 4 hours long. But WB wouldn't take that risk, knowing what length does to audiences these days.

Don't forget that POA movie was nominated for best score, under John Williams. I think it should have won but it didn't. It was a big deal to be nominated though.

What stands for DH1 or Dh2 getting one, is probably all depending on the storyline. We need a really clear story to be told. All the other Harry Potter movies lack a clear plot structure and pacing. If this one could convey exactly what happens it will stand a better chance. So probably starting with the script, that is most important to getting the Oscar.

Without a strong script I doubt either movie will get anything. Even if the music or cinematography for instance is mint, it will be overshadowed by a messy storyline. But maybe this time there won't be any holes. For example, POA was probably the greatest quality film out of all 6, however it still had major holes the audience could see. Like it made it seem like anybody could be an Animagus, it didn't explain who the Marauders were, etc. A clear story is the first priority to getting the oscar.

. For example, POA was probably the greatest quality film out of all 6, however it still had major holes the audience could see. Like it made it seem like anybody could be an Animagus, it didn't explain who the Marauders were, etc. A clear story is the first priority to getting the oscar.

Well I hadn't read the book, but I couldn't see any plotholes. It no more occurred to me to wonder who had made the map, and why it was called the Marauders' map, than it occurred to me to wonder who had made the Timeturners, or any other artefact in this or, for that matter, most other films. It's a map; it's a timeturner; it's how its working affects the plot that matters.

Aside from the fact that the provenance of some throwaway artefact is nothing to do with the story - lots of films have "clear" stories, but don't get within a million miles of an Oscar.

Deathly Hallows is a popcorn movie, not an Oscar calibre movie.

No chance of an Oscar for anything but technical awards.

Well I hadn't read the book, but I couldn't see any plotholes. It no more occurred to me to wonder who had made the map, and why it was called the Marauders' map, than it occurred to me to wonder who had made the Timeturners, or any other artefact in this or, for that matter, most other films. It's a map; it's a timeturner; it's how its working affects the plot that matters.

Aside from the fact that the provenance of some throwaway artefact is nothing to do with the story - lots of films have "clear" stories, but don't get within a million miles of an Oscar.

Yes, I understand. I guess I wasn't clear enough myself.

I totally understand story-line isn't crucial to an oscar. I meant that if it would stand a chance for any kind of oscar HP needs a good story-line first. This is the type of movie that first needs to have the story told well. Without a well-told story that appears consistent even to non-readers, it stands no chance for any oscar. Not even music or art directing, for example.

Also I meant as a plot-hole for POA not explaining who the Marauders were, e.g. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs.

Deathly Hallows is a popcorn movie, not an Oscar calibre movie.

No chance of an Oscar for anything but technical awards.

I agree, Even though the movies are good they aren't that good that they would win an Oscar. At least not the best movie. HP could win special effect and sound, and the soundtrack could have the chance to win. Other awards than those I don't believe HP could win.

The only way any of these films would get an oscar would be if they bribed the jury with more money then they gained by making them.As book to movie examples they are dreadful except for perhaps the first two.

The only way any of these films would get an oscar would be if they bribed the jury with more money then they gained by making them.As book to movie examples they are dreadful except for perhaps the first two.

'Dreadful' in what way? I happen to like the HP movies, particularly the later ones.

And Alfonso Cuaron's PoA still remains the best of the bunch.

I agree that none of them are Oscar material, except in purely technical terms. But a film doesn't have to be Oscar material in order for me to enjoy it. :cool:

'Dreadful' in what way? I happen to like the HP movies, particularly the later ones.

And Alfonso Cuaron's PoA still remains the best of the bunch.

I agree that none of them are Oscar material, except in purely technical terms. But a film doesn't have to be Oscar material in order for me to enjoy it. :cool:

Perhaps true but that is not what the original poster wondered about

I think they're all pretty good as adaptations, not the best, but pretty good. I too love the later ones more - perhaps because they are darker and more mature than the first two.

As for DH getting an Oscar - well just because a film doesn't get nominated or awarded with an Oscar, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve one. I have every faith that these two last films are gonna be epic in everyway. Some serious filmmaking from Yates is sure to come.

I think one of the actors will be rewarded with an oscar, there is no way they are going to much up the deathly hallows, these final two films will be something special, that will take it to a new level.

Believe me people are going to be blown away.

I think the film has the potential to win at least one of the following:

Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Set Design
Best Special Effects
Best Supporting Actress - Helena Bonham Carter

Rupert Grint is being mentioned a lot as the "stand-out" talent among the stars; wouldn't be surprised if he was nominated for an award. Daniel Radcliffe is always believable as Harry and quite talented, but Rupert has been exceptional in the last few films. Check out Goblet of Fire, when the camera focuses on his face after the unexpected announcement. For a moment, I thought, "wouldn't want him angry at me."

I definitely think the film has a shot at the technical awards, POA, GOF and HBP have all been nominated in music and visual effects, art design and visual effects and cinematography respectively. Harry Potter is not the sort of franchise that receives or even deserves serious recognition for acting or direction, certainly not under the current leadership.

It takes more Ralph Fiennes but with Steve Kloves writing his lines I think he will never win an Oscar as Voldemort.
Maybe Alan Rickman... if his character is respected he could be nominated as best supporting actor.

I think that it could make it to the ocears. HBP did, so why can't Deathy Hallows make it?:shrug:

If you want Oscars, you have to make a film about World War II - not Wizarding War II.

I think it could work. They just have to focus mainly on the character and the actors cannot seem like they are phoneing it in. It has to have real heart to it and then the action and spectacle will compliment that.

I would really love for DH to get nominated for something. It could just work. Helena Bonham-Carter and maybe Alan Rickman could get nominated to Best Supporting Actress and Actor, respectively, if they act their roles out well, which I have faith they did. Snape's story is very deep and poignant, so I'm really crossing my fingers for that. DH also has potential for Best Screenplay and Best Original Score! And Special Effects, of course. It's magic, after all!

I would like to see it getting an Oscar... maybe after the second part is realeased? Like LotR, which got Oscars after the release of all the three movies. :dreamy: It would be nice... but I doubt people who can decide it are HP fans. :grumble:

It would have to be completely different from all of the others, starting with the omission of any childish jokes or cringe-inducing lines. The plot would have to be clear, even for those unfamiliar with the books, and the story would have to flow, as some of the earlier films haven't. That being said, I think it's a definite possibility. With the trio being away from Hogwarts, there's a real opportunity for the films to break away from the standard Harry Potter movie mold and create something special and unique. If the previews are any indication, Deathly Hallows is going to blow everyone away. Don't let us down, Steve and Dave! ;)

I think that Alan Rickman could potentially get the Best Supporting Actor award. . . he's already so good at playing Snape, he seems to be in touch with the character. I think he's going to do a really great job. And I think technical awards will be in order, if anything!

Keep your focus on MTV movie awards. That's the only shot DH has to win major awards. It will maybe be up for original score and special effects but that's about it.