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

[MsJPotter]

=Wimsey;5956073]The only way in which Academy members might be doing this is in basically dismissing Harry Potter out-of-hand because of the poor reputation of the early films and/or WB's decision to maximize profits for the last film.
Again, he critics did not find it to be flawed: 96% positive reviews with an average of 8.4 of 10 stars. That was the 5th highest score of any major release this year. The film has outstanding audience numbers (8.2 at IMDB is great, and the BOM numbers are comparable). So, if these flaws are so copious, then how did all of these people miss them?

I don't think they did. Most of the praise in the reviews seemed to comment on the tone and the pacing. The film looks good and has lots of action. When talking about the acting they say that Radliffe, Watson and Grint have become fairly decent actors, they say Rickman and Maggie Smith do a good job. The 3d is almost universally condemned and that the series wraps itself up in a fitting manner. What seems to be missing from the vast majority of the professional reviewers is a sense of wonder at the film. James Berrdinelli said that in The Return Of The King there was 'moments of genuine pathos' and 'moments of great triumph'. For DH2 he says that a case could be made that the final battle is anticlimactic. His review is positive but it's not rapturous. This seems to be typical. The series is ended and thank goodness the ending was not as bad as it could have been. On the IMDB the rating for the film has fallen from 8.9 to 8.2. It's still high but it's not heading in the right direction. I know the film made shedloads of money but so did the 'Twilight' series, something that fills my heart with dismay to say the least. Box office returns are not the greatest way in the world to judge how good or bad a film is.

My points in prior posts are that the "flaws" that some people here have listed as making this film unworthy of an Oscar are simply differences between the book and the film that only people who remember the books in detail would notice. That is a tiny fraction of the viewing audience, and it does not include many members of the Academy, HPFA, SAG, etc.. In short: deviations from the original source material are NOT why Hallows 2 has not been picking up major nominations.
Hence, WB is pushing for a best supporting actor: by definition, that's not the main character. Now, usually it is for a Ron or Hermione size role, but as people have noted, sometimes the nominations go to smaller supporting roles.

I think WB pushed for a supporting actor nomination for Rickman because truthfully it was the only major award that stood a chance of getting a nomination in. Alan Rickman is a good actor and even with all the handicaps of script and direction he turned in a decent job. But he's up against some stiff competition in movies that traditionally are liked by the Academy. I would say that Kenneth Branagh or Christopher Plummer are the ones to keep an eye on at the Awards show. Branagh is always value for money and Plummer was frankly terrific.

Now, beefing up Snape's role would have helped Rickman's chances and might (in my opinion) have made the whole Snape twist a bit more piquant. However, that would be another case where the film's Oscar chances would have been improved by greater amounts of adaptation: nobody in the Academy rates adaptations higher for sticking closer to the original source materials

.

I definately think that sticking closer to Canon Snape would have helped Rickman get a nod, but it was not to be. I don't know why Canon Snape couldn't have been done. In the previous films Snape was pretty inoffensive. DH was published in 2007, there was time to write a script showing his redemption journey. I don't know why it wasn't done. Truthfully, I don't understand why they did TPT the way they did. Adapting a scene from a book so that it keeps the character of the people in the scene is not something to be despised. Dialogue is not to be despised in contrast to visuals. They are supposed to work hand in hand. In DH1 we got the really striking 3 Brothers animated sequence, A great blend of effective visuals and intelligent dialogue. A great Prince's Tale couldn't be done?

You, I and Harry Potter fans know that. Everybody else knows that Harry Potter is 12. He's 12 in every book, just like all child protagonists in all of those kids series. He just was older in the films because they had a 14 year old actor playing the role: hence, the joke.

Doesn't really say much about the intelligence of the reviewers on the whole, does it?
I'm still saddened by what I see as the bias against fantasy by the Academy but I have to admit to myself, when I look at DH2 I'm not surprised. LOTR succeeded because the films had heart and soul and a director who understood and respected the source material. I don't think Harry Potter had the same benefit.

[MinervasCat]

I've always blamed some of the blandness of the films on the direction and screenplay. I think the Academy is looking for much better work than was shown in either of those categories. The dialogue all of the actors were given was not nearly as good as the dialogue in the books. Many of the scenes (such a Voldemort hugging Draco -- something that he would never have even given a though about doing) were totally unnecessary and only confused film goers who hadn't read the books.

One big thing that leaps out is Luna...when we last see her in DH 2 she is a fugitive from Malfoy Manor hiding out at Shell Cottage. How the heck did she get to Hogwarts...and WHY would she have gone there before Harry and Co. arrived? And, where were all of the residents of Hogsmeade and all of the parents and former students who merged on the school to help save it? They could muster up all a whole army of DEs and lesser followers of LV but couldn't show that the good guys had staunch supporters who came to fight as well? It was just a choppy and badly adapted version -- even though I like it if I separate it from the book, which I'm learning to do. But, I just don't think that it's a movie that the Oscar people are going to give a lot of notice to, and, as a result, Rickman's outstanding performance will probably not be rewarded with a little gold statue.

[MerryLore]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

One big thing that leaps out is Luna...when we last see her in DH 2 she is a fugitive from Malfoy Manor hiding out at Shell Cottage. How the heck did she get to Hogwarts...and WHY would she have gone there before Harry and Co. arrived? And, where were all of the residents of Hogsmeade and all of the parents and former students who merged on the school to help save it? They could muster up all a whole army of DEs and lesser followers of LV but couldn't show that the good guys had staunch supporters who came to fight as well? It was just a choppy and badly adapted version -- even though I like it if I separate it from the book, which I'm learning to do. But, I just don't think that it's a movie that the Oscar people are going to give a lot of notice to, and, as a result, Rickman's outstanding performance will probably not be rewarded with a little gold statue.

I agree with you, for the most part. One flaw i've always had with the editing of the last 4 HP movies was the tendency to remove scenes which explained parts of the plot, because they seemed to think it cut down from the "action." Lots of things didn't make sense. Not only Luna and the lack of people fighting for the resistance, but also why Tonks wasn't there when the rest of the Order was standing in the Great Hall when Harry confronted Snape, and how Draco got out of the dungeons he and the other Slytherins were supposedly locked into.

Another problem I think people who vote for the awards would have is that DH2 is really not a "stand alone" movie. It builds so much on that which has gone on before it, and if they haven't been watching the earlier films, I'm not sure this one would really make complete sense to them.

The problem with Rickman's scenes is that they would not understand the context. "Look at me" and "You have your mother's eyes" means something to those of us who have watched the films or read the books. Most of us can understand the context of The Prince's Tale, which was acted and edited brilliantly and easily one of the best scenes in the film, I think, but as a scene may be confusing to someone who hasn't seen the other movies.

I don't see the film critics and public, which overall rated DH2 very highly, as being the same set of people who vote for the awards. Critics make a living from watching movies and reviewing them, and they have to see them. My understanding of the Academy Awards voters is that, for those voting for best movie / supporting actor, the voters are made up of actors who are members of the Academy, and they may or may not have seen any of the previous HP movies. They are given a list of movies which are possible contenders and they vote. Once the nominations are out, they are invited to attend screenings of the movies nominated, and in the case of Best Supporting Actor, they are invited to view a scene chosen by the studio from the movie. They aren't even required to show up to these screenings. With this system, unless they really feel like it's time for someone to be rewarded for their overall career, DH2 and / or Alan Rickman doesn't stand a chance, IMHO. Now, if the critics were doing the voting, they'd have a real shot at it.

[MsJPotter]

=MerryLore;5956190
The problem with Rickman's scenes is that they would not understand the context. "Look at me" and "You have your mother's eyes" means something to those of us who have watched the films or read the books. Most of us can understand the context of The Prince's Tale, which was acted and edited brilliantly and easily one of the best scenes in the film, I think, but as a scene may be confusing to someone who hasn't seen the other movies.

See I don't think that a scene where you have to have read the books or seen other movies to help you understand what is going on is a well done scene. A good scene shouldn't need a roadmap or a history lesson to make sense.

I don't see the film critics and public, which overall rated DH2 very highly, as being the same set of people who vote for the awards. Critics make a living from watching movies and reviewing them, and they have to see them. My understanding of the Academy Awards voters is that, for those voting for best movie / supporting actor, the voters are made up of actors who are members of the Academy, and they may or may not have seen any of the previous HP movies. They are given a list of movies which are possible contenders and they vote. Once the nominations are out, they are invited to attend screenings of the movies nominated, and in the case of Best Supporting Actor, they are invited to view a scene chosen by the studio from the movie. They aren't even required to show up to these screenings. With this system, unless they really feel like it's time for someone to be rewarded for their overall career, DH2 and / or Alan Rickman doesn't stand a chance, IMHO. Now, if the critics were doing the voting, they'd have a real shot at it.

Again if Rickman's performance was that 'knock your socks off' good he would at least get a nod, IMO. The critics were not that complimetary about the performances. In some cases it was almost an after thought, 'Rickman was good', 'Radcliffe was better than expected.' 'Grint once again provides comic relief and Maggie Smith is Maggie Smith.' I don't think I read one review that said David Yates managed to get an outstanding performance from the cast. Some even said it was spot the cameo. Rickman and Maggie Smith could do their scenes in their sleep, in some of the other films it seemed to me that Rickman was doing just that, but in this one I think he did try and deliver a performance. The script was...the word farcial springs to mind and that was the big drawback. Maybe Steve Kloves just doesn't get fantasy, he did his best and he just couldn't do it. That's being kind.

[MerryLore]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

See I don't think that a scene where you have to have read the books or seen other movies to help you understand what is going on is a well done scene. A good scene shouldn't need a roadmap or a history lesson to make sense.

I'd agree with you if the movie wasn't Deathly Hallows Part Two, and it wasn't meant to be the final conclusion and wrap up to a series and seven previous movies. Even scenes in TPT were taken directly from previous movies. I don't think the film was meant to be a "stand alone" film, and that includes many of the scenes as well.

Again if Rickman's performance was that 'knock your socks off' good he would at least get a nod, IMO. The critics were not that complimetary about the performances.

Maybe we see it differently, but I've read many glowing reviews about Rickman's performance. I just don't think it will be enough to garner a Oscar because of the type of film, although I do think he has a better chance than the film itself does of winning Best Picture.

[MinervasCat]

As MerryLore was saying, the actors in the Academy don't even have to see the films they vote on. I'm sure many do...maybe most. But, I can't see how anyone could watch Alan Rickman in DH 2 and not be impressed with his performance. Watching his face as he's confronted by Voldemort in the boathouse...he goes from uncomfortable (which just about anyone is in LV's presence would be), to concerned -- the conversation isn't going well and he still hasn't found Harry, to "Oh ****!!!!!" when he realizes Voldemort is about to kill him and, not only is he trapped but he hasn't gotten the information to Harry about Nagini. To me, that scene is fantastic, as are the death scene and the scenes in TPT. And there have been numerous reviews praising Rickman's performance in DH 2. But, reviews don't have much weight with the Oscars, unfortunately. And I haven't seen a lot of encouraging news, even from those who give high praise to Rickman's acting, that he will be nominated.

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

As MerryLore was saying, the actors in the Academy don't even have to see the films they vote on. I'm sure many do...maybe most. But, I can't see how anyone could watch Alan Rickman in DH 2 and not be impressed with his performance. Watching his face as he's confronted by Voldemort in the boathouse...he goes from uncomfortable (which just about anyone is in LV's presence would be), to concerned -- the conversation isn't going well and he still hasn't found Harry, to "Oh ****!!!!!" when he realizes Voldemort is about to kill him and, not only is he trapped but he hasn't gotten the information to Harry about Nagini. To me, that scene is fantastic, as are the death scene and the scenes in TPT. And there have been numerous reviews praising Rickman's performance in DH 2. But, reviews don't have much weight with the Oscars, unfortunately. And I haven't seen a lot of encouraging news, even from those who give high praise to Rickman's acting, that he will be nominated.

His performance will still be judged against the others and I have to say there is a lot of very stiff competition out there. Christopher Plummer is still the one I think the others have to beat. I just loved his warmth and dignity in 'Beginners'. Warmth is not really something I have ever associated with Christopher Plummer, I do now.

[MinervasCat]

Warmth is not really something I have ever associated with Christopher Plummer, I do now.

I loved him in "Sound of Music," and he seemed to warm up after he got involved with Maria.

Yes, Mr. Rickman has some really stiff competition. But, I think he is pretty stiff competition for the others, as well. IMO, his performance in DH 2 was outstanding. Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the Academy.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

His performance will still be judged against the others and I have to say there is a lot of very stiff competition out there. Christopher Plummer is still the one I think the others have to beat. I just loved his warmth and dignity in 'Beginners'. Warmth is not really something I have ever associated with Christopher Plummer, I do now.

I haven't seen the performance, but I've been hearing for awhile that he's the one to beat.

I'd also like to give a shoutout to Ben Kingsley in Hugo - unless his part is considered more of a leading role. His performance shows tremendous range - in age, in attitude, from exuberance to despair.

However, there has been a good bit of Hollywood buzz about Rickman this year, so he's certainly not out of the running at this point.

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

I haven't seen the performance, but I've been hearing for awhile that he's the one to beat.

I'd also like to give a shoutout to Ben Kingsley in Hugo - unless his part is considered more of a leading role. His performance shows tremendous range - in age, in attitude, from exuberance to despair.

However, there has been a good bit of Hollywood buzz about Rickman this year, so he's certainly not out of the running at this point.

I'm not going to hold my breath to tell the truth. It's nothing against Rickman, he's a good actor. The big problem is the wealth of really great performances in films that are traditionally favored by a very conservative Academy. I haven't seen Hugo yet, looking forward to it. There seems to be a good bit of buzz about Moneyball's Jonah Hill. He's an actor I would never have thought of as Oscar material. I saw 'Get Me To The Greek', unfortunately.

[ajna]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Again, he critics did not find it to be flawed: 96% positive reviews with an average of 8.4 of 10 stars. That was the 5th highest score of any major release this year. The film has outstanding audience numbers (8.2 at IMDB is great, and the BOM numbers are comparable). So, if these flaws are so copious, then how did all of these people miss them?

Forgive me for saying so, but I think this reasoning is flawed. I think HP2 got the high marks, for 1. It's genre, and 2, it's place in the series entire, and 3, (and the order matters here) for it's general story and cinematography, and acting in general. But just because it 96% favorable doesn't mean that those kudos meant in terms of it's quality as a movie worthy of nomination. So, when I say "Flawed" and I mean "I" here, I think it's flaw stands in it's caliper overall.

I also think than in the Granger interview on this site, he sums up the issue with why Potter is not given the recognition it deserves. ( He was referring to the books, but think it translate to the screen also.) "Too juvenile, too contemporary, too popular." To be honest, I never understood how LotR got the wins it did. I'm a Tolkien fan, but I didn't think it was all that. I got the impression palms were being greased or industry favoritism was a factor. Again, that's only my opinion.

The Oscars never seem "Fair" but we care anyway.

[MerryLore]

DH2 didn't make BAFTA's 2012 longlist for best film:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...?newsfeed=true

It did make these categories:

Outstanding British Film
Adapted Screenplay
Cinematography
Editing
Production Design
Make Up & Hair
Costume Design
Special Visual Effects
Sound
Original Music

and Alan Rickman for Best Supporting Actor

Granted, it's too soon for the Oscars, but if this is any kind of indication, and I suspect it is, DH2 will not even be nominated for Best Film, which is what I was afraid of. It's part 2 of an 8 series movie collection, and I suspect most Academy Award voters have not seen the film and thus won't vote for it.

If AR's performance is nominated for Best Supporting Actor, the voters who show up for the screenings will be presented with what WB has decided was his best scene in the film. If those voters who have not seen the series can view the scene "as is" then I think he has a chance, although the field he's in has some very strong contenders.

As for the other categories, I think Apes will win for makeup. I haven't seen enough of the other films to form an opinion about the other categories.

[Wimsey]

The PGA's ignored HP, too. The media buzz is very telling: the omission of "Tailor, Tinker, Soldier, Spy" is being labelled a snub, but not the omission of DH2.

(On the other side, Hallows 2 won the Golden Tomato, which is an award based on a Bayesian reweighting of critical scores based the importance/influence of the critic and the ticket sales; however, that has not influenced Oscar voters much in the past!)

Originally Posted by ajna

Forgive me for saying so, but I think this reasoning is flawed. I think HP2 got the high marks, for 1. It's genre, and 2, it's place in the series entire, and 3, (and the order matters here) for it's general story and cinematography, and acting in general. But just because it 96% favorable doesn't mean that those kudos meant in terms of it's quality as a movie worthy of nomination. So, when I say "Flawed" and I mean "I" here, I think it's flaw stands in it's caliper overall.

No, my reasoning is fine, as there is a strong correlation between critical acclaim and garnering nominations. However, your premises are either false or confusing. First of all, the critics do not use separate criteria for different genre: that is a big reason why this basic genre (SciFi/Fantasy) tends to get lower reviews than do the (straight up) character dramas which dominate the nominations for all the major awards. There is a very non-random association between genres and critical reviews: the distribution of critical reviews for SciFi/Fantasy films (as well as "Chick Flix") is significantly lower than that of other genres.

The place in the series also has no bearing: in general, reviews tend to decline as series age, and there is no "finale effect" for reviews. The critics did think that this film was the finale that the series deserved: but they reverse the horse and the cart from your perspective. If the critics thought that Hallows 2 was a dud, then they would have had zero problem proclaiming that the series ended on a dull thump.

Your comments about them only liking the film for the general story are really perplexing, as how well a film communicates a story is one of the primary things that critics address. Critics and awards groups are much more sensitive to story than are Joe and Jane Public; for example, one of the reasons why critics and movie people didn't like the first two HP films or DH1 was because those movies failed to tell stories.

Originally Posted by ajna

I also think than in the Granger interview on this site, he sums up the issue with why Potter is not given the recognition it deserves. ( He was referring to the books, but think it translate to the screen also.) "Too juvenile, too contemporary, too popular." To be honest, I never understood how LotR got the wins it did. I'm a Tolkien fan, but I didn't think it was all that. I got the impression palms were being greased or industry favoritism was a factor. Again, that's only my opinion.

That's not an opinion, that's a conspiracy theory! Seriously, you have just written that because you didn't agree with the Oscar nominations, then something unethical must be have happened. Moreover, you assume that your particular tastes are the true barometer of a movie's quality: therefore, the qualities of the films that led to Rings' amazing reviews and audience responses necessarily were illusions through which the Academy must have seen (because you did).

I think that William of Occam would offer a different answer.....

The reason why Rings (and most other heavily nominated films) got the nominations that it (they) did is because the films did an excellent job of telling a story about restoring/preserving proper order: the story was clear, the plots fed the story, and the telling was extremely engaging. The same could be said for the other films nominated in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and also for the 2011 films that are getting the big nominations so far. The most-likely reason why you didn't think that the Rings films were not "all that" is that you are a Tolkien fan and you evaluated the films based on how closely they matched the books rather than by how well they told a story. This is not a criterion that critics, the Academy, other awards groups or Joe & Jane Public use.

All of this brings us back to where we began. If DH2 had failed to tell its story in an engaging and coherent way, then it would have gotten reviews comparable to those of some of the earlier HP films (and most other SciFi/Fantasy films) and not comparable to nominated films. However, critics were willing to grade Hallows 2 highly relative to most of this years films despite the fact that it was: a) SciFi/Fantasy, b) the 2nd half of a more-poorly-graded film, and, c) Harry Potter.

One modus tollens later, and we need to find another explanation for why Hallows 2 is not getting any nominations. Obviously, we'll never know "the" reason why HP is not getting the big nominations, and its very probable that there are multiple reasons. However, I'll be really surprised at this point if any of the major Oscar nominations get sent HP's way.

[skullangel]

38th Peoples Choice Awards had been handed out

Our Bet DH2 Won 4 out of 9 and that included Favorite Movie...

Lets hope this translates into Oscar Gold down the line...

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by skullangel

Our Bet DH2 Won 4 out of 9 and that included Favorite Movie...

Lets hope this translates into Oscar Gold down the line...

The People's Choice awards made Twilight films "Best Picture" twice. Most years, there is a very poor overlap between the nominations for PC and the Oscars: indeed, the correlation between the People's Choice awards and the Razzies is nearly as good! Look at this year: Hallows competition was Transformers and Pirates 4: Deception, War Horse, Tinker etc., Hugo, Moneyball, Dragon Tattoo, etc.,all failed to get nominated. Those are the films with whom one is competing to get an Oscar nomination.

(Indeed, I'll bet that even being on the PC's nominated list is a strike against a film for many Academy members: the People's Choice awards really do cater to popular tripe, as so many of this year's nominations show.)

The BAFTA nominations come out tomorrow. Obviously, they will be too late to influence the Oscar nominations, as I think that the ballots are due tomorrow. This could well be HP's last chance at getting major nominations. (There is a bit of overlap between the Academy and the BAFTA: a big chunk of the UK contingent of the Academy also are members of the British Academy.)


I have MLK day off, and if I get the chance, then I will try to plot the critical reviews and audience for Hallows 2 with those of the likely Oscar nominees. Looking through the numbers, it's clear that the putative "flaws" of Hallows 2 were ignored by both critics and audiences. (The Academy is even further removed from audiences than critics are, so one has to extrapolate a little blindly to guess what they might think.)

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Indeed, I'll bet that even being on the PC's nominated list is a strike against a film for many Academy members: the People's Choice awards really do cater to popular tripe, as so many of this year's nominations show.

A general awards presentation with a "Best Superhero" category is, IMO, immediately suspect. (As is anything based on a mass vote which is entirely corruptible.)

[beth83]

I would say at this point it's not looking good for Oscar nominations on the acting side. Bafta nominations have been released: http://www.bafta.org/film/awards/nom...2,2449,BA.html

4 nominations for DH, all technical and Alan Rickman is not on the short list for Best Supporting Actor. The pessimist in me is saying if they don't get the nominations for the British awards it probably highly unlikely they are going to Oscar ones. I would love to be proved wrong.

[yorkiedoodle]

I somehow don't think you're going to be proved wrong! Sadly, I think that the BAFTA's were the best shot at some sort of recognition! If their home country can't reward the films properly...

[decarus]

The film had to be better then it was to get an Oscar award. It wasn't good enough. It was laughable at times and the action and intensity was not there. The film had no heart so, in my opinion, if they are going to finish it off so badly then there can be no Oscar nod even. DH2 does not deserve it. I could have seen Part 1 getting a nod before Part 2 and that didn't happen so this won't either.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by decarus

The film had to be better then it was to get an Oscar award. It wasn't get enough. It was laughable at times and the action and intensity was not there. The film had no heart so, in my opinion, if they are going to finish it off so badly then there can be no Oscar nod even. DH2 does not deserve it. I could have seen Part 1 getting a nod before Part 2 and that didn't happen so this won't either.

Again, this is a minority view held largely by hardcore HP fans who criticize the film for deviating from the book's narrative. The masses disagreed: DH2 got excellent viewer response. The critics disagreed: DH2 got better reviews than most of the other likely nominees. (The critics did not think that about DH1, which got reviews as unenthusiastic as the Columbus films.)

Again, the Academy and (most) of the other award granting groups are not critics. However, if these flaws did exist, then the critics would have noted them. After all, they did for the two Columbus films and DH1.

Originally Posted by Wab

A general awards presentation with a "Best Superhero" category is, IMO, immediately suspect. (As is anything based on a mass vote which is entirely corruptible.)

hmmm, this is not as glaring an omission from the Oscars categories as "Best Ensemble Performance," is it.


We will never know for certain, but I am sticking with my original guess: after the two Columbus films, it simply was going to be impossible for movie people to take Harry Potter seriously. Long ago, I wrote that an HP film could be as well-received by audiences and critics as Lord of the Rings and still not overcome that stigma. Well, over a year later , we have an HP film so well-received: and no stigmas overcome.

And that is a shame.....