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

[Goddess_Clio]

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.

I agree. I didn't think any of the 8 HP films were worthy of acting oscar nods, though agree with some of the science and tech nominations.

Originally Posted by Wimsey

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.)

I don't feel like I have the view that DHp2 is not worthy of an oscar nod because I'm holding onto my hardcore fan view that the films deviated from the books. I'm, in fact, very glad that the films deviated from the books because a lot of what happens in a book would make very boring cinema. I love the Lord of the Rings films (better than the books, actually) because they deviated from the books in clever and story-conscious ways and dumped all the gibber-jabber from the books that make me stop reading them because it's soooo boooring...

My reasons for believing that DHp2 doesn't deserve oscar nods is because, in my opinon, the acting was subpar and melodramatic (particularly on the part of the younger actors, though the older ones aren't innocent of this either), the script didn't deliver enough emotion (and what was delivered was all superficial to me) and seemed rushed (both story-wise in that the story seemed rushed and generally badly paced and in that the script writer was working to a very demanding deadline and could have used more time to finesse the story arcs), the stories and characterisations weren't strong enough, and audiences who hadn't read the books weren't able to get emotionally invested in the outcome of the films like readers were invested in the outcomes of the books.

I'm fine with revamping the books to fit the film media. I have no problem with that. That's why book-to-film movies are called adaptations and why I never reread the books just before seeing the films - that's shortchanging the films because it will always cause unfair comparisons. I just don't think DHp2 was that good an adaptation nor was it that good of a stand alone film (without the context of the book).

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.

Critics and audiences have nothing to do with how oscar nods are given out. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences votes for both nominees winners. The Academy's branches nominate those in their own field (actors nominate actors, cinematographers nominate cinematographers, makeup artists nominate makeup artists, etc.) and then once the nominees are determined than everyone in the Academy votes for a winner in every category. They aren't even obliged to see the whole film; they are given clips of the best example of that particular actor's work, that particular director's direction, that particular SFX dude's best effect and on an on. Voting for a winner is often based off those minute-long clips.

With those in the industry doing the nominating and the voting, that's how you get nominees that 80-90% of the general public has never heard of or nominees from movies that are only released to L.A. county before Dec 31 in order to be eligible for an oscar nod (Can we say "The Artist" from this year's Golden Globes? Or Meryl Streep's win for Iron Lady?) Furthermore, for an actor/actress in a mainstream movie to be even considered for a nomination they have to give a truly remarkable, completely unique and captivating performance like Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. (Ok, he was up against Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder but that was a unique, remarkable and captivating performance, just in terrible, slightly racist and totally hillarious ways.) =^D

In my opinion, DHp2 was outshone in all acting categories (let's go ahead and say it: to go up against Meryl Streep in a best actor category is useless - you will lose), better book-to-film script adaptations (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is actually, like LOTR, a better movie than book in a lot of ways), will get overlooked for directing, producing and for best film by more artsy-fartsy movies like The Artist and bigger directors and producers like Spielberg (who, let's face it, is the male directoral version of Meryl Streep).

DHp2's best hope for an oscar nod is on the science and tech side, maybe in stage craft categories, too. I'd bet $100 not a single one of those actors will get a nomination.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Critics and audiences have nothing to do with how oscar nods are given out. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences votes for both nominees winners. The Academy's branches nominate those in their own field (actors nominate actors, cinematographers nominate cinematographers, makeup artists nominate makeup artists, etc.) and then once the nominees are determined than everyone in the Academy votes for a winner in every category. They aren't even obliged to see the whole film; they are given clips of the best example of that particular actor's work, that particular director's direction, that particular SFX dude's best effect and on an on. Voting for a winner is often based off those minute-

None of this contradicts what (or is even particularly germane to) I wrote. Prior posters ((including yourself) have posted that DH2 is not Oscar worthy because of X, Y and Z. Yes, X & Y often are fanboy/girl "they didn't include flaming treaure" sort of criticisms. The Academies, critics and audiences do not know about these things, so obviously they do not care. However, let us consider the Z's, i.e., the more general criticisms such as you just offered. If acting was as bad as you claim, then the critics would have noted that as they did for Stone and Prisoner. They did not; instead, they actually praised the performances. If the direction been that bad, then the critics would have knocked the film for that as they did for Stone and Chamber. Instead, they praised the pacing and dialog. Had the film failed to deliver a coherent story, then the critics would have hammered it, just as they did for Stone, Chamber and DH1. They didn't: many of the reviews explicitly identify the story.

Indeed, of the BAFTA nominees, only The Artist got appreciably better reviews than Hallows did; Hallows 2 got about the same reviews as The Descendants and Drive, and significantly better reviews than The Help and Tinker, Tailor.... No, critics do not award Oscars: but critics tell you (tacitly or explicitly) when they do not think a film is Oscar worthy.


Now, you are correct that too many people vote based on the promo material that the studios provide: but for films like The Artist, the studios alsos were providing a lot of advanced screenings. The voters in all of these cases are movie people, and they make time to see the crafts of their trade, especially when those crafts come with the buzz that The Artists has.

It comes down to this: a film with DH2s reviews and audience reception should have been turning up on some of these lists. (Note that several worthy films that have turned up on other nomination lists failed to make the BAFTAs; those films plus the ones on the BAFTA list absent elsewhere are probable "bottom 5" nominations for the Oscars.)

Yet DH2 is not: and that suggests that this is not being viewed on its own merits alone.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

However, let us consider the Z's, i.e., the more general criticisms such as you just offered. If acting was as bad as you claim, then the critics would have noted that as they did for Stone and Prisoner. They did not; instead, they actually praised the performances. If the direction been that bad, then the critics would have knocked the film for that as they did for Stone and Chamber. Instead, they praised the pacing and dialog. Had the film failed to deliver a coherent story, then the critics would have hammered it, just as they did for Stone, Chamber and DH1. They didn't: many of the reviews explicitly identify the story.

Indeed, of the BAFTA nominees, only The Artist got appreciably better reviews than Hallows did; Hallows 2 got about the same reviews as The Descendants and Drive, and significantly better reviews than The Help and Tinker, Tailor.... No, critics do not award Oscars: but critics tell you (tacitly or explicitly) when they do not think a film is Oscar worthy.

That still bears nothing on Oscar nominations. What critics say about a movie gets butts in the seats, not votes in the Academy. Critics also praised films like Spiderman 2, does that mean it's worthy of an oscar? No. It meant that the majority of movie goers wouldn't demand their money back when they left the theater. (I personally, am still waiting for my money back)

There are also the 'film theory' critics who praise movies like Citizen Kane when the majority of people who see that movie come out going WT*? I don't get it! while the the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences nominated it for 9 oscars.

Whatever a critic says means nothing when it comes to the oscars. DHp2's glowing critical reviews means nothing when it comes to oscars. The fact is the acting is subpar when put against performances by Meryl Streep, Rooney Mara, George Clooney, Leo DiCaprio, etc. The direction was subpar in comparison to The Artist, War Horse, Hugo, etc. If it goes up against Dragon Tattoo for Screenplay adaptation I'd bet $20 it'll lose since Dragon Tattoo ended up with a more compelling story on screen. There are, simply put, better examples of acting, directing and producing in other films that were released Jan 1, '11 to Dec 31, '11. In the company it keeps for the oscars, DHp2 is subpar.

It comes down to this: a film with DH2s reviews and audience reception should have been turning up on some of these lists. (Note that several worthy films that have turned up on other nomination lists failed to make the BAFTAs; those films plus the ones on the BAFTA list absent elsewhere are probable "bottom 5" nominations for the Oscars.)

Yet DH2 is not: and that suggests that this is not being viewed on its own merits alone.

IMO, based on its own merits alone, DHp2 is not worthy of an Oscar or even a nomination based on the company it keeps. There were just better movies in 2011.

[Wimsey]

You are mistaking an argument about correlation with one of causation. What would it take for Hallows 2 to get Oscar nominations? And how would we know if Hallows 2 has that "it"? Now, critics themselves have little causal influence on Oscar nominations. (It is not fair to say "none": Academy members do pay attention to the critics.) However, critics and the Academy respond similarly to particular aspects of films, which results in their being a strong correlation between how critics receive a film and how the Academy receives a film. Contrary to what you suggest, the correlation is stronger than for critical reviews and ticket sales: there is a weak correlation between per-theater ticket sales and critical reviews, but only if you exclude sequels. That is why nominations such as the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice Awards are so much more similar to the BAFTA and Oscar nominations than they are to the People's Choice Awards.

In somewhat different ways, critics and academies respond to:

1. story-telling (a product of scripting, direction and production);
2. performance (a product of acting and directing);
3. coherence of the plot;
4. the nature of the story (the ultimate source);
5. coherence & nature of the themes.

(No doubt I am missing something, but you get the idea.) To get good reviews and major nominations it is necessary to meet these criteria. In the case of nominations, however, it obviously is insufficient: and the question therefore becomes what else was necessary that is not on this list.

And that takes us back to the question: what would it take for Hallows 2 to get Oscar nominations? A general answer: the same sorts of things that it takes to get good critical reviews: good storytelling, good performance, etc. Well, guess what: Hallows 2 got those good reviews, at least insofar as it got reviews comparable to and better than those of Oscar contenders.

(To see what losing a couple of those do to reviews, just compare Hallows 1 to Hallows 2: because Hallows 1 failed to tell a story, it got much worse reviews than did Hallows 2 despite having the same level of performance, plot coherence, etc.)

So, if critical nominations are snow storms and major nominations are frozen ponds, then what we are looking for is prolonged cold weather and limited sun exposure in common: and we've got that in this analogy. Indeed, your example of "subpar acting" being "not as good as Meryl Streep" fits this: it's like saying that because -10˚ is warmer than -20˚, we cannot have snow. "Par" here is freezing, not a certain level below freezing: and trying to call Streep "par" is like calling Tiger Woods par. (Whoops, mixed metaphors in all sorts of ways! )

That leaves us with this situation: we've got a lot of snow, but the pond is still far from frozen. William says, start wondering what's warming the pond.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

IMO, based on its own merits alone, DHp2 is not worthy of an Oscar or even a nomination based on the company it keeps. There were just better movies in 2011.

Whether you or I or anybody else here would vote for Hallows 2 to get an Oscar is not relevant to the thread. You will note that whether I personally think that the film is worthy of an Oscar is completely absent from my posts. But I'm not writing about whether I like frozen ponds: I'm writing about whether the conditions are right for one.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Whether you or I or anybody else here would vote for Hallows 2 to get an Oscar is not relevant to the thread. You will note that whether I personally think that the film is worthy of an Oscar is completely absent from my posts. But I'm not writing about whether I like frozen ponds: I'm writing about whether the conditions are right for one.

I wasn't saying whether I'd vote or not vote for DHp2 to get an oscar, I was saying it wasn't worthy of one which, given the topic of the thread (What would it take to get Deathly Hallows an Oscar?) is entirely relevant because a movie has to begin by being worthy of a nomination in order to be worthy to win the award.

If you want to talk about only what it takes to get Deathly Hallows an oscar it's a moot point because I believe they are in a good place to be nominated or even win. In a science and tech category. But, let's face it, no one really cares about those, we aren't interested unless they win in one of the 'sexy' categories like best picture, best actor, best supporting actor, best screenplay, best director, best score. Those are the awards that make the short list when bloggers or news papers or entertainment sites post about awards. Those are the categories the general public cares about. What will it takes to get DH an oscar in one of those categories? An act of god. Because DH is out matched in all of those categories. It just doesn't measure up, as evidenced by all the other awards lists that have gone out with no nods to DH in those categories. It seems, by the industry awards already going out, that industry insiders don't think DH is worthy in the sexy categories to be nominated for them even for 'lesser' awards than oscars so clearly it doesn't have that 'it' factor you're refering to.

So, if critical nominations are snow storms and major nominations are frozen ponds, then what we are looking for is prolonged cold weather and limited sun exposure in common: and we've got that in this analogy. Indeed, your example of "subpar acting" being "not as good as Meryl Streep" fits this: it's like saying that because -10˚ is warmer than -20˚, we cannot have snow. "Par" here is freezing, not a certain level below freezing: and trying to call Streep "par" is like calling Tiger Woods par.

But awards do deal in certain levels below freezing, that's how you get winners. All of the nominees could be classified as 'below freezing', in your analogy, and the winner would be the one with the lowest temperature of those nominated. What you're analogy is suggesting is that you think the performances given in DH are all below freezing and therefore all worthy of 'freezing the pond', aka getting nominations or winning, when I'd call the performances luke warm at best.

In a brief aside, if you want to get technical in meterology it doesn't always take limited sun exposure to freeze a pond, as evidenced by the creek by my house which freezes over on prolonged instances of sunny but below-freezing days. Clouds insulate the ground below them and can actually cause winter temperatures, on average, to be warmer than cloudless sunny conditions since in cloudless conditions the earth's warmth is radiated into the space. That's why my creek can freeze over but I never get snow at my house.

[decarus]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

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.)

Well i think the film didn't deviate enough from the book, so i am not one of those, though i am a hardcore fan. It just wasn't a good enough movie to get an Oscar nod.

The writing, the pacing, the acting, were not very good. The film did not make sense. It was not a good ending. And it had no heart. It just wasn't good enough.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by decarus

The writing, the pacing, the acting, were not very good. The film did not make sense. It was not a good ending. And it had no heart. It just wasn't good enough.

If this were true, then the film would have gotten awful reviews. As shown below, the exact opposite was the case.

And that brings us to this graph (as promised a while ago!) Critics and members of the Academy have informed opinions about the quality of films that, while not identical in their basis, are very similar. That is to say, nominated films are very nonrandomly drawn from the best reviewed films because critics and nominating groups respond similarly to the same aspects of films.

So, here is how DH2 corresponds to the other films. With the exception of Hallows 2, all of these films have been nominated at least once for one of the major "best film" awards. (Several of them have been nominated only once: that's common.)


The X-axis is the score out of 1.0 given by a critic: if he/she gave 3 stars out of 4, then it is 0.75. The box gives 50% of the scores and the "whiskers" give 95% of the scores; the median (i.e., 50% percentile) score is the bar in the middle.

As you can see, these films all get really good reviews: the weakest of the lot is The Help, and that still typically got a 3 out of 4 review.

In addition to Hallows 2, only two major releases got reviews in this range and failed to get any "best picture" nominations: The Source (which somehow got forgotten) and Mission Impossible 4 (The Muppets got a couple of "Best Children's Picture" nominations and Rango got some best animated feature nominations.)

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

But awards do deal in certain levels below freezing, that's how you get winners. All of the nominees could be classified as 'below freezing', in your analogy, and the winner would be the one with the lowest temperature of those nominated. What you're analogy is suggesting is that you think the performances given in DH are all below freezing and therefore all worthy of 'freezing the pond', aka getting nominations or winning, when I'd call the performances luke warm at best.

Wrong!!! Nowhere have I ever said that I think that the performances were below freezing. Again, I've never expressed my opinions, have I? Moreover, I'm not going to bother, at least not here: I do not have a truly informed opinion, at least not at the level of critics and nominating committees such as the Academy. (If I ever get around to posting my review of the film, then I'll give you my opinions of the acting and whether I agree with the extent of the critical accolades for Hallows 2.)

So, to continue my analogy: if you want to measure "Freezing" then look at the graph above. Films with bad acting aren't in this zone. Films with bad direction are not in this zone. The thing that films in this zone have in common is a tendency to pick up major nominations. "Freezing" is having your box concentrated above 0.8: i.e., it might not snow, but we should not be surprised if it does.

Again, neither my opinion nor yours (nor decarus') nor anybody else here who is not associated with the film industry is relevant. The question is, what did DH2 have to do to get nominations. IF it had not done these things, then the critics would have let us know in no-uncertain terms. This is not a sufficient test of whether it will get nominations (obviously: it's not getting any!), but it was a necessary one.

[merrymarge]

if they have life time achievement awards for actors/actresses who had been in the business for years, couldn't they have some type of achievement award for the HP franchise? Think of all that it has for fans, web sites, expeditions, theme parks, musuems, seven novels, eight movies, a huge fan base, merchandise, surely there must be some type of recognition, even if it doesn't win an Oscar.

[Wab]

None of which is within the Academy's ambit. And even if it were the series has not been of consistent quality, with the first two films deserving of no recognition at all.

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

if they have life time achievement awards for actors/actresses who had been in the business for years, couldn't they have some type of achievement award for the HP franchise? Think of all that it has for fans, web sites, expeditions, theme parks, musuems, seven novels, eight movies, a huge fan base, merchandise, surely there must be some type of recognition, even if it doesn't win an Oscar.

I think the fan recognition is all you can expect. If there was some kind of recognition for that kind of thing, then the Andy Hardy series from the 30's and the 40's would have already won it. What would it be for really, being in the same job for 10 years?

As Whimsey was posting about the great reviews of DH2, I would like to point out that the 2 major awards by the critics, The Critics Choice Awards, U.S., and the London Film Critics Awards didn't even have DH2 on their lists of nominations for the year. I think the hard fact is that by the industry standards DH2 just wasn't good enough. The fact that that's how I feel about it, is beside the point. None of the Guild's, Societies, and professional awards gongs listed DH2 in anything but a science or tech field. Not many of them either. The Oscars nominations will be announced tomorrow and I highly doubt that DH2 will be mentioned unless it's in a tech field. Maybe not even that. The FX wasn't that great, we already saw the wand thing in every film from GOF onward. For a film about magic, it wasn't very magical.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

If this were true, then the film would have gotten awful reviews. As shown below, the exact opposite was the case.

I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it over and over because you keep going on about these reviews:
Just because a film gets good reviews does not mean it should get an oscar nod!

You keep talking about correlation not causation but you also keep talking like just because Hallows 2 got good reviews that it should get an oscar. What oscar do you think it should be getting? Best direction? Best picture? Best visual effects?

Great movies often don't get the recognition they deserve. Examples:

Blade Runner: Nods for best set decoration and visual effects and won neither. Some argue it should have won for best director and adapted screenplay and at least been nominated for best picture.
Saving Private Ryan: Lost best picture to Shakespeare In Love.
King Kong (Original 1933 film, not PJ's remake): Not nominated for anything but probably should have won every technical award the oscars gave out. Not to mention it's enduring legacy in film.
Pulp Fiction: Won many awards but lost best picture to Forrest Gump and best director to Robert Zemeckis (for Forrest Gump)
Taxi Driver: Nods for best picture, actor, supporting actress and original score - only won for best actor for De Niro - lost best picture to Rocky. Yes, Rocky. And Scorsese didn't even get a nod for best director.
Se7en: A fantastic film, brilliantly directed, beautifully shot, acted well, plotted well - nominated for best editing. And didn't win. David Fincher should have gotten a nod for directing, Andrew Kevin Walker for his script, Darius Khondji for his cinematography...
Citizen Kane: Nods for best picture, director, original screenplay, cinematography, among others: ONLY WON BEST SCREENPLAY - And this is perhaps the most critically acclaimed and praised film ever made.

How about these films that all received nominations but none of which won a single one:

Pretty Woman
Being John Malkovich
The Talented Mr. Ripley
Munich
It’s A Wonderful Life
Singin’ in The Rain
Mangnolia
Fatal Attraction
The Shawshank Redemption
Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo
Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

And these are great films, enduring films, classic films, sometimes critically acclaimed films, sometimes hottly debated films. Deathly Hallows is... an ok film. It's not the same caliber of film as the ones in the lists above - it's a blockbuster, butts-in-the-seats, hold-on-tight-we're-makin-money-now kind of movie akin to Twilight and the superhero movies coming out in the last decade.

So, to continue my analogy: if you want to measure "Freezing" then look at the graph above. Films with bad acting aren't in this zone. Films with bad direction are not in this zone. The thing that films in this zone have in common is a tendency to pick up major nominations. "Freezing" is having your box concentrated above 0.8: i.e., it might not snow, but we should not be surprised if it does.

Yes, there are films with not so great acting in your graph and films with not so great directing in your graph - because all of those things are subjective. I don't think DHp2 had especially good acting in it, I wasn't blown away by The Help like the entire country seemed to have been (I thought it was a cute movie but not a great one just like I thought DH was just okay and not fantastic - and in the same stretch I thought the Descendants was boring as all get out but I can see why George Clooney is getting recognized for his acting in it).

Critics don't make movies and they don't look for the same things that the Academy looks for. Critics are outside observers who comment on the finished product, the Academy is made up of industry professionals, in most cases actively employed in the industry of film making. A cinematrographer knows good cinematography when he sees it - and is a far more accurate judge of it than a critic who may or may not have a college degree in film history or even have taken a single course in film appreciation. There are a far greater number of films that get great critical reviews than there are ones that get nominated. And you know what? That's because a lot of those films that get great critical reviews are actually not great movies. And a lot of the films that should get recognized during awards seasons don't. Such is life. Please stop going on about DHp2 getting good reviews because that's not what gets you an oscar nod.

The question is, what did DH2 have to do to get nominations. IF it had not done these things, then the critics would have let us know in no-uncertain terms. This is not a sufficient test of whether it will get nominations (obviously: it's not getting any!), but it was a necessary one.

See my comments above about critics.

And I disagree about DHp2 not getting any oscar nominations. I think it will receive nods in science and tech areas. it's comments like this that make me think you're only thinking in terms of best picture, director, actors, screenplay - obviously it's not getting any nods in the sexy categories. It's not good enough in those areas to get nominated. Hallows is already receiving recognition for it's technical work, though, and I think it will get nominated at least in the science and tech categories.

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

It's not the same caliber of film as the ones in the lists above - it's a blockbuster, butts-in-the-seats, hold-on-tight-we're-makin-money-now kind of movie akin to Twilight and the superhero movies coming out in the last decade.

You are basically implying that the film is not of the same caliber as the other films you listed because it's a blockbuster that made lots of money? While the comparison to Twilight is absurd considering it's more or less considered trash by critics and lots of viewers alike, you are right that blockbusters like Harry Potter aren't taken as seriously as serious drama films and et cetera for the simple fact that they are commercially succesful and aim to entertain. Apparently it's 1) considered bad to be interested in making money despite the fact that money is something everyone in our world want and need, and 2) money and quality can't go hand in hand, can it? It's not possible that while the studio would like a film to rake in money, the filmmakers behind it are interested in making a good film that entertain the masses and communicates their vision?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic now because it's perceptions like these that partially ruin DH: Part 2's Oscar chances in the major categories. It's a pity because I find it a deep and emotional conclusion to a consistently well-made series that deserves some recognition, but the reality is that the "just for children and families wanting some fun" appeal of the first two films, as well as the mediocrity of the filmmaking of those two (still enjoyable in a fan's heart however!), damaged the reputation of the series. Moreover, the split was originally considered a cynical business decision, part 1 was not as well-received as part 2, the storyline doesn't stand on its own and the fact that it's a big fantasy blockbuster film not directed by Steven Spielberg or any other big names mean no nods in the major categories.

That said, the Oscars don't mean that much at the end of the day. It probably deserves the recognition, but there is no necessity to validate one's own appreciation of the film. What matters is one's own opinion of said film, which doesn't have to validated as being of importance because it is. And as you pointed out, great films have and always will be left out.

[MsJPotter]

Originally Posted by Noldus

You are basically implying that the film is not of the same caliber as the other films you listed because it's a blockbuster that made lots of money? While the comparison to Twilight is absurd considering it's more or less considered trash by critics and lots of viewers alike, you are right that blockbusters like Harry Potter aren't taken as seriously as serious drama films and et cetera for the simple fact that they are commercially succesful and aim to entertain. Apparently it's 1) considered bad to be interested in making money despite the fact that money is something everyone in our world want and need, and 2) money and quality can't go hand in hand, can it? It's not possible that while the studio would like a film to rake in money, the filmmakers behind it are interested in making a good film that entertain the masses and communicates their vision?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic now because it's perceptions like these that partially ruin DH: Part 2's Oscar chances in the major categories. It's a pity because I find it a deep and emotional conclusion to a consistently well-made series that deserves some recognition, but the reality is that the "just for children and families wanting some fun" appeal of the first two films, as well as the mediocrity of the filmmaking of those two (still enjoyable in a fan's heart however!), damaged the reputation of the series. Moreover, the split was originally considered a cynical business decision, part 1 was not as well-received as part 2, the storyline doesn't stand on its own and the fact that it's a big fantasy blockbuster film not directed by Steven Spielberg or any other big names mean no nods in the major categories.

That said, the Oscars don't mean that much at the end of the day. It probably deserves the recognition, but there is no necessity to validate one's own appreciation of the film. What matters is one's own opinion of said film, which doesn't have to validated as being of importance because it is. And as you pointed out, great films have and always will be left out.

Then I must be happy on the Oscars behalf, because IMO they wont have slighted a great movie, this is anticipating that DH2 will be significant in it's absence of nominations. IMO they wont even have slighted a good movie. DH2 IMO, was a rank failure as an adaptation and a poor showing as a film. I didn't torture myself by watching the other blockbusters this past summer, I'm sorry I wasted the best part of 3 hours and the best part of £20.00 watching DH2. I kind of think that movies that rely on showing a building reduced to rubble instead of you know actually dealing with a plot and characters just don't cut the mustard as entertainment. So I'm going to borrow one of Trelawny's crystal balls and predict that DH2 won't be on the Oscars list in any of the to quote GoddessClio, 'sexy catagories'. I don't even think it'll make the tech catagories, not with great examples in the tech catagories as 'Rise of the Planet of The Apes.' That was a pretty good movie. I may be wrong in that, but I can live with it. I just kind of wish that they had done something different in the FX than what we saw in GOF.

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

I kind of think that movies that rely on showing a building reduced to rubble instead of you know actually dealing with a plot and characters just don't cut the mustard as entertainment.

Sounds like Apes to me. Impressive CGI and plenty with action, but with a predictable plot, uninteresting characters and shallow handling of the relationships. Contrast that to DH: 2 where the effects work so seamlessly into the storyline they feel like an integral part of the world and contributes to telling the story.


As for not deserving technical categories, look at the gorgeous cinematography, look at the art direction, notice the make-up work on the goblins, listen to the score and sound editing and then get back to me saying it doesn't deserve anything.

[StaceysChain]

Originally Posted by Noldus

As for not deserving technical categories, look at the gorgeous cinematography, look at the art direction, notice the make-up work on the goblins, listen to the score and sound editing and then get back to me saying it doesn't deserve anything.

Agreed! DH2 definitely deserves at least nominations in these categories, especially for Craig's ten-year work on the art direction, Serra's beautiful cinematography and Desplat's amazing score!

That said, I doubt they will actually get nominated, and if they do, they will probably not win due to the Academy's biased opinion on Potter (I'm still irritated that Half-Blood Prince did not win the award for Best Cinematography which it totally deserved). But like you said, the Oscars don't really matter at the end of the day, and the thing I'm most happy about is that the film series got recgonised for what it's done for the british film industry at the BAFTAS - which is what it deserves more than any other award in my opinion.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it over and over because you keep going on about these reviews:
Just because a film gets good reviews does not mean it should get an oscar nod!

Blade Runner: Nods for best set decoration and visual effects and won neither. Some argue it should have won for best director and adapted screenplay and at least been nominated for best picture.

Except Blade Runner's initial reviews were, at best, mixed and Scott's additional cuts suggest that there was something essentially flawed in the original release.

Se7en: A fantastic film, brilliantly directed, beautifully shot, acted well, plotted well - nominated for best editing. And didn't win. David Fincher should have gotten a nod for directing, Andrew Kevin Walker for his script, Darius Khondji for his cinematography...

A good enough film but you cold see the big shock twist coming a mile off.

[Wimsey]

The folks at Nextmovie.com have an amusing set of parody "For your consideration" cards that zing a wide range of films (at least a couple of which are serious contenders for Best Picture). Their mock HP one is quite appropriate for this discussion!.

They did a few others that are equally funny, which you can find there. (As some are a little racy and none of them germane to this thread, I won't post the url.)

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it over and over because you keep going on about these reviews:
Just because a film gets good reviews does not mean it should get an oscar nod!

And once again, you are putting the horse before the cart. I am not writing that nor have I ever written that. What I have written is that films with the sort of reviews that Hallows 2 got usually are serious contenders for an Oscar nomination. They usually are the films that get tabbed as "missing from the list" when nominations exclude them. At the very least, they are included in the "probably won't get nominated because X" part of the article. And Hallows 2 isn't even doing any of that.

This gets back to something that was brought up 2+ years ago when this thread started: the name "Harry Potter" might very well have made the quality of the film irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

You keep talking about correlation not causation but you also keep talking like just because Hallows 2 got good reviews that it should get an oscar.

The next time I write that will be the first. You really have badly, badly misunderstood what I am writing. I am writing exclusively about nominations and the traits of nominated films as well as films that people thought had good shots at being nominated. Never once have I commented on the film's chances of winning anything: that is pointless until we know that it has been nominated.

Now, what I have written repeatedly is that wide-released films that are so well received as Hallows 2 are almost always in the discussion for nominations like Best Picture. Until recently, there would usually be 7-10 films like this. Five of them would get nominated. One would win. I'm not talking about The One: I'm talking about the 7-10.

(Although the number of nominations has been increased to as many as 10, we still seem to have a 7-11 range of "live candidate" films in the general discussions that I have read; whether this reflects the fact that people expect about 7 nominations or that they have not gotten used to the expanded slate, I do not know.)

So, look at the graph I posted. Those are the films getting discussed as possible nominees and the films that have gotten "best picture" nominations from other groups. Despite the very good to great reviews, not all of them are going to get nominated, and only one of them will win. (That point alone should make it clear that I never could have been suggesting that a film with Hallows 2's reviews should win; indeed, if I was arguing like that, then I'd be arguing that The Artist should win. Which it will ).

But here is the funny thing: one of those films doesn't belong there. Despite the similar reception, Hallows 2 is not in the mix of "Films that could get nominated": and that indicates that something other than how Hallows 2 was received by movie "pros" is affecting things.

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

IMO they wont even have slighted a good movie. DH2 IMO, was a rank failure as an adaptation and a poor showing as a film.

The only relevant acronym here is IAMO: In the Academy Member's Opinons. Your opinion of the calibre of the film (and anybody else's here, including mine: you will note that I have made only oblique references to what I think of the film) is irrelevant to this discussion. You are not on the Academy or any of the other award nomination committees, and the criteria by which you are judging the film are very different from theirs: and their favorable opinions are necessary (albeit insufficient) for nominations.

Now, the critics are relevant because the criteria that they use to judge films (storytelling, performance, etc.) overlap heavily with the criteria that members of the Academy and other nominating committees use. This is why nominated films (and even films thought to be contenders for nominations) are very nonrandomly drawn from the distribution of critical scores. (That graph above should demonstrate that: the typical movie is centered around 6.5.)

The critics emphatically disagree with your assessment of the film. So, unless Academy members have something in common with you that is letting them see what the critics so badly missed, then we should be expecting Hallows 2 to be in the mix for possible Oscar nominations. However, my bet is that IAMO is going to be much more similar to ICO (C for critics!) than to your IMO.

Again, there are threads aplenty for discussing whether you liked the film. This tread is supposed to be about whether the film succeeded in doing what was necessary to get major nominations. And the biggest issue there is, does it match qualities of other Oscar nominated films, or films that were considered strong contenders for Oscar nominations? Critical reviews are informative here. Fan reviews are not.

Originally Posted by Noldus

Sounds like Apes to me. Impressive CGI and plenty with action, but with a predictable plot, uninteresting characters and shallow handling of the relationships. Contrast that to DH: 2 where the effects work so seamlessly into the storyline they feel like an integral part of the world and contributes to telling the story.

Personally, I thought that Apes told a more interesting story (albeit one that's been told before) and did so somewhat better; however, I'm in a minority there! (Apes was very well received, but isn't this the 3rd or 4th try?) Regardless, I will be that both films will be contenders for the technical awards. (Or, as Will Smith called them, Awards for Films that Anybody Saw. )


It will be sort of interesting to see how Hallows 2 ages. 5 years from now, will Hallows 2 be remembered by critics and the general public as the best Harry Potter film, or will Prisoner retake that title? However, that's really a topic for another thread.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Noldus

You are basically implying that the film is not of the same caliber as the other films you listed because it's a blockbuster that made lots of money?

Okay, let's talk blockbusters that were good movies on top of being highly award winning:

Titanic (feel free to groan but it was a good movie - you have apes, I have titanic, lol): won for best art direction, costume design, cinematography, direction, visual effects, editing, original score, original song, picture, sound, sound effects editing and nominated for best actress, best supporting actress, best makeup. Made $28M opening weekend, $600M gross (in 1998)

Dark Knight: Won for best sound editing and supporting actor, nods for cinematography, art direction, editing, sound mixing, visual effects, makeup. Made $158M opening weekend, $533 gross (in 2008)

Forrest Gump (Anything with Tom Hanks could be considered a Blockbuster, he's box office gold): won for actor, director, editing, effects, picture, screenplay, nods for supporting actor, art direction, cinematography, sound editing, makeup, score, sound; made $24M opening weekend, $330M gross (in 1994)

West Side Story
Gone With the Wind
Sound of Music
The Godfather
My Fair Lady
Rocky
LOTR: Fellowship
Bridge over the River Kwai

All considered 'blockbusters' in their day. All of which are oscar award winning. All of which are substantially better movies than DHp2, IMO.

And I'm not comparing HP and twilight in quality (there's no comparison IMO - with all the problems I have with the HP movies, the twilight ones are torturous) I'm comparing them in intent - I don't think HP was made with oscars in mind, I think it was made to capitalize on a franchise.

Originally Posted by MsJPotter

Then I must be happy on the Oscars behalf, because IMO they wont have slighted a great movie

Agreed, IMO too. Nice to see you here! =^D

Originally Posted by Noldus

As for not deserving technical categories, look at the gorgeous cinematography, look at the art direction, notice the make-up work on the goblins, listen to the score and sound editing and then get back to me saying it doesn't deserve anything.

I do think it will at least get nods in some of these categories.

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Personally, I thought that Apes told a more interesting story (albeit one that's been told before) and did so somewhat better; however, I'm in a minority there! (Apes was very well received, but isn't this the 3rd or 4th try?) Regardless, I will be that both films will be contenders for the technical awards. (Or, as Will Smith called them, Awards for Films that Anybody Saw. )

Hey, some really great movies can be patent remakes: can anyone here saw AVATAR??? It's a spot on remake of Dances With Wolves. Watch one and then watch the other and tell me it's not a remake =^)

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

(Anything with Tom Hanks could be considered a Blockbuster, he's box office gold):

Joe Versus the Volcano was the biggest snub in Oscar's history.

[yorkiedoodle]

Well, one way or another, we'll find out later today!