Lord Voldemort’s days are numbered — and those numbers could add up to Oscar-worthy critics scores. Two of Awards Daily’s comment crew have embarked on ambitious number-crunching projects to chart how the BP nomination prospects for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows stack up with the astronomically high ratings its been getting from critics.
Numbers are still in flux, but here’s a summary of HP8’s critics ranking as of July 15:
- 87 – Metacritic
- 97 – Rotten Tomatoes
- 100 – Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics
- 91 – Broadcast Film Critics Association
phantom explains his analysis at his website, awardscorner:
What do these scores mean compared to recent best picture winners/nominees ? Hint : it not only looks nomination-worthy based on these numbers, (on paper) it could even win…(probably won’t). For now, I think it will be similar to Toy Story 3 : rave reviews + stunning Box Office + last chapter-factor, but the Academy still might not be able to take it seriously enough to consider it for the ‘big one’. For what it’s worth, the film received excellent – almost identical – scores compared to The Return of the King…and that’s definitely a great start.
- better RT-score than 9 out of the last 10 best picture winners (beats 90%)
- better RTT-score than 10 out of the last 10 best picture winners (beats 100 %)
- better MC-score than 6 out of the last 10 best picture winners (beats 60 %)
- better BFCA-score than 7 out of the last 10 best picture winners (equal score with 1 film) (beats 70%)
- better RT-score than 54 of the last 60 (last 10 years) best picture nominees (beats 85%, equals 5%)
- better RTT-score than 60 of the last 60 (last 10) best picture nominees (beats 90%, equals 10%)
- better MC-score than 42 of the last 60 (last 10 years) best picture nominees (beats 68%, equals 2%)
- better BFCA-score than 53 of the last 60 (last 10) best picture nominees (beats 77%, equals 10%)
phantom has laid out a great chart to show us how these numbers played out for BP nominees going back as far as 2001.
AD reader j looks at the critics scores for 3 of the most significant film in the first half of 2011 in relation to corresponding scores of Best Picture nominees from the pat 2 years. (the rankings are based on averaging the Metacritic, Broadcast Film Critics, and Rotten Tomatoes scores)
For fun, taking Ziyad’s charts for comparison thus far, with some changes in criteria, MC/BFCA/RT avg.
2010
The Social Network: 95/95/92.5=94.2
Toy Story 3: 92/97/86.5=91.8
The King’s Speech: 88/97/89=91.3
~> Deathly Hallows 2: 86/95/85=88.7
Winter’s Bone: 90/85/82=85.7
127 Hours: 82/90/84.5=85.5
True Grit: 80/91/83.5=84.8
The Kids Are Alright: 86/85/80=83.7
Black Swan: 78/89/82.5=83.5
~> Midnight in Paris: 81/85/81=82.3
The Fighter: 78/89/80=82.3
~> Tree of Life: 85/78/82.5=81.8
Inception: 74/94/77=81.7
2009
Up 100/88/84.5=90.8
The Hurt Locker 93/94/83 (Seems weirdly low.)=90
~> Deathly Hallows 2: 86/95/85=88.7
Up in the Air 97/83/80.5=86.8
An Education 95/85/78.5=86.2
Avatar 89/84/75=82.7
Precious 89/79/79.5=82.5
~> Midnight in Paris: 81/85/81=82.3
~> Tree of Life: 85/78/82.5=81.8
District 87/81/76.5=81.5
Serious 86/79/78=81
Tree of Life: 85/78/82.5=81.8
Inglourious Basterds 91/69/73=77
Blind 85/53/62=66.666 (Evil)
There questions that still bug me
1. Why Harry Potter’s last film got snubbed out of the Best Picture Race and The Academy Awards?
2. Is Harry Potter the reason why the Academy chose 9 BP nominees instead of 10?
I like my numbers crunchy. Great analysis.
I like my numbers crunchy. Great analysis.
It’s difficult to construct a narrative for Yates as best director from the perspective of rearding the series as a whole, but WB can easily mount a campaign for screenwriter Steve Kloves (7 out of 8 films) and producer David Heyman (8 for 8) on that premise, especially given the fact that there are 10 screenwriting nods, and up to 10 best pic slots.
I’m pretty sure Heyman can also count on a lot of respect from his peers, which means a PGA nomination is a strong possibility, which in turn can be used in the (inevitable) FYC campaign.
What could also help the film is old-fashioned voters who just like to cross off the list in as many categories as possible, and throw in best picture. The amount of categories this film can compete in, and have a strong chance, is considerable:
– best screenplay
– best supporting actor*
– best art direction
– best costume design
– best make up
– best cinematography
– best dramatic score
– best sound mixing
– best sound effect editing
– best editing (?)
Not sure about that last one. If they nominate it for make-up, it would certainly have to be for the seris as a whole, and not be disqualified for cgi ‘enhancement’ (i.e. Ralph Fiennes’nose removal. The Hours was disqualified for digitally altering Kidman’s nose, thus ignoring some much more brilliant work on Moore’s character).
Supporting actor is gonna be tricky. Are they going to push Fiennes or Rickman? Fiennes appears to be getting more standout reviews, and has a much bigger and showier role. Rickman would better represent the series as a whole, and has arguably the film’s most poignant moments, but his performance is relatively smalls, and usually when very small roles with literally only minutes of screentime tend to be very showy parts.
Sentimental votes can get you very far, though (Ruby Dee for less than 5 unremarkable minuten in American Gangster, for example).
It’s difficult to construct a narrative for Yates as best director from the perspective of rearding the series as a whole, but WB can easily mount a campaign for screenwriter Steve Kloves (7 out of 8 films) and producer David Heyman (8 for 8) on that premise, especially given the fact that there are 10 screenwriting nods, and up to 10 best pic slots.
I’m pretty sure Heyman can also count on a lot of respect from his peers, which means a PGA nomination is a strong possibility, which in turn can be used in the (inevitable) FYC campaign.
What could also help the film is old-fashioned voters who just like to cross off the list in as many categories as possible, and throw in best picture. The amount of categories this film can compete in, and have a strong chance, is considerable:
– best screenplay
– best supporting actor*
– best art direction
– best costume design
– best make up
– best cinematography
– best dramatic score
– best sound mixing
– best sound effect editing
– best editing (?)
Not sure about that last one. If they nominate it for make-up, it would certainly have to be for the seris as a whole, and not be disqualified for cgi ‘enhancement’ (i.e. Ralph Fiennes’nose removal. The Hours was disqualified for digitally altering Kidman’s nose, thus ignoring some much more brilliant work on Moore’s character).
Supporting actor is gonna be tricky. Are they going to push Fiennes or Rickman? Fiennes appears to be getting more standout reviews, and has a much bigger and showier role. Rickman would better represent the series as a whole, and has arguably the film’s most poignant moments, but his performance is relatively smalls, and usually when very small roles with literally only minutes of screentime tend to be very showy parts.
Sentimental votes can get you very far, though (Ruby Dee for less than 5 unremarkable minuten in American Gangster, for example).
Oops….addendum. I’m with number 72……8 films in a franchise and not a single one is BAD? Stunning. Deserves SOME sort of positive recognition.
Oops….addendum. I’m with number 72……8 films in a franchise and not a single one is BAD? Stunning. Deserves SOME sort of positive recognition.
Redundant but necessary :)—
FYC: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 (in every conceivable category)
Alan Rickman for best supporting (might have trouble against Christopher Plummer unless his movie is bad….and then again it’s July)….
Redundant but necessary :)—
FYC: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 (in every conceivable category)
Alan Rickman for best supporting (might have trouble against Christopher Plummer unless his movie is bad….and then again it’s July)….
@ 108: Mr. Pricklepants in comment #110 correctly interpreted what I was saying. I clearly wasn’t trying to imply that Jackson wrote the story or anything like that. I just meant that Jackson was much more responsible for the success of LOTR than David Yates is for Harry Potter. And not even just because Yates was only involved with the second half of the franchise…he didn’t have any involvement with the writing, casting, or production of the film, whereas Jackson was intimately involved with all of those aspects. He definitely did a good job directing these past four movies, but whatever credit he gets is mainly for not screwing up what had already been rolling along without him. He’s a director for hire. A good one, yes, but still just a director hire. He wasn’t the true driving force behind the movies like Jackson was with LOTR. That’s all I meant.
@ 108: Mr. Pricklepants in comment #110 correctly interpreted what I was saying. I clearly wasn’t trying to imply that Jackson wrote the story or anything like that. I just meant that Jackson was much more responsible for the success of LOTR than David Yates is for Harry Potter. And not even just because Yates was only involved with the second half of the franchise…he didn’t have any involvement with the writing, casting, or production of the film, whereas Jackson was intimately involved with all of those aspects. He definitely did a good job directing these past four movies, but whatever credit he gets is mainly for not screwing up what had already been rolling along without him. He’s a director for hire. A good one, yes, but still just a director hire. He wasn’t the true driving force behind the movies like Jackson was with LOTR. That’s all I meant.
Also, comparing to James Bond, the simplest measure I can think of, Rotten Tomatometer: 8 Harry Potter films have at least high 70’s in %; in the last 40 years, 3 James Bond movies do.
Also, comparing to James Bond, the simplest measure I can think of, Rotten Tomatometer: 8 Harry Potter films have at least high 70’s in %; in the last 40 years, 3 James Bond movies do.
I still love the fact that Rickman is getting such amazing praise for a performance that was pretty much a montage. That’s how awesome Alan Rickman is. He should always get more roles.
I felt like every actor from Britain and Ireland, except Day-Lewis lol, was in this. I know it’s not true, but everywhere you look you see a British star. It was pretty awesom to see. Still feel Thewlis and Tonks, her name escaping me, deserved at least their “scene” like everybody else did. It was refreshing to see Radcliffe given the reigns as THE lead actor as well. He didn’t have the other two, great as they are, following him around. I liked it.
I still love the fact that Rickman is getting such amazing praise for a performance that was pretty much a montage. That’s how awesome Alan Rickman is. He should always get more roles.
I felt like every actor from Britain and Ireland, except Day-Lewis lol, was in this. I know it’s not true, but everywhere you look you see a British star. It was pretty awesom to see. Still feel Thewlis and Tonks, her name escaping me, deserved at least their “scene” like everybody else did. It was refreshing to see Radcliffe given the reigns as THE lead actor as well. He didn’t have the other two, great as they are, following him around. I liked it.
At the very least, the billion dollars this movie should make should give Warner the money to mount a massive campaign (perhaps also to help their other campaigns too), yes?
At the very least, the billion dollars this movie should make should give Warner the money to mount a massive campaign (perhaps also to help their other campaigns too), yes?
@ 108
I think what John-Paul meant is that Peter Jackson was the driving force behind the Lord of the Rings movies. He directed them, he co-wrote the screenplays, he co-produced them. Of course, he didn’t write The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien did. But he’s the man who got those movies made.
On the other hand, David Yates is just the director of the last four Harry Potter movies. He did not write the screenplays and he did not produce those movies. He just directed them.
@ 108
I think what John-Paul meant is that Peter Jackson was the driving force behind the Lord of the Rings movies. He directed them, he co-wrote the screenplays, he co-produced them. Of course, he didn’t write The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien did. But he’s the man who got those movies made.
On the other hand, David Yates is just the director of the last four Harry Potter movies. He did not write the screenplays and he did not produce those movies. He just directed them.
I apologize for insulting the readers of AD.
My comment was over the top for sure.
I don’t like the franchise but that didn’t give me the right to be offensive and insult everyone. I’m sorry.
I apologize for insulting the readers of AD.
My comment was over the top for sure.
I don’t like the franchise but that didn’t give me the right to be offensive and insult everyone. I’m sorry.
@98
What the f you talking about? Did you forget LotR was written by Tolkien? The movies are no more PJ’s vision then the last 3 are Yates.
@98
What the f you talking about? Did you forget LotR was written by Tolkien? The movies are no more PJ’s vision then the last 3 are Yates.
Actually, Ryan, Alan Rickman has said many times that JK Rowling and he had a talk about Snape’s future and his place in the story, and only Alan knew about it.
I would assume that is related to how Snape is in the last book. 🙂
Actually, Ryan, Alan Rickman has said many times that JK Rowling and he had a talk about Snape’s future and his place in the story, and only Alan knew about it.
I would assume that is related to how Snape is in the last book. 🙂
ok… srsly. HP doesn’t needt the BP nom
Did Goldfinger get a BP nom? No it didn’t. Yet it is considerred as one of the best movies ever made.
And don’t compare LOTR to HP just because they are fantasy films. people should compare HP to James Bond really. James Bond had great movies and some not-so-good ones.
I don’t see HP getting a BP nom. It just doesn’t fit well. I thought HP was a great film but not great enough to be nominated for an oscar. . . . . .
but i did only say that it doesn’t NEED a nom, it probably would be nominated for a BP nom anyways since there are not much good movies coming out this year.
ok… srsly. HP doesn’t needt the BP nom
Did Goldfinger get a BP nom? No it didn’t. Yet it is considerred as one of the best movies ever made.
And don’t compare LOTR to HP just because they are fantasy films. people should compare HP to James Bond really. James Bond had great movies and some not-so-good ones.
I don’t see HP getting a BP nom. It just doesn’t fit well. I thought HP was a great film but not great enough to be nominated for an oscar. . . . . .
but i did only say that it doesn’t NEED a nom, it probably would be nominated for a BP nom anyways since there are not much good movies coming out this year.
Leslie: Just write us a fuckin novel why don’t you?!
Leslie: Just write us a fuckin novel why don’t you?!
Estimated box office of 185-190 Million dollars. Wow.
Estimated box office of 185-190 Million dollars. Wow.
I have followed Harry Potter since I was eight years old, when Sorcerer’s Stone was published here in the US in 1998. I suppose I would consider myself a “purist” in the sense that I believe the books will always be better than the films, but I do almost make an exception for Deathly Hallows Part II (the same cannot be said for Goblet of Fire, however). Reading the end is one thing, but to actually be able to see everything you’ve read on screen is an overwhelming experience. I personally don’t believe that Radcliffe, Grint, or Watson will receive a nod for Lead or Supporting Actor/Actress. Not to say they aren’t talented, but their performances were greatly shadowed by Fiennes and Rickman.
The character of Severus Snape has always been a fan favorite: you love to hate Snape, and yet you cannot help but wonder if there is a twist in his story as you delve further into the books/films. I know that I personally feel pity and sadness for him, and did even before the sixth and seventh novels, and I know I was not the only person who felt that way towards Snape. But to SEE it all unfold on the screen by Rickman in Deathly Hallows Part II was utterly crushing and heartbreaking. I was not the only one sobbing and sniffling in our theatre, and the sniffling did not only come from the females. Rickman brought the character of Severus Snape to life, and he did it brilliantly and oh so beautifully. He has been such an enigma to those who have followed the series, and such an important character, if not the most important besides Voldemort or Harry, of course. I truly do not believe anyone but Rickman could have portrayed Severus Snape so perfectly; I am certain no other actor would have been able to convey the emotion, the grief, the depth and the personality that is Severus.
Rickman is also a highly accomplished British actor. So is Fiennes. That they might not be honored with Best Supporting Actor from work on films they have been involved with for eleven years would truly be outrageous. And I do not say this only because I am biased; I have talked to many people who aren’t fans really of the books, but have seen the films, and they have nothing but good things to say about Fiennes and Rickman and their work in the Potter films.
Regardless if DH Pt II doesn’t get the recognition it deserves at the Oscars, it cannot be denied that Harry Potter has become deeply engrained within our culture and society, and will remain treasured and remembered for a very very long time. The books have encouraged reading in a generation run by technology and gaming systems. And yes, I DO believe they are in the same league with the Chronicles of Narnia and LOTR. Different, yes. But Narnia and LOTR are also very different. And isn’t Narnia placed within the children’s fiction genre as well?
If the Oscars decide to snub the final installment of a film series that has dominated our culture, our theatres, and a generation for eleven years, then I believe they at LEAST owe Harry Potter some respect and recognition in some way. Or else we need to get rid of the old bag committee, because they have obviously lost touch with reality.
So, all in all:
Best Supporting Actor: Alan Rickman
Leslie, Thanks for that tribute to Alan Rickman — and thanks for sharing your personal impressions. One of the best things about this series drawing to a close is hearing from fans like you and Danny who grew up reading the books. There was a great article on Salon this weekend about a guy attending Thursday’s midnight screening, but at touching as his stories were, the first comment to his piece from a Salon reader was better written and more meaningful that the article itself (and it was a lengthy comment too).
That’s such an interesting point. I’ve wondered how it Rickmen knew to play the character with such delicious ambiguity from the very first film — when there was no way he could have known where the story would be taking his character.
I have followed Harry Potter since I was eight years old, when Sorcerer’s Stone was published here in the US in 1998. I suppose I would consider myself a “purist” in the sense that I believe the books will always be better than the films, but I do almost make an exception for Deathly Hallows Part II (the same cannot be said for Goblet of Fire, however). Reading the end is one thing, but to actually be able to see everything you’ve read on screen is an overwhelming experience. I personally don’t believe that Radcliffe, Grint, or Watson will receive a nod for Lead or Supporting Actor/Actress. Not to say they aren’t talented, but their performances were greatly shadowed by Fiennes and Rickman.
The character of Severus Snape has always been a fan favorite: you love to hate Snape, and yet you cannot help but wonder if there is a twist in his story as you delve further into the books/films. I know that I personally feel pity and sadness for him, and did even before the sixth and seventh novels, and I know I was not the only person who felt that way towards Snape. But to SEE it all unfold on the screen by Rickman in Deathly Hallows Part II was utterly crushing and heartbreaking. I was not the only one sobbing and sniffling in our theatre, and the sniffling did not only come from the females. Rickman brought the character of Severus Snape to life, and he did it brilliantly and oh so beautifully. He has been such an enigma to those who have followed the series, and such an important character, if not the most important besides Voldemort or Harry, of course. I truly do not believe anyone but Rickman could have portrayed Severus Snape so perfectly; I am certain no other actor would have been able to convey the emotion, the grief, the depth and the personality that is Severus.
Rickman is also a highly accomplished British actor. So is Fiennes. That they might not be honored with Best Supporting Actor from work on films they have been involved with for eleven years would truly be outrageous. And I do not say this only because I am biased; I have talked to many people who aren’t fans really of the books, but have seen the films, and they have nothing but good things to say about Fiennes and Rickman and their work in the Potter films.
Regardless if DH Pt II doesn’t get the recognition it deserves at the Oscars, it cannot be denied that Harry Potter has become deeply engrained within our culture and society, and will remain treasured and remembered for a very very long time. The books have encouraged reading in a generation run by technology and gaming systems. And yes, I DO believe they are in the same league with the Chronicles of Narnia and LOTR. Different, yes. But Narnia and LOTR are also very different. And isn’t Narnia placed within the children’s fiction genre as well?
If the Oscars decide to snub the final installment of a film series that has dominated our culture, our theatres, and a generation for eleven years, then I believe they at LEAST owe Harry Potter some respect and recognition in some way. Or else we need to get rid of the old bag committee, because they have obviously lost touch with reality.
So, all in all:
Best Supporting Actor: Alan Rickman
Leslie, Thanks for that tribute to Alan Rickman — and thanks for sharing your personal impressions. One of the best things about this series drawing to a close is hearing from fans like you and Danny who grew up reading the books. There was a great article on Salon this weekend about a guy attending Thursday’s midnight screening, but at touching as his stories were, the first comment to his piece from a Salon reader was better written and more meaningful that the article itself (and it was a lengthy comment too).
That’s such an interesting point. I’ve wondered how it Rickmen knew to play the character with such delicious ambiguity from the very first film — when there was no way he could have known where the story would be taking his character.
@John-Paul:
Yates, as great of a job he did on “Deathly Hallows Part II”, won’t get a Directing nomination out of this.
“If Deatly Hallows 2 gets left out because of this ridiculous AMPAS gerrymandering, they’ll be confirming that the Academy wants nothing do with “Best” films anymore. It will be more clear than ever that the Oscars only exist to prop up the safest traditions to placate their most out-of-touch members.”
That’s been obvious for a while now. It’s why The Social Network got its ass kicked by Tom Hooper and The King’s Speech. Same reason why Crash upset Brokeback Mountain. AMPAS is like the Supreme Court: they’re old and out of touch.
@John-Paul:
Yates, as great of a job he did on “Deathly Hallows Part II”, won’t get a Directing nomination out of this.
“If Deatly Hallows 2 gets left out because of this ridiculous AMPAS gerrymandering, they’ll be confirming that the Academy wants nothing do with “Best” films anymore. It will be more clear than ever that the Oscars only exist to prop up the safest traditions to placate their most out-of-touch members.”
That’s been obvious for a while now. It’s why The Social Network got its ass kicked by Tom Hooper and The King’s Speech. Same reason why Crash upset Brokeback Mountain. AMPAS is like the Supreme Court: they’re old and out of touch.
Oh, and for the record, I have never read any of the books, either, so I’m not exactly a Potterhead. The films are just quality entertainment, which is a rare thing to see nowadays with god-awful shit like Transformers 3 out in theaters while Michael Bay laughs all the way to the bank.
Oh, and for the record, I have never read any of the books, either, so I’m not exactly a Potterhead. The films are just quality entertainment, which is a rare thing to see nowadays with god-awful shit like Transformers 3 out in theaters while Michael Bay laughs all the way to the bank.
I watched a Harry Potter movie for the first time this past Monday. After that, I watched the other 6 of them until today when I finally saw the second part of Deathly Hallows. I never had anything against this franchise, it just never really interested me all that much. I have to say, though, that everything from the Goblet of Fire and onward (especially the last three entries) are pretty terrific. I think the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 is my favorite movie I’ve seen so far this year, and I’m not even really worried about the Oscar prospects or whether it will get a Best Picture nomination or not. Personally, I believe it deserves to be nominated, but I just thought the film itself was such terrific entertainment and a very fitting and touching finale for a great series. Job well done to everyone involved.
I watched a Harry Potter movie for the first time this past Monday. After that, I watched the other 6 of them until today when I finally saw the second part of Deathly Hallows. I never had anything against this franchise, it just never really interested me all that much. I have to say, though, that everything from the Goblet of Fire and onward (especially the last three entries) are pretty terrific. I think the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 is my favorite movie I’ve seen so far this year, and I’m not even really worried about the Oscar prospects or whether it will get a Best Picture nomination or not. Personally, I believe it deserves to be nominated, but I just thought the film itself was such terrific entertainment and a very fitting and touching finale for a great series. Job well done to everyone involved.
I personally don’t think it’s deserving of a Best Picture nomination, but obviously that’s not what we’re discussing. As many others have pointed out already, it would seem like a sure thing if we were still under the 10-nominee system, but I personally just don’t see it making the cut when in order to do so it would need 5% of #1 votes.
The main reason I’m commenting, though, is because I think the comparison with Return of the King is a bad one. Yes, they’re both the final chapters in fantasy epics, but Return of the King had a LOT more going for it, not the least of which was the fact that both of its prior installments had already been nominated. I don’t recall any of the previous Harry Potter films so much as getting buzz for a nomination. Maybe the first one when it got a PGA nod, but even then, I don’t think it was ever seriously considered as a potential Best Picture nominee.
The other thing that the Lord of the Rings series as a whole had going for it that Harry Potter simply does not is the advantage of being very much the vision of a director. That sits well with the directors’ branch, and I’m guessing with a lot of other Academy members too. The Harry Potter films, while working spectacularly as entertainment, do not have the sense of being helmed by a visionary director, while Lord of the Rings did. And I don’t even mean just because there have been 4 different directors involved throughout the series; I mean that they’re not the product of their respective directors to the same degree that LOTR was the product of Peter Jackson.
I mean, one would assume that a Best Picture nominee would have to at least have some Best Director buzz. I know that not all directors get nominated alongside their films, but surely they have to at least be in the running, right? With that said, does anyone here honestly believe David Yates has a shot at a Best Director nomination at all? Personally, I think you’re REALLY overestimating the movie if you think so. One could make the argument that LOTR was the work of an auteur; the same argument could not be made for Harry Potter, and that’s why I think the comparison is misguided.
I personally don’t think it’s deserving of a Best Picture nomination, but obviously that’s not what we’re discussing. As many others have pointed out already, it would seem like a sure thing if we were still under the 10-nominee system, but I personally just don’t see it making the cut when in order to do so it would need 5% of #1 votes.
The main reason I’m commenting, though, is because I think the comparison with Return of the King is a bad one. Yes, they’re both the final chapters in fantasy epics, but Return of the King had a LOT more going for it, not the least of which was the fact that both of its prior installments had already been nominated. I don’t recall any of the previous Harry Potter films so much as getting buzz for a nomination. Maybe the first one when it got a PGA nod, but even then, I don’t think it was ever seriously considered as a potential Best Picture nominee.
The other thing that the Lord of the Rings series as a whole had going for it that Harry Potter simply does not is the advantage of being very much the vision of a director. That sits well with the directors’ branch, and I’m guessing with a lot of other Academy members too. The Harry Potter films, while working spectacularly as entertainment, do not have the sense of being helmed by a visionary director, while Lord of the Rings did. And I don’t even mean just because there have been 4 different directors involved throughout the series; I mean that they’re not the product of their respective directors to the same degree that LOTR was the product of Peter Jackson.
I mean, one would assume that a Best Picture nominee would have to at least have some Best Director buzz. I know that not all directors get nominated alongside their films, but surely they have to at least be in the running, right? With that said, does anyone here honestly believe David Yates has a shot at a Best Director nomination at all? Personally, I think you’re REALLY overestimating the movie if you think so. One could make the argument that LOTR was the work of an auteur; the same argument could not be made for Harry Potter, and that’s why I think the comparison is misguided.
Btw I say it’s better then RotK, it’s tightly paced so it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome and it’s more emotional.
Btw I say it’s better then RotK, it’s tightly paced so it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome and it’s more emotional.
”Note to Academy muggles: Get busy coming up with that Best Picture nomination you’ve denied all the other Potter films. Oscar attention must be paid”
Peter Travers- Rolling Stone
”Note to Academy muggles: Get busy coming up with that Best Picture nomination you’ve denied all the other Potter films. Oscar attention must be paid”
Peter Travers- Rolling Stone
Amen to that, Ryan.
Amen to that, Ryan.
I haven’t seen it yet because I can’t do crowded theaters. (I know that for some folks the group cheers, cries, etc. are part of the enjoyment, and I say that’s great if you’re into it. It’s just that for me when I see a movie like this in a crowd on the first weekend I always leave feeling like I missed half of it because it had to compete with the audience. I don’t mean that as a complaint, just an explanation of why I’m waiting.)
I’m currently predicting 7 nominees this year, with HP being the 7th getting in just above the 5% threshold. But what interests me more is not whether it will or won’t be nominated, but the potential implications of that. For example:
The AMPAS Board of Governors seems terribly concerned about the broadcast’s ratings among young people. Does a BP Nod or Snub make a big difference here?
Also, the move to 10 was supposedly to include more blockbusters (Dark Knight), but people here and elsewhere are saying that HP had a better chance in a list of 10 than with the new 5% rule. So my question is whether the inclusion or snub of Potter will play out as proof that the new system does or does not work? (I note that this could be the case even if you don’t think HP would have been in the top 10 to begin with. The point is that the STORY could be written this way, regardless of the realities behind it.)
Will HP become the talking point that people use in deciding whether the new system is a “success” or not?
Will HP become the talking point that people use in deciding whether the new system is a “success” or not?
NeverTooEarly MoviePredictions, That’s such a sharp observation, and the way you frame it as a test case for the new rules is quite right.
If the new rules work to exclude a spectacular film that ends up with some of the most unanimous audience appreciation and highest critical acclaim of the year, then the rules can’t be seen as anything but a dismal failure.
If Deatly Hallows 2 gets left out because of this ridiculous AMPAS gerrymandering, they’ll be confirming that the Academy wants nothing do with “Best” films anymore. It will be more clear than ever that the Oscars only exist to prop up the safest traditions to placate their most out-of-touch members.
I haven’t seen it yet because I can’t do crowded theaters. (I know that for some folks the group cheers, cries, etc. are part of the enjoyment, and I say that’s great if you’re into it. It’s just that for me when I see a movie like this in a crowd on the first weekend I always leave feeling like I missed half of it because it had to compete with the audience. I don’t mean that as a complaint, just an explanation of why I’m waiting.)
I’m currently predicting 7 nominees this year, with HP being the 7th getting in just above the 5% threshold. But what interests me more is not whether it will or won’t be nominated, but the potential implications of that. For example:
The AMPAS Board of Governors seems terribly concerned about the broadcast’s ratings among young people. Does a BP Nod or Snub make a big difference here?
Also, the move to 10 was supposedly to include more blockbusters (Dark Knight), but people here and elsewhere are saying that HP had a better chance in a list of 10 than with the new 5% rule. So my question is whether the inclusion or snub of Potter will play out as proof that the new system does or does not work? (I note that this could be the case even if you don’t think HP would have been in the top 10 to begin with. The point is that the STORY could be written this way, regardless of the realities behind it.)
Will HP become the talking point that people use in deciding whether the new system is a “success” or not?
Will HP become the talking point that people use in deciding whether the new system is a “success” or not?
NeverTooEarly MoviePredictions, That’s such a sharp observation, and the way you frame it as a test case for the new rules is quite right.
If the new rules work to exclude a spectacular film that ends up with some of the most unanimous audience appreciation and highest critical acclaim of the year, then the rules can’t be seen as anything but a dismal failure.
If Deatly Hallows 2 gets left out because of this ridiculous AMPAS gerrymandering, they’ll be confirming that the Academy wants nothing do with “Best” films anymore. It will be more clear than ever that the Oscars only exist to prop up the safest traditions to placate their most out-of-touch members.
They’ll do a big tribute regardless and if they don’t something is seriously wrong with them. After seeing it I can see Fiennes getting a nomination for Supporting Actor but even that’s a stretch and I doubt there’ll be other acting nominations.
They’ll do a big tribute regardless and if they don’t something is seriously wrong with them. After seeing it I can see Fiennes getting a nomination for Supporting Actor but even that’s a stretch and I doubt there’ll be other acting nominations.
Okay, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. It’s not a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination yet, although it should definitely put on the list of possible contenders. With those surprisingly good reviews and the massive box office of course, it might get the acclaimed blockbuster spot. Although, now that the nominees could anywhere between 5 and 10, that’s not even a certainty anymore. Anyway, if “Deathly Hallows Part 2” had been anything other than a Harry Potter movie, it probably would be a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination. But the Academy has not shown much love for the Harry Potter movies so far. Of course, they could mend that by giving “Deathly Hallows Part 2” a lot of nominations, including a Best Picture nomination. That is, if, and I mean IF, the Academy absolutely feels the need to honor the Harry Potter franchise in some big way.
It should do terrific at the BAFTAs, though. That is without question. Although, it did already get a special award for the entire franchise.
So, in a nutshell…
PRO:
– Great reviews;
– Massive box office (duh!);
– It’s the last Harry Potter movie;
– The Academy may want to reward the Harry Potter series in some big way.
CON:
– The Academy has not shown much love for the Harry Potter series so far (7 movies, only 9 nominations) and may not feel the need to change anything about that;
– It’s really half a movie. It doesn’t make a lot of sense without “Deathly Hallows Part 2” or the rest of the Harry Potter movies for that matter. But then again, I guess you could same thing about the three Lord of the Rings movies.
Okay, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. It’s not a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination yet, although it should definitely put on the list of possible contenders. With those surprisingly good reviews and the massive box office of course, it might get the acclaimed blockbuster spot. Although, now that the nominees could anywhere between 5 and 10, that’s not even a certainty anymore. Anyway, if “Deathly Hallows Part 2” had been anything other than a Harry Potter movie, it probably would be a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination. But the Academy has not shown much love for the Harry Potter movies so far. Of course, they could mend that by giving “Deathly Hallows Part 2” a lot of nominations, including a Best Picture nomination. That is, if, and I mean IF, the Academy absolutely feels the need to honor the Harry Potter franchise in some big way.
It should do terrific at the BAFTAs, though. That is without question. Although, it did already get a special award for the entire franchise.
So, in a nutshell…
PRO:
– Great reviews;
– Massive box office (duh!);
– It’s the last Harry Potter movie;
– The Academy may want to reward the Harry Potter series in some big way.
CON:
– The Academy has not shown much love for the Harry Potter series so far (7 movies, only 9 nominations) and may not feel the need to change anything about that;
– It’s really half a movie. It doesn’t make a lot of sense without “Deathly Hallows Part 2” or the rest of the Harry Potter movies for that matter. But then again, I guess you could same thing about the three Lord of the Rings movies.
The Great Dane
…but The Dark Knight was NOT the last film of the franchise, Deathly Hallows Part II is.
The Great Dane
…but The Dark Knight was NOT the last film of the franchise, Deathly Hallows Part II is.
They have The Hobbit and it will be opening in the Oscar slot. Batman will be the back-up plan for Oscar should The Hobbit fizzle…. assuming they want too bother with Oscar campaigns.
They have The Hobbit and it will be opening in the Oscar slot. Batman will be the back-up plan for Oscar should The Hobbit fizzle…. assuming they want too bother with Oscar campaigns.
As much as I enjoyed it, I just don’t see this happening. In a year of 10 guaranteed best picture nominees, absolutely. But how many people will REALLY put this as their number 1?
As much as I enjoyed it, I just don’t see this happening. In a year of 10 guaranteed best picture nominees, absolutely. But how many people will REALLY put this as their number 1?
Yeah, if they have a heavier more academy friendly contender than Potter, it would be pretty stupid to move it to another season when, even with bp nod for HP, they’re likley to go home empty handed.
As premature as Oscar talk is on all this, I do not see this film getting enough fist place votes for a bp spot. People aren’t going to put this as their number one choice simply because it’s overdue.
Yeah, if they have a heavier more academy friendly contender than Potter, it would be pretty stupid to move it to another season when, even with bp nod for HP, they’re likley to go home empty handed.
As premature as Oscar talk is on all this, I do not see this film getting enough fist place votes for a bp spot. People aren’t going to put this as their number one choice simply because it’s overdue.
Ugh… I count The Dark Knight Rises OUT ’cause it has to be perceived as at least ON PAR with The Dark Knight to be seriously considered. Nolan’s Inception noms and wins were probably enough compensation, and when you come to compare the rewards scored by Nolan’s last 2 films in comparison to the ZERO Harry Potter series have achieved – and which one is the bigger movie classic (which ain’t talking about the better, different things), there’s no question which one I would be betting all my money for. WB has to start preparing their Oscar campaign already, not leaving any other WB product overshadow or eclipse this one. It’ll be the difference between securing some nods, and securing a win that can brand the Oscar in the bluray box of the franchise.
If I was Warner Brothers, and I’d considered I had another heavy contender for Best Picture, I would probably move it to the 2012 schedule.
Ugh… I count The Dark Knight Rises OUT ’cause it has to be perceived as at least ON PAR with The Dark Knight to be seriously considered. Nolan’s Inception noms and wins were probably enough compensation, and when you come to compare the rewards scored by Nolan’s last 2 films in comparison to the ZERO Harry Potter series have achieved – and which one is the bigger movie classic (which ain’t talking about the better, different things), there’s no question which one I would be betting all my money for. WB has to start preparing their Oscar campaign already, not leaving any other WB product overshadow or eclipse this one. It’ll be the difference between securing some nods, and securing a win that can brand the Oscar in the bluray box of the franchise.
If I was Warner Brothers, and I’d considered I had another heavy contender for Best Picture, I would probably move it to the 2012 schedule.
Remember, The Dark Knight had similar reviews AND made 500 million domestically. And it was regarded a more “adult” film than Harry Potter, and it STILL didn’t get in. Would it had gotten in under the new system? We won’t ever know…
Remember, The Dark Knight had similar reviews AND made 500 million domestically. And it was regarded a more “adult” film than Harry Potter, and it STILL didn’t get in. Would it had gotten in under the new system? We won’t ever know…