No, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' Won't be Nominated for Best Picture, but What Will?
I have my list of 17 that I believe to be the more likely contenders
The talk over the weekend was naturally all about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. The film sits at 97% on the RottenTomatoes meter, it is currently the only 2011 feature listed on the IMDB Top 250, it holds the record for the largest domestic and global opening weekend ever and it marks the end of a ten year franchise that has been generally enjoyed by most that have taken the time to watch it. These facts tell us critics loved it, audiences loved it and the studio loves it. So why would it not be a Best Picture nominee?
To add even more fuel to the questioning fire, Entertainment Weekly's Dave Karger tweeted the following message over the weekend: "[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2] just screened for Oscar voters and I hear they loved it. Could it be the first one to get a Best Picture nomination?" Both myself and Kris Tapley from InContention.com replied to Karger's question, me with a "no", Tapley with a "Nein."
So what gives? How can I say a film that seems to be loved by most and highly successful at the box-office won't be earning one of the ten possible Best Picture slots? For starters, the word "possible" in that last sentence doesn't help its chances.
If this film had been released in 2009 or 2010 I wouldn't be so quick to say no, but the rule changes that were seemingly prompted by the Best Picture snubbing of The Dark Knight that saw ten nominees from the 2009 and 2010 crop are no longer in place. Instead, a film must now earn 5% of the Oscar voters' first place votes in order to receive a nomination. Granted, 2011 has offered up a weak crop of films so far, but what chance do you honestly believe Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 has at securing 5% of the first place votes from the Academy?
I'm not asking as someone that disliked the film, so don't think I have some kind of Harry Potter vendetta, I'm simply being realistic considering we are talking about a franchise viewed as more of a merchandising cash cow and film largely aimed at kids rather than a bona fide piece of art by the Academy.
Of the seven Harry Potter films that have been eligible for an Oscar nomination so far, five of them have been nominated for one or more Oscars, nine nominations total. Of those nine nominations all of them have been for below the line categories with noms in Art Direction, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Costumes and Original Score (John Williams twice). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets are the two films that didn't receive nominations and
"But it's the last one!" I hear you saying. "What about Toy Story 3 being nominated and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King winning!
Also, before The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King took home 11 Oscars in 11 categories the two previous installments won six Oscars and were nominated for a total of 19, including Best Director, Editing, Screenplay, Supporting Actor and Best Picture for both Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. So you see, it's far from the same thing.
These arguments may be valid if we were talking about a guaranteed ten picture field based on a different rules set, but we're not. And based on the new rules as I explained them here, I would be willing to bet most years will see five to six Best Picture nominees with a max of about seven. Even if we're looking at a year with a weak crowd that finds more films floating at the top with four or five strong contenders and a large group of films floating in second, Harry Potter still isn't likely to be among that second group.
So if not Potter… what? Click on over to the next page and let's have a look at current top contenders in the field.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 61 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
No Alan Rickman Actor in a Supporting role nomination?
No
Don't be too hasty, Brad. I wouldn't pick him as a frontrunner, either, but I have already finished my predictions, and the one thing I noticed was a weak Supporting Actor category. Don't take him out of consideration completely
How could you possibly know it's weak? The year is only half way done, I mean come on.
I'll admit that there can be surprises in the second half of the year, however, you can tell by looking at the actor, the role, and how much of an impact the film will have. Last year in June I made my Oscar predictions. For Best Supporting Actor, I got Christian Bale, Geoffrey Rush and Mark Ruffalo right, and I was on the fence if I wanted to choose Andrew Garfield, John Hawkes and Jeremy Renner (the latter two ending up being the final nominees). There was also the possibility of Sam Rockwell, Justin Timberlake, Vincent Cassell, Matt Damon, Barry Pepper, etc. This year, other than obvious nominations for Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Christopher Plummer, the field is thin. Maybe Viggo Morteson too, but other than that, not many choices
Since 'War Horse' is absolutely screaming at the top of it's Equine lungs 'GIMME AN OSCAR!!!!' from just the trailer then I would bet the studio will push it hard and it looks like it would be up the Academy's street.
I would think Young Adult and We Bought Zoo will be top tier by the time Oscar season heats up.
I agree that Harry Potter won't be nominated, and I think it will be a victim of both the switch from ten nominees and its release date. If it didn't have to hit that 5% first place mark, or if it had a Thanksgiving release and the great reviews and boatloads of cash were fresher in peoples' minds, I think it would stand a much better chance. I still say they should give the franchise a special honorary Oscar though. Giving it a lip-service visual effects award really doesn't cut it, given what an achievement that franchise as a whole is.
I don't have any huge gripes with the list overall. I do think that unless the year gets much stronger, The Tree of Life is almost certain to get in, though I doubt it can win. Same for Midnight in Paris. I'd probably shift J. Edgar down one category, just because Eastwood hasn't delivered a highly liked film since Letters from Iwo Jima. I'd take War Horse out as well; it just looks way too cheesy and honestly a bit childish. It's a movie about a horse after all. And I doubt 50/50 will actually contend, though it does look quite good.
Stephen Daldry's working outside The Weinstein Company. Hope that goes well for him.
Also, the nine titles in the top tier is a personally painful reminder of the Academy's decision. Hoping Tree of Life changes places with War Horse. :)
I'd put Carnage above Midnight in Paris, but that's just me. I unfortunately have to agree about Harry Potter, but I'd think more like 8 nomiees instead (a number I think they should settle at. The deserving ones get in without major snubs like 2008 but without the fluff of The Blind Side)
Although I agree that The Tree of Life is not exactly a safe bet for a best picture nomination, I actually think its May release was clever enough, as it's the kind of film that requires time to be fully appreciated. A late season release wouldn't necessarily be beneficial.
There's nothing good campaigning can't achieve, if WB pushes the movie it may enter in the Best Pic race. The movie has many things in its favor that when added up form one great narrative for a nomination: stellar reviews, box-office domination, previous Oscar nominations (I know they aren't a lot, but some are better than nothing!), huge accomplishment for the British movie industry, 10+ years workplace for respected actors and crew members, acclaimed blockbuster of the year (ala Inception, District 9), etc. Also, the list of contenders you post is quite great, but many of them could disappoint later on the year, or even be great but not cater to the Academy. Finally, in regards to the securing of a 5% of the first place votes, I don’t think is that difficult, especially after the excellent reviews, and strategy always comes in hand in this kind of situations. For example, if I were a member indecisive between Harry and some choices like J. Edgar or War Horse, I would consider to put Harry first, not based on overall, objective quality, but just based on the fact that both Eastwood and Spielberg are respected enough to get other votes and secure places.
I cannot help agreeing with Antonia. This is the Academy Awards. First we should beg the question is it worth even getting a nomination at the Golden Globes? Why, yes it does. And furthermore, given the right motivation it could win Best Picture there. Should that occur, or even a nomination be earned, then The Screen Actors Guild should take notice and it shall be nominated there. Again, it may not win but still the mention is an incredibly high honor. Finally, all of this buzz should be more than enough to propel it to the Oscars. Let's not forget this is acting we're talking about. Film, great film, should not go unnoticed, especially when it jump every box office list and capture critical acclaim. Not to mention the weak film season that has been presented, especially during the summer, may be of great assistance to HP. I wouldn't count it out just yet.
I believe the final chapter of the Harry Potter saga has Oscar written all over it. Those who think the contrary do not really understand the inner workings of the Academy. This next year the Academy will be rewarding the Harry Potter Franchise as a whole, in the same way it waited for the last installment of The Lord Of The Rings to present the best picture Award to The Return of The King. The Oscars love success stories and this is one of a kind; and they also love setting new records like, for instance, having two British productions win the award for best picture two years in a row (this will happen if Deathly Hallows part two actually wins, since last year's winner was The King's Speech). I predict the last Harry Potter film will sweep every possible technical award: special effects, cinematography, editing, sound, sound effects, and maybe original score and adapted screenplay; I also believe that there will be a couple of secondary acting nods that will surprise many. It will most likely win best picture, but the director may or may not get a nomination. Terence Mallick will probably win for The Tree of Life, and everybody will be happy.
You can't really assume it won't be nominated for best pic. It's high critical praise could garnish it some consideration in all categories.
This really was never an Oscar movie. I agree 100%. If we were still in the era of The Ten, I could see it happen, But HP is not going to get enough #1 votes, and that's perfectly fine. Touting this for a BP slot is just setting it up to fail.
If the Academy wants to give the Harry Potter series any kind of 'recognition award', it will be an Art Direction or Special Effects award. I agree with you, it won't be nominated for Best Picture at all.
I agree with your write up Brad, in fact I would switch "A Dangerous Method" with "Young Adult" and then your first tier will likely be the Best Picture nominations.
I also agree that Potter won't get a Best Picture nom. If it was last year's rules and there were to be 10 films, no more, no less, than I would think it has a decent shot. But not with the new 5% rule.
That said, I think Potter still deserves to be in the conversation, and to make your "third tier". No matter how you slice it, it has gonna an incredible reception from critics and moviegoers. It hits all the right notes, and it's well directed and well acted (And im not just talking Rickman, I thought Radcliffe did a very good job as Harry, and I never thought id say that.) It has a very slight outside shot, but it's still in the race. I'd also add "Drive" to the Third Tier- it probably doesn't have the genre on the ingredients to warrant a nomination, but its quality means it should be kept in mind. I doubt The Help or Moneyball has a much better chance than Potter or Drive.
Be sure, "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" will be unexpected hit of the film awards season. Strong screenplay, Stephen Daldry can earn a nom for direction, but I'm not sure about acting. Another surprise, Naomi Watts in "Impossible". This will be brilliant performance and can be a real contenders for Meryl Streep and Glen Close.
I had The Impossible in my Contenders list, but I haven't heard anything about that film for the longest time. Should it get a festival screening perhaps we'll finally see what kind of contender it is, that is if Summit doesn't screw it up.
Ok, some more reasons why I think Deathly Hallows part 2 is gonna sweep the Oscars:
1- It was a long running franchise, its quality consistency is undeniable and the final chapter didn't blew it. On the contrary, it even managed to revert the opinions of many critics who had been unfriendly to the franchise in the past. The same is going to happen to the Oscar voters.
2- As a stand alone feature, Deathly Hallows part two is a thrill ride, the type of adventure that the Academy like to acknowledged once in a while, like when they nominated
Raiders of The Lost Ark.
3- Record box office numbers plus good reviews is a very attractive combination in the eyes of the Academy, examples of this abound (Titanic, Gladiator, Avatar, The Lord Of The Rings)
4- The fact that there will be offerings from the likes of Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg does not mean that these movies are going to be nominated per se.
5- The five percent rule won't be an obstacle, there is the sentimental factor in seeing such a beloved franchise wave goodbye, and remember the Oscar voters have young children and grandchildren too.
6- Producer David Heyman deserves an Oscar for his intelligence in making the Harry Potter franchise and artistic and commercial success from beginning to end.
7- They say variety is the spice of life, and that is why The last Harry Potter installment is going to break into the 8 nominees and ultimately win.
Statement no 3 isn't always the case as the academy previously nominated B.O bombs like Gangs of New York in this category.
You can't possibly be serious with some of these arguments. Raider's of the Lost Ark was the first of its kind and was groundbreaking in film for its time. Also, voters are not going to hail a film best picture because of their grandchildren. When has there ever been a winner like that?
I'm surprised you have Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (man, I hate that title) as 2nd tier. The cast is excellent, Alfredson directed one of the best foreign movies of the decade with Let the Right One In, and the trailer was superb, low on action and high on tension. Is the 2nd tier status just because it's a thriller, a fairly straightforward, overlooked genre? Or maybe the release date is too early? I'm not arguing, your opinion is much better than mine, but I'm curious about your reasoning.
Just because Alfredson is unproven on a domestic level. The top tier at this point are primarily names we've heard of, been there before or the films simply scream Oscar. This list is extremely early and will change once people actually start seeing the films. I, however, hope Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is as good as we all think it will be. I can't wait to see it.
I don't know why you're basing it's chances on the quality of the film. We all know the Academy Awards are useless for giving you a list of the actual best films of the year.
Though it pains me to write this I must agree with this assessment of Deathly Hallows Best Picture chances. If any Potter film deserves to be recognized by the Academy its this one. But good enough to receive 5% of the first place votes? Not happenening.
However, this will probably be the most nominated Potter film. I'm expecting to see nods for:
Costume Design
Art Direction
Sound Mixing
Sound
Visual Effects
Musical Score
These nods will have to suffice, for as usual the Academy will fail to award a Potter film.
Thems the facts
Well first and foremost tour list is Missing the Iron Lady.
That one is without a doubt gonna be up for best picture, screenplay and actress come the Oscars. Oscars love Streep and biopics.
Really hoping that Tree of LIfe is shown some love with the Oscars this year. Still the most unique and important and beautiful film I have seen in quite some time. It is a shame Fox Searchlight screwed up the release so bad and have abandoned the film.
Also Win/Win really deserves many award nominations as well. Don't know WTF happened with the release of this one either. Nearly a perfect film. A close number 2 to my number one film of the year (Tree of Life). At the least The NAtional better get an Oscar nomination for the "Think You Can Wait" song for original Song Win/Win. Great great song.
The Iron Lady is mentioned, it's not missing, after Mamma Mia! Phyllida Lloyd has a lot of work to do before anyone considers this film a true Best Picture candidate and not just a Streep piece.
Great article. The reason why Deathly Hallows: Part 2 won't be nominated for Best Picture is because it's just not well-respected enough. Lord of the Rings is a series made for adults. All three are all around very well-made. There are eight Harry Potter movies that vary in degrees of goodness. Do I think it should be nominated? Yes, but the Academy wouldn't be willing to nominate a "kid's movie" for an Oscar. (Although Pixar movies have been nominated, so maybe…)
Anyway, I think it's sort of unfair to not put it up as a contender. I see it under the "second tier" category. I'm also very surprised by your placement of The Tree of Life because right now, I see no way of it not being nominated for Best Picture.
The other thing is that I agree with your placement of Midnight in Paris. It was very good, don't get me wrong, but the Academy just, for whatever reason, falls in love with movies like this. They just don't get romantic comedies, in my opinion. They love romantic comedies that are good not great like Midnight in Paris, but they refuse to acknowledge great ones like (500) Days of Summer.
Don't count too much on The Descendants… but great list!
Well, if there are indeed 6,000 members of the AMPAS then 5% of that would mean that Potter needs at least 300 number 1 spots on voters' ballots. I'm a bit iffy on the prospects of the film being nominated for Best Picture, but perhaps it could snag those spots on ballots from the technical branches who are much more likely to embrace the film. In that case, I think the film may have a shot, but it's a bit early to tell, honestly.
I'm not sure about War Horse. When the trailer played at my showing of Deathly Hallows Part 2, people were actually laughing at it by the end of it. Someone even yelled "Wait, that's an actual movie?!"
I doubt that's the kind of audience it's appealing to.
If Alan Rickman doesn't get a nomination for best supporting actor that's pretty messed up.
I totally agree. Alan so deserves it
War Horse isn't getting any respect, it seems. If it is anything like the play, it will be wonderful.
so far the only one with a chance that we all had the chance to see in theatres is Midnight in Paris and from the "yet to come" list I will say the ones with the best chances are:
CARNAGE
J EDGAR
WAR HORSE
A DANGEROUS METHOD
And unfortunately, no standout in the animation category, perhaps RIO´s been the less dissapointing but we´ll have to wait till next year to see BRAVE cutting the cake and getting a spot in the Best Picture category.
I'm throwing this name out, but i would understand if people scratch their heads: The Rum Diary. Considering it appears to be Johnny Depp's latest endeavour that didn't involve Jack Sparrow or Tim Burton. No trailer or news as of late, so i want to wait to hear more.
J. Edgar won't be nominated. Many people had issiues with The Aviator, Specifically why Loe was too bay-faced to play a 50 year old pilot.
He botched Howard Hughes to death, what makes you think he won't botch J.Edgar Hoover.
Leo was nominated for an Oscar for "The Aviator" and considered one of the favorites to win that year – that's a "botched" performance?? His films and performances since then have been excellent, I'm betting J. EDGAR will be even better.
Did yonkough that Leo was too young to play the role at the time? That was the issiue many had.
I meant to say Did you think Leo was too young for the role?
Great article, but I wouldn't be that sure about a "no-nomination" of Harry Potter 7: Part 2 in the Best Picture film. I saw it last week and I must say that there were a lot of adults in the audience and they really seemed to love this one and since there's a nostalgic feeling about the end of the franchise, I believe HP may be closer than we think to a Best Picture nod.
About your contenders list, I must say that agree with you overall if you put The Descendants in a lower position and I'm a bit apprehensive about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and We Bought a Zoo, which seem to have potential to be great heart-warming movies or something full of cliches, but I can't forget who the directors are (Stephen Daldry and Cameron Crowe).
Waiting for the next Oscar contenders article
I don't see why it's easier to dismiss HP's chances than something like A Dangerous Method (how many Picture nominations have Cronenberg films gotten before?). Or, The Descendents (Payne movies have gotten nominations before but you can just as easily dismiss the comedy aspect of it). I'm not saying those won't get nominated, or anything else in your list, but I have yet to hear any really good arguments to hear why films like any that you mentioned have a better shot at being nominated than Deathly Hallows 2? How about the merits of Deathly Hallows 2 as a film alone, which alone has gotten the high tomatometer and metacritic rating and broke box office records, etc. etc.? It sounds downright snooty to dismiss it so flippantly the way that most Oscar bloggers (so as to not single anyone out) have.
Do not underestimate Madonna's W.E. as a contender. With Weinstein behind this and early positive buzz for Andrea Riseborough, score, cinematography, and costume….this will surprise.
I wouldn't say "surprise", I have it listed as well.
When talking Oscar, we have to put ourselves in their shoes and kind of think the way they do, or go by theri past nomionations, where there were some surprises. Nominating 10 changes so much. They can be a tricky bunch, but don't count out War Horse in the least. It will garner tech awards nods ( cinematography, art direction, score, costumes, screenplay ) and a possible nod for Spielberg. The Academy have always liked him and it's based from a very popular play. It's a heart string tugger as well.
I have a feeling J. Edgar ( lame title-should just be called Hoover ) will be a return to form for Clint. Good cast and screenwriter. We Bought A Zoo is a heart tugger too. I just finished the book. And whay about Daldry ? Isn't he 3 for 3 in nods and movies he has directed ? Other than those, that's a pretty solid list. I also can't wait for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
I didn't see Scorsese's Hugo in there. Just based from the trailer the techs looks very impressive especially the cinematography. Marc Forster has Machine Gun Preacher coming out this year. True story and heart warming, looking forward to that being on my to see list. If you get a chance check out the book.
I have a question for Brad, or anyone else who wants to answer. I understand that you find it enjoyable to predict the oscar winners, but please, I hope you don't place any importance in the winners. Do you not realize how bad the system is when it ommits films simply for not being "the right type of film"? The academy awards are NEVER an accurate representation of the best movies of the year and I hope you all realize this.
Re: "No big surprise, we're knee deep in the second half of summer movie season with Captain America: The First Avenger breathing down our necks and Cowboys and Aliens a week later."
You've just made me realise the summer movie season is pretty much over and there's so little to show for it. This must be the worst summer for movies since 1994 and 1995.
Man, you take this whole film thing so seriously. You make those who consider themselves film-buffs to revaluate their commitment to cinema.
I think too many people are underestimating Giovanni Ribisi in The Rum Diary which could make quite the splash come awards time..
Tree of Life is showing in all of one theater in metro Salt Lake City. What's the deal? I was looking forward to seeing it on July 8th when it supposedly would go into wider distribution, but so far nothing.
I think Alan Rickman WILL get nominated for his role as Snape. He's such a natural at that role.
Unless Scott Rudin goes all stratigic on Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by campaining Blond Bond Craig for supporting despite the fact that Michel Blomkvest is a lead role.
I totally agree
And what is your opinion of Ralph Fiennes, who is at least one of the greatest working actors? There are several possibilities: Coriolanus (Best Actor or Director) Lord Voldemort (Supporting Actor)…
I thought Ralph was good as Voldemort but not epic. Somehow his performance fell a little flat with me; some of the choices he made with funny laughs and odd whining sounds took me out of the role. But, of course, I still enjoyed the work, but if you're talking about supporting actor in hp it should be Alan in my mind
What about The Adjustment Bureau. It's one of the best of the year. What are it's chances?
Zero
Just flat zero? no 10 or 20% I wouldn't even mind if it was even considered, what are it's chances for consideration?
On paper, before I saw it, I thought Adjustment Bureau could have been a surprise Adapted Screenplay and maybe some tech awards contender. Having seen it, even though I liked it, I have to agree with Brad. 0 chance.