'Harry Potter' Oscar Snub: Muggles Just Don't Understand!

Not since the death of Dumbledore have we seen something so sad; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 lost in all three categories it was nominated in at The Academy Awards last night! Considering the Harry Potter franchise is one of the most successful of all time, it's safe to say there are many sad fans today (including Harry himself, Daniel Radcliffe) who would have liked to see more Oscar love given to our favorite wizarding world. The eight installments released in the past decade comprise the highest grossing film series, with more than $7 billion in sales worldwide. During the course of the franchise's lifetime, it has received 12 Oscar nominations for everything from art direction, costume design, original score, cinematography, makeup and visual effects. However, none of the films have actually won, and now that the series has lost out on cementing its place in Oscar history, it's time to shed some "lumos" on why HP deserved a gold statue.

RATE IT!   |  

VOTE

CURRENT TOP 5 PICK YOUR OWN TOP 5

USERS WHO VOTED

NEW! CREATE YOUR OWN SLIDESHOW

Comments

[dawglover704]

09:05 AM on 03/01/2012

Yay Hermione !

[MarcEdward]

05:33 PM on 02/29/2012

Making a gajillion bucks is not how films earn awards. Star Wars films made tons of money, no "best film" there either. If you really love a film, why do you care if others recognize it?

[DesertDavey]

05:02 PM on 03/02/2012

Well, yeah. But Star Wars DID win TEN OSCARS!!! Well deserved Oscars, in my opinion.

HP wasn't as magnificent as SW, of course, although I can make an argument that it deserved to win in the costumes and special effects areas.

[Kristine03]

07:32 AM on 10/26/2012

For me HP is the best move series of all time. It portrayed the value of friendship, bravery, sacrifice and love. It's beyond special effects. There's an on going argument about that at http://www.WeDebateit.com . And I love the character of Alan Rickman! I miss HP..

[Gronkie]

11:20 PM on 02/27/2012

Over the course of those eight movies, Alan Rickman as Snape gave one of the consistently best performances I've ever seen. For the entire series his allegiance was in doubt, and when it was finally revealed in the final movie, everything that he had said and done made complete sense. I've wondered if JK Rowling didn't tell him the ending at the very beginning of part 1 so he'd know where this whole thing was going to end up.

Also, I find it hard to believe that it didn't win for art direction, visual effects or adapted screenplay anywhere along the way. Every episode was worthy of those three awards each year they were released, and yet they always got beaten by someone else. It seemed like it was time to honor this great series at least a little bit. The Oscars really blew it in that regard.

[RobertAriadne]

02:25 PM on 03/04/2012

Actually, she did. She told him during the filming of Sorcerer's Stone what Snape's motives were. Alan Rickman was one of the only people on Earth who knew for certain who Snape really was until the release of Deathly Hallows in 2007.

[DearOhDear]

09:18 PM on 02/27/2012

The Artist took the Best Picture trophy, but I bet it's going to be viewed as often in 15 years time as The English Patient, 1995's Best Picture winner, is viewed today. Potter, on the other hand, looks as though it will be a favorite with audiences for many years to come.

[AltoProfunda]

06:40 PM on 02/27/2012

Am I the only person on Earth who doesn't care for the Harry Potter books and movies?

[Gronkie]

11:11 PM on 02/27/2012

Probably. So maybe you should ask yourself - What's wrong with me?

[MarcEdward]

05:32 PM on 02/29/2012

They are not bad books, but the hysteria over them is undeserved, which makes me dislike them. They are almost as over-hyped as the Star Wars prequels. I read two of them to my son, I couldn't stomach another, and he wasn't interested either. 
I found them disappointing and very unimaginative. The magic the "witches" use just seems lame, it makes their lives worse. Magic should be cool. And my god, those "wands"! How emasculating are those? Gandalf had a cool staff.
I guess the real problem is that Harry is not much of a main character. Like George Bush, he inherits everything, he accomplishes nothing on his own. He just happens to be standing in the right place in the right time. It's just impossible to connect with a character that inherits a fortune, has power bestowed upon him (instead of earning it), and seems to win more by accident than intent.

[LibertarianCentrist]

06:05 PM on 02/27/2012

If its because Emma Watson is way hot, then yes. I agree.

[Big0725]

05:40 PM on 02/27/2012

Oh well, I guess R.K. will just have to lie back and cry herself to sleep on top of her BILLIONS!

[Big0725]

07:28 PM on 02/27/2012

Or maybe J.K. I amaze myself sometimes. And not in a good way.

[yarm64]

05:36 PM on 02/27/2012

d

[hottingers]

04:36 PM on 02/27/2012

How about the fact that they made eight films with an actress that never smiles?

[Big0725]

05:35 PM on 02/27/2012

I don't get that.

[Marianne Slattery]

08:59 PM on 02/28/2012

Are you sure you're not confusing Twilight with Harry Potter? . . .

[Emma Emery]

11:35 AM on 04/04/2012

Well Said Marianne.

[gardenkitty]

04:33 PM on 02/27/2012

The Harry Potter folks are in good company. Plenty of great films, directors, actors and tech people have been snubbed. I mean, Alfred Hitchcock never got an Oscar! The old fogies who vote generally despise fantasy. They made an exception for The Lord of the Rings because it was written by an Oxford professor old enough to be their grandfather, and most of them read the books when they were in grade school.

[MarcEdward]

05:32 PM on 02/29/2012

Plus the Lord of the Rings films were a whole lot better.

[Chapin Smith]

04:26 PM on 02/27/2012

Just one problem--none of these are reasons why this one movie is worthy of an Oscar.

1. Sure, there are some great actors, but only one of them put in a performance that was actually Oscar-worthy: Alan Rickman. That said, there are plenty of other great performances this year in plenty of other movies.

2. The film series might speak for a generation, but that doesn't make any one movie of the series more worthy of an Oscar than other great movies.

3. Consistency. Two issues-- 1) the first two movies were craptacular, and a couple of the others are pretty mediocre. 2) Again, this doesn't have any bearing on the quality of the one movie in question.

4. Gamechanger? *AGAIN*, the merits of the series as a whole don't blah blah blah.

5. Mass appeal. See: consensus fallacy.

6. Seriously?

I know that the article is kind of tongue in cheek. But come on. I think the movie was genuinely very good, but there were a lot of genuinely good movies that came out this year. The only movie that makes me go "REALLY???" compared to `Arry Potter is "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close".

[murphthesurf3]

04:22 PM on 02/27/2012

WHY POTTER DID NOT GET AN OSCAR

1) It is a foreign film series
The Artist may have seemed like a Foreign Film but it was not. It was completely produced in Hollywood. It is an American film with a cast that is partly foreign and a french director. The Potter series was from start to finish British. The Academy is not likely to give a British Series an Oscar.

2) It is a children's film series.
Yes. Lots of adults like the books and the films (both with their kids and on their own, and many of those kids read the last book, and saw the last film in college having experience the first ones in grade school). BUT, unlike the Lord of the Rings, the author of Potter does not have the snob appeal of Tolkien nor do the stories carry the mystery of "hidden meanings" and "cultural critiques" that the Middle Earth series carried. The Academy may give an Oscar to a kid but not to a kid's movie.

3) There are no outstanding major performances.
Yes there are very significant actors who played parts and did them very well, but none rose to the level of even being considered supporting actors or actresses (Harris, Gambon, Smith, Oldman, et. al.) and the kids were good (and got better) but were never great. Kids so rarely are. Radcliffe had to carry the film and fortunately for him he had a wonderful story to carry him. Part of that story was that so many watching the film knew the books and imbued his performances with more weight. 

4) The Special Effects, cinematography, score, sound etc. were well done bits of craft but none of it was trend setting.  

SO....if HP was going to get an Oscar if would have to for having had a Special Achievement, such as the impact on culture and the defining of a generation. The Academy will not do that for a British Film.

[Chapin Smith]

04:30 PM on 02/27/2012

I agree except for one thing. I don't think the foreignness was a big deal.

See: Lord of the Rings, which was an almost 100% New Zealand production.

[murphthesurf3]

04:35 PM on 02/27/2012

But the crews were all Hollywood. Money, money, money. Remember that more than half the Academy are not actors but those for whom production is the key to their livelihood.

[myersmyersG]

08:53 PM on 02/27/2012

it was no narnia or jolden compass!!! Oscar winners!!

[murphthesurf3]

11:37 PM on 02/27/2012

yeah...real winners there.

[imayes]

04:13 PM on 02/27/2012

I like Emma's "I can't believe he's got his hand on my butt" look in the front page photo.

[LaurieAnn]

04:02 PM on 02/27/2012

A Best Actor in a Supporting Role would not have been our of place for Alan Rickman as Snape.

[CT Independent]

03:54 PM on 02/27/2012

Not one of the 6 reasons has any merit.