The Lord of the Rings Vs. Harry Potter

De qué se hablaSomeone explain it to me...

Únase a LibraryThing para publicar.

The Lord of the Rings Vs. Harry Potter

Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.

1beatles1964
Editado: Mar 30, 2010, 1:36pm

I'm kinda confused as to why the Harry Potter movies haven't been winning a ton of Academy Awards like The Lord of the Rings movies did when they were up for Oscar Nominations at the time. When the first Harry Potter movie came out I figured Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone would sweep the Academy Awards. I figured that all of the Harry Potter films would really do great at the Academy Awards. This is puzzling to me why they haven't been reeling in the Awards especially since the Harry Potter books are so popular and also there will eventually be a total of 8 Harry Potter movies which meant of course a lot more chances to win more Oscars than The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I've watched the Harry Potter movies on DVD and feel they should've been walking away with some Oscars to their credit.

I realize the Harry Potter films are up against some pretty stiff competition for the Oscars but so of course was The Lord of the Rings trilogy and yet they swept the Oscars every year.

Beatles1964

2Anastasia169
Editado: Mar 31, 2010, 11:57pm

I wonder if this might be a generational thing. The people voting for the Oscars are (in general) either Boomers of Xers and they would have read the The Lord of the Rings as either children or young adults. The Harry Potter books are touchstones for the generation born after 1986 or so and thus there aren't as many Academy Voters who are going to vote for them with the same love and nostalgia that LotR's evokes. That is the only theory that I can come up with as the Harry Potter movies are visually stunning as well. Or, perhaps the J.R.R. Tolkien books are considered adult books and movies rather than children's and were thus considered worthy of an Oscar. And Tolkien has stood the test of time, which we don't yet know if Harry will.

Those are the only theories I can come up with that address you question.

3TeacherDad
Abr 1, 2010, 1:41am

I agree with the "generational" angle, and that goes for the subject matter as well -- the larger/complex world at war issues of TLOTR vs. the pre-teen hormones/orphan angst of the Potter series...

That said, I agree the visual effects used in the Potter movies have been amazing and award-worthy, sure they haven't been nominated/won before?

4varielle
Abr 1, 2010, 3:54am

It certainly seems that Rickman should get a best-supporting actor nod. Even though the special effects and set design are stunning, since everything seems to have gone 3-D, they may not even get considered. I seem to recall that most of the Oscars for LotR came after the last one was over, so maybe Harry Potter will see something when it finally wraps up.

5Anastasia169
Abr 1, 2010, 9:46pm

That's a good point varielle. And I agree that Rickman deserves at least a nod. He seems to be everyone's favorite character.

6StormRaven
May 13, 2010, 2:37pm

I'm not sure how one gets the idea that the Lord of the Rings movies "swept the Oscars year after year". The Fellowship of the Rings won four (cinematography, makeup, music, and special effects), and The Two Towers won two (sound editing and visual effects). Sure The Return of the King won a bunch (eleven to be exact), but that's hardly "sweeping the Oscars year after year".

As to why the Harry Potter movies have not yet won any, my opinion is that it is simply because they are not as good.

7Atomicmutant
May 13, 2010, 2:47pm

Lord of the Rings is a monumental achievement in literary adaptation and visual storytelling. So many things about the original work, from the manner of presentation to the epic scope of the surroundings, had been considered for many years "unfilmable".

The fact that they did it--that there was a unity and clarity of vision--that they pushed the boundaries of epic cinema--and made guys running around in tights and speaking with neo-Shakespearean affect seem believable and cool, well, there you go.

Harry Potter movies, while enjoyable, had far more cinema friendly material to draw upon, and haven't really pushed any boundaries in terms of characterization, adaptation, or cinema in the same way that Lord of the Rings did.

I remember wondering how in the world Annie Hall could beat Star Wars for best picture. Now that I'm grown up, I get it.

I still think that Raiders of the Lost Ark should have beat Chariots of Fire, though. By a mile.

8StormRaven
May 13, 2010, 2:51pm

I remember wondering how in the world Annie Hall could beat Star Wars for best picture. Now that I'm grown up, I get it.

I still think that Raiders of the Lost Ark should have beat Chariots of Fire, though. By a mile.


I think just the opposite, on both.

9Atomicmutant
May 13, 2010, 3:03pm

#8, well, there ya go.

One thing I have learned as I've watched the Academy Awards for years and years. It has almost nothing to do with how good a film is, it's all about internal Hollywood politics. So no one need fret about their favorite films not winning.

May I offer Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan as irrefutable proof of this?

10StormRaven
May 13, 2010, 3:08pm

9: Well, bascially Shakespeare in Love over any of the other nominees.

11beatles1964
Editado: May 13, 2010, 3:25pm

I still feel that The Shawshannk Redemption should've beaten out
Forrest Gump for Best Picture and Morgan Freeman should've been
out Tom Hanks for the Best Actor Award. The Shawshank Redemption
was a much better film than Forrest Gump and deserved to win Best Picture.

Beatles1964

12Fred_R
May 14, 2010, 11:27am

I thought the Harry Potter books were a decent read despite my initial misgivings. If I were younger when they came out I'd probably have been a huge fan. The movies.... not so much.

They're nice enough to look at, but the actual storylines end up pretty fragmented by the time they make the leap from book to movie. I thought the first movie did an ok job, but after that I found myself wondering how anyone could follow the story in a satisfying manner if they hadn't already read the book.

13karenmarie
May 14, 2010, 11:34am

#12 Fred_R - that's the exact problem my husband has. He hasn't read the books and asks tons of questions after he's seen one of the movies for the first time.

My daughter and I, on the other hand, are much more concerned about what they leave out each movie.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the 7th book as two movies.

14Atomicmutant
May 14, 2010, 11:45am

*is still mourning the absence of Blast-Ended Skrewts from the movies*.

15dchaikin
May 14, 2010, 12:07pm

I haven't liked the Harry Potter films I've seen, just sayin'. I only saw the first 3, I think . They're special effects heavy to the point of cutting up the storyline and not making a lot of sense if you haven't read the books (oops, I repeating Fred_R's point in post #12). They are also actor-look heavy and acting poor - to hell with Rickman's character, he just played a standard Hollywood caricature. I don't mean that as a criticism of him, his roll just wasn't anything special, IMO. Actually, more to the point, there wasn't room for anything special acting wise in the Potter films.

As for LOTR - I agree with everything Atomicmutant says in #7.

#11 Shawshank holds up better, but Gump was very good for that time. Pulp Fiction would have been a good winner that year too.

Looking at the wikipage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture ) Titanic sticks out as a movie that won a lot of awards, but which I didn't like. And yet I loved Good Will Hunting, L.A. Confidential and The Full Monty...but, anyway...

16karenmarie
May 18, 2010, 7:58am

#14 Atomicmutant - I miss the blast-ended skrewts too. I also miss S.P.E.W.