E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Daniel Radcliffe, right, who stars as Harry Potter alongside Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, is a bit annoyed that the film series never got a best picture nod.
There's no shortage of magic in the "Harry Potter" films, but there's one thing the beloved boy wizard could never conjure: Oscar love.
Although the franchise has racked up a total of 12 nominations, it hasn't won a single statuette. Even worse, it's never been recognized in any of the artistic categories, including Best Picture.
Star Daniel Radcliffe isn't a happy camper when it comes to the snub, and he's now giving people a piece of his mind...
In an interview with Radio Times, Radcliffe says, "I don't think the Oscars like commercial films or kids' films, unless they're directed by Martin Scorsese."
Indeed, Scorsese's new film, "Hugo," leads all Oscar contenders with 11 nominations. On the other hand, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" -- which was universally praised by critics -- scored only three nods, all of them in technical categories.
The discrepancy has riled up the 22-year-old. "I was watching Hugo the other day and going, 'Why is this nominated and we're not?' I was slightly miffed."
More from E!: Will Harry Potter Finally Get a Best Picture Oscar?
Ian Gavan / Getty Images
He also notes, "There's a certain amount of snobbery. It's kind of disheartening. I never thought I'd care. But it would've been nice to have some recognition, just for the hours put in."
There was lots of speculation that the "Harry Potter" series could finally score its first Best Picture nod for "Deathly Hallows: Part 2," in the same way that Oscar voters rewarded "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy with a Best Picture statuette for "The Return of the King." But those hopes were dashed when "Potter" came up short.
Radcliffe shouldn't feel too bad: His new movie, "Woman in Black," scared up a wicked $21 million in its opening weekend.
How's that for a post-Potter hat trick?!
Pics from E!: The Best 'Harry Potter' Moments Ever!
Do you think any of the "Harry Potter" films deserved Best Picture nods? Which ones?
Related content:
Leave a Comment:
Don't take it personal, Mr. Radcliffe. I think it's because it's all British-there's a snob set in Hollywood, that are probably jealous that they or their kids weren't in any of it. You and your fellows will not be forgotten by your audience.
The same mindset ignored Back to the Future, when no one remembers going to anything else that year. (And Steven Spielberg had directed a lot of blockbusters before getting his Oscar for Schindler's List.)
Or simply, they were never quite as good as he thinks they are. Big ego talking?
Just be consoled with the hundreds of million in dollars in recognition the movie made...
just a guess, but probably a bad thing to do if you want an award of some kind is to say you were drunk throughout the filming. you will just have to be satisfied with the 100 million.
I had to laugh at that too. He wants an Oscar for a film he readily admitted he was drunk in some parts....even going so far as to say "you can see my eyes are just blank" in some scenes.
Personally I loved the Harry Potter movies, and I DO think they deserve more of a nod then Hugo, or whatever it's called, however I think he can take comfort in the fact that from now until he dies, he will be famous for bringing the 'boy that lived' to life.
Radcliffe was sober for the two Deathly Hallows movies. It was mainly during Half-Blood Prince that he was drinking, from what he's said in other interviews. Of course, given the source material, I don't blame him, that book was atrocious compared to Order of the Phoenix (which the movie didn't do justice to for the ending).
I'm glad to see him finally dropping the British "stiff upper lip" on this though...maybe it's all the time spent in the US and New York. Even if DH2 didn't win a Best Picture nod, Alan Rickman should've at least gotten a Best Supporting Actor nod.
Last time I checked, Oscars were not awarded based on "the hours put in." Or for being at least as good as Hugo. Someone's ego seems to be swelling.
It's okay Daniel. I don't believe I've seen, let alone paid to see, any of the nominations (which were nominated?). But my children, and I'll admit my husband and I, enjoy wathching the HP movies. And that's saying something as we only started watching them this August.
Taken as a whole, the Harry Potter series is awesome...split up into parts, not so much....'cept maybe Azkaban. As they say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
"But it would've been nice to have some recognition, just for the hours put in." What? Millions of dollars and millions of fans world wide not enough? Go cry to some one who gives a $h!t.
There are a lot of people who look up to Daniel Radcliffe. The fact that he used a recent interview as a platform to describe how he was visibly drunk during the filming of Harry Potter shows his maturity level, and depth as an actor. No matter what role he plays, what extremes he goes to as an actor, he'll always be Harry Potter. Harry's just bent over a 2010 interview to which Scorsese claimed to never watched a Harry Potter film nor cared to.
I couldn't agree more with Daniel. I never watch the Oscars and don't plan to.
He's right. The most successful films commercially seldom seem to win. I can't remember the last time I watched the film that won the Best Picture award and enjoyed it more than a multitude of others. I have gotten to the point that I just never pay attention to the Oscars any more. And I seldom listen to the 'critics' because they aren't any better.
There's no accounting for which films get nominated for Best Picture. There never has been--though, with the large number of nominees these days (9 this year) the field is more wide-open than ever. Still, it's rare for sequels to get nominated--The Lord of the Rings and The Godfather films are the only exceptions I know of.
And as for Hugo being a children's film and getting nominated because it was directed by Scorsese, I think Radcliffe is wrong on both counts: First, while Hugo was indeed based on a children's book, the film adaptation is not categorically a "children's film" and in fact its length (about 2 1/4 hours) and is relatively slow pace make it difficult for most children to get through...not to mention the detailed lesson in French silent film history that makes up a good chunk of the story is not the stuff of typical kiddie movies! Second, to say that a film gets nominated simply because it is directed by Scorsese is to ignore history. It took Scorsese nearly 40 years of reputable filmmaking at the highest levels to finally direct a film (The Departed) that was awarded the Best Picture Oscar. (And that film is, in my opinion, nowhere near his best work.) Scorsese is hardly a shoo-in in an Oscar race.
Daniel -- you should not take this personally...the Oscars are all political crap anyway. You should need no more evidence than Avatar vs Hurt Locker...it isn't how good you are it's who you know and who your friends are. All of the Harry Potter films were EXCELLENT. The best revenge is living well, right?
Science fiction and fantasy films have never done well at the Oscars, at least in the "major" categories. That's why you have the Saturn Awards, which recognizes that genre while the Motion Picture Academy ignores it. This is not a new phenomenon. Same thing happened with Star Wars back in the mid-1970's.
Its because the whole Harry Potter idea is ridiculous. Don´t get me wrong, magic castles in Scotland, OK. Flying on broomsticks, no problem. Magic potions, obviously. BUT a ginger kid with TWO friends? RIDICULOUS!