Daniel Radcliffe: 'Harry Potter' and the Oscar snobs
February 8th, 2012
07:14 PM ET

Daniel Radcliffe: 'Harry Potter' and the Oscar snobs

Although he has said he didn't expect a best picture Oscar nod, Daniel Radcliffe is nonetheless a little "miffed" that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" didn't make it into the major Oscar categories when nominations were announced in January. (The movie did receive nods in three technical categories.)

In an interview with Radio Times on Tuesday, Radcliffe said the wildly lucrative "Harry Potter" franchise has been continuously ignored by the Academy. The last film in the series, "Deathly Hallows – Part 2," made $1.3 billion at the global box office, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com.

"I don't think the Oscars like commercial films, or kids' films, unless they're directed by Martin Scorsese," Radcliffe told the Radio Times. "I was watching 'Hugo' the other day and going, 'Why is this nominated and we're not?' I was slightly miffed."

READ MORE

Posted by
Filed under: Fandom
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. Buddy Hawkins

    The release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (released as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States) took place in 2001. The story follows Harry, a young boy who learns he is a wizard and is sent to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to begin his education; gaining the help of friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) along the way. Radcliffe received a seven figure salary for the lead role, but asserted that the fee was "not that important" to him;;:

    Freshest content article on our blog site
    <http://healthmedicinentral.com/

    May 2, 2013 at 1:09 am |
  2. Glenn

    Me too! Do you have any Christmas themed pics? Maybe a kiss under a mestlitoe? What about a kiss between two older people and imply it's Santa and Mrs. Claus?

    April 14, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
  3. MattC

    Here's the explanation: The MPAA drew a line in the sand about awarding/nominating movies that are part of a series or franchise after the backlash they got for giving LotR: Return of the King the Best Picture award in '03 (yes, all three were nominated, but the consensus winner that year would have been Mystic River had LotR not been for the series being snubbed twice before). That being said...

    ... none, and I mean NONE, of the Harry Potter movies deserved Academy Award nominations for Best Picture. Yes, they're are fun to watch, yes, they were technically pretty, but none of them were so amazing that they deserved to go up against the movies they would have faced that year. As for Hugo... well, there's always going to be a stinker in the bunch, but of the 9 movies nominated this year Hugo would have been the only one it could have competed with and, no matter how much you love Harry Potter, you couldn't say that half of a two-part finale to a series was worthy of competing with Hugo without admitting you're rooting for the series as a whole.

    I loved Harry Potter, but it didn't get snubbed because it was an amazing movie. It got snubbed because it was a good movie that couldn't compete with what came out this year without viewing the series as a whole. Simple as that.

    March 2, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
  4. clevercandi

    Hugo was AWFUL! I can't understand why it was nominated, either.

    Don't worry, Daniel. You made enough money off the Harry Potter films to last much longer than a gold statue of a (little) man. :)

    February 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
  5. mayflower

    Because the academy is only self-serving. The academy awards are nothing but a reason to get dressed up and pat themselves on the back before they go get plastered (again).

    February 16, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  6. jon

    Boo hoo. Hollywood already nominated enough children's movies for the best animated feature category.

    February 15, 2012 at 9:33 am |