It’s the second biggest film series of all time, loved by millions of people around the world, and now available on Netflix. Yet despite being nominated for 12 Oscars for eight films, the Harry Potter series has never won one.
Thankfully, the Wizarding World was finally recognized by the Academy in 2017, when Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them broke the curse and Colleen Atwood won Best Costume Design. The two sequels failed to garner any nominations between them.
Read more: Everything we know about the Harry Potter TV series
But why were its hugely successful predecessors completely overlooked at the Oscars? We have a few theories.
They are for “children”
Although the box office results suggested that a lot of people over the age of 14 went to see the films, the impression was always that it was a family series and not much different from an animated film with real actors.
And that’s true to a certain extent. Although the saga grew darker and darker, it was what Hollywood called a “four-quadrant” blockbuster, specifically aimed at attracting younger children to the cinema alongside adult films.
Such films rarely do well at the Academy Awards. There is a whole category for this cute kid stuff – Best Animated Feature – right?
This is a problem that probably plagued Star Wars: The Force Awakens in 2016 (which is ironic considering the first film won six Oscars in 1978), while Lord of the Rings was perceived as having enough grown-up weight to be more awards-worthy.
Acting was never considered valid
It’s overwhelming to look back at the franchise and see the number of legendary (and award-winning) actors that have appeared in it.
Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent, Maggie Smith and Julie Christie all won acting Oscars, while Helena Bonham-Carter, John Hurt, Ralph Fiennes, Miranda Richardson, Imelda Staunton, Richard Harris, Julie Walters and Gary Oldman were all nominated.
And that doesn’t even include brilliant actors like Kenneth Branagh, Michael Gambon and Alan Rickman.
But none of them ever got anything for their roles in Harry Potter. This may have something to do with the quality and/or size of their roles (although Rickman’s performance in the finished film was certainly award-worthy in our opinion).
Read more here: Harry Potter director Chris Columbus would return for the film Cursed Child with the original cast (People, 3 min. reading time)
It is more likely that, in the eyes of voters, films of this kind are technical masterpieces and the actors are viewed as props between the action scenes.
This is further exacerbated by the acting performances of the child stars, which were passable at best throughout much of the series. When these performances are the focus of the story, it can be difficult for Oscar voters to view the acting as award-worthy (whatever that really means).
The early CGI was a bit bad
Yes, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was nominated for Best Visual Effects, as was its penultimate installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.
But if you think back to the first two films, it wasn’t quite so rosy. That’s a shame, because FX is often where these types of films get Oscars, and if they had been brilliant from the start, it’s safe to assume that eight films later they probably would have gotten one, just for all the hard work they put in.
However, you only have to look at the troll (above) in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone to see how mediocre CGI can be despite a multimillion-dollar budget.
Then there is Voldemort on the back of Professor Quirrell’s head and Firenze the Centaur. Both scenes, it should be said, are no longer relevant today. Fortunately, the situation was better when Dobby appeared.
The directors were not famous enough
Although they’d never admit it, Oscar voters love a good selfie with a celebrity, so they were probably disappointed when little-known British TV director David Yates (below) took over the series starting at number five.
Chris Columbus was well-known but more of a mainstream, middle-of-the-road director, while Mike Newell (“Goblet of Fire”) was an unknown, and Alfonso Cuarón was a critical darling with the well-received “Y Tu Mamá También” (And I Am My Mother Too) but had not yet become the Hollywood great who won the Oscar for “Gravity” and became a serious Oscar contender this year with “Roma.”
Read more here: What the JK Rowling controversy could mean for the Harry Potter franchise (Variety, 13 minutes reading time)
Compared to Spielberg, Peter Jackson and James Cameron – all of whom were hugely successful but also considered Oscar-worthy – it is not surprising that Harry Potter is not considered by the Academy to be sophisticated enough to deserve an awards ceremony.
The perfect example of this is Hugo, the mediocre children’s adventure from the critically beloved Martin Scorsese, which received 11 Oscar nominations (and won 5). The last Harry Potter film was technically just as good and far more popular, but it didn’t win anything.
They are blockbusters
With a box office gross of £58 million so far, 2016’s Best Picture Oscar winner Spotlight is one of the worst box office winners of all time. 12 Years a Slave, Birdman, The Artist – all Oscar winners, but hardly global blockbusters.
The host network is not happy about this, as it generally leads to fewer viewers (viewership of the Oscars is currently declining), but the winners of the Best Picture award are usually not huge hits, which obviously puts the Potter series at an immediate disadvantage.
Read more: Should Harry Potter really be rebooted?
Of course there are exceptions, whether it’s Titanic or Avatar, but remember that this is as much about a) a brilliant awards campaign as it is about b) being rewarded for turning a film that everyone thought was going to be a huge flop into a huge hit and/or for pushing the film form forward and creating something truly original (regardless of how good the film itself actually is).
In contrast, the Harry Potter franchise, especially the later films, was consistently entertaining, technically sophisticated and featured many brilliant performances. Maintaining that level of quality across 8 films was surely worth an Oscar or two, right?
