Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:06, 25 March 2009 editGran2 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,809 edits →The article says seven BAFTA nominations!: re← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:21, 4 November 2024 edit undoEsowteric (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers31,008 edits Undid test edit in revision 1255362167 by 159.242.68.42 (talk)Tag: Undo
(216 intermediate revisions by 89 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{articlehistory\|
			{{British English}}
	action1=GAC\|
			{{Article history
	action1oldid=147981683\|
			\|action1=GAC
	action1link=Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#GA fail\|
	action1date=~~2007-07-~~31\|		\|action1date=31 July 2007
			\|action1link=Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#GA fail
	action1result=not listed\|
			\|action1result=not listed
			\|action1oldid=147981683

	action2=GAC\|		\|action2=GAC
			\|action2date=25 September 2007
	action2link=Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#GA Pass\|
			\|action2link=Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#GA Pass
	action2date=2007-09-25\|
	action2result=listed\|		\|action2result=listed
			\|action2oldid=391618937

			\|action3=WPR
	currentstatus=GA\|
			\|action3date=04:39, 12 January 2008
	topic=arts}}
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)
	{{WPHP\|class=GA\|importance=Top}}
			\|action3result=reviewed
	{{Film\|class=GA\|importance=High\|old-peer-review=yes\|British-task-force=yes\|American-task-force=yes}}
			\|action3oldid=183655748

			\|action4=PR
	{\| class="infobox" width="315px"
			\|action4date=19:20, 17 October 2010
	\|-
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/archive1
	! align="center" \| ]<br />]
			\|action4result=reviewed
	----
			\|action4oldid=391283823
	\|-

	\|
			\|action5=FAC
			\|action5date=21:11, 19 October 2010
			\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/archive1
			\|action5result=not promoted
			\|action5oldid=391618937

			\|topic=film
			\|currentstatus=GA
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|
			{{WikiProject Film\|British=yes\|American=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Novels\|harry-potter-task-force=yes\|harry-potter-importance=low\|importance = low}}
			}}
			{{Archive box\|
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 1
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(365d)
			\|archive = Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/Archive %(counter)d
			}}


			{{Refideas
			\|1={{cite web\|first=Jessica\|last=Wolf\|url=http://www.hive4media.com/news/html/Product_article.cfm?article_ID=2569\|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20020618083200/http://www.hive4media.com:80/news/html/Product_article.cfm?article_ID=2569\|title=Harry Potter DVD Features Include Games, More\|website=hive4media.com\|archivedate=June 18, 2002\|date=February 7, 2002\|accessdate=}}
			}}

	==''Philosopher's Stone'' vs ''Sorcerer's Stone'' debate summary==		==''Philosopher's Stone'' vs ''Sorcerer's Stone'' debate summary==
Line 39:		Line 71:
	===Further actions===		===Further actions===
	====Administrator's Noticeboard / Incidents====		====Administrator's Noticeboard / Incidents====
	In mid-January 2008, some of the parties in support of the title change sought relief from ] - see . The inquiry was turned away within an hour as not an issue for ANI to resolve, but rather for ], with recommendations to take the dispute to an RfC, which was already underway but near to closing.		In mid-January 2008, some of the parties in support of the title change sought relief from ] - see . The inquiry was turned away within an hour as not an issue for ANI to resolve, but rather for ], with recommendations to take the dispute to an RfC, which was already underway but near to closing.

	====Request for Mediation====		====Request for Mediation====
	Parties in support of changing the title also sought relief from the ] - see ''''']'''''. The case was rejected after about 5 hours, as the involved parties did not agree to mediation.		Parties in support of changing the title also sought relief from the ] - see ''''']'''''. The case was rejected after about 5 hours, as the involved parties did not agree to mediation.

	====Request for Arbitration====		====Request for Arbitration====
	Parties in support of the title change also sought relief from the ] - see . The Arbitrators declined and rejected the case as a content dispute, and the case was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice.		Parties in support of the title change also sought relief from the ] - see . The Arbitrators declined and rejected the case as a content dispute, and the case was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice.

	===Similar discussion elsewhere===		===Similar discussion elsewhere===
	A similar discussion debate was held during April and July 2007 on ~~the ''~~]'' ~~talk page - see the archive .~~		A similar discussion debate was held during April and July 2007. See ].
	</div>		</div>

			==Music Situation/Remove Conrad Pope's Credit==
	==Large Edit==
			Why are we crediting Orchestrator ]? There is no reason to. We should save his name for the ]. Also, he's not the ''only'' orchestrator for the first three Potters, seriously, why don't we just credit every single individual who was associated with the music? The music is by ] and no one else, why should we credit someone who didn't write a single piece of music for the film, but only arranged it? My opinion, remove his credit and relocate it to the soundtrack page, because if there isn't a credit for Pope on the Soundtrack page, why should there be a credit for him on the film's page? ''] ]'', 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	I just made a large edit to the artice, removing several sections.
	The cast section was completely unnecessary, as it can be viewed in IMDB. The name alteration section pertains to the book primarily (because the movie follows the book). The music section is rather random, but if anyone feels the need to integrate it somewhere, here it is:

	The film features a score composed by ], the fourth collaboration between the composer and director Chris Columbus. The score re-established John Williams as the top film composer, and leader of the ] style. The score features many themes, the main theme, or ], being featured at the beginning of every Harry Potter film so far.

	] 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	----
	regarding the final inconsistency, Harry '''did''' see Diggory die in the goblet of fire, so this isn't as big of a deal as the article makes it seem.

	:Yes, that was the whole point -- the reason Harry saw the thestrals is because he saw Cedric's death at the end of GoF, not because he saw Quirrell "die" in the first book. There is no inconsistency, you're correct on that point. ] 01:36, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

	:: There '''will be''' an inconsistency if the explanation for seeing the Thestrals (sp?) remains true to the book. In the Book universe, one can see the Thestrals after they have witnessed and had time to understand a death. In the movie universe, it will be four years since Harry saw someone die, and never saw the Thestrals in the intervening time. ] 14:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::The fifth movie has been released, and Luna Lovegood explains about the Thestrals to Harry. She only says that, to see a Thestral, one must "see the death", or something like that. But I think, beyond that, that one must see someone you care about dying, which would explain why Harry sees the Thestrals after Cedric died, and not after Quirrell died, 'cause he didn't care about Quirrell. <font face="Verdana">] </font><font face="Tahoma" size="1">] ]</font> 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Name inconsistencies ==

	Not to beat a dead horse, but this really should be "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The movie was made by an American company and paid for with American money. The movie was released in America (pop. ~300 mil) as "Sorcerer's Stone." It was released in Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia (combined pop. ~100 mil). The naming conventions state that when naming an article of this nature, users are to "use the title more commonly recognized by English readers." This means, it should go without saying, readers of the English language, not readers from England.

	il <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I understand the name problem with the US and I had two comments:
	# The IMDB page uses "Sorceror's Stone" in the title and the page heading, so the imdb template title should also reflect that.
	# Can we get a poster for the UK version to use in the infobox? It's a little confusing to see "Philosopher" in the infobox banner and "Sorceror" in the poster.
	--] ] 17:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
	:OK, I was able to find the UK poster, so I made these changes. I'm still not thrilled with the formatting of the page, as the three images are hard to place on the page without muddling everything up, so if you have any suggestions on better layouts, please be bold and implement them. --] ] 18:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
	:: It's ''Sorcerer'', not ''Sorceror''. Just saying, hehe. <font face="Verdana">] </font><font face="Tahoma" size="1">] ]</font> 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


	Not sure where to put it, but in talking about Harry's being given to the Dursleys, it should say "Dursleys," not "Dursley's." <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	==Quirrel==
	It says that in the film version Quirrel was "cremated" where Harry touched him, but I seem to remember him being turned to stone. Which is it?<br />
	] 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
	:If memory serves (I unfortunately don't have the DVD here to check), he turned to a statue of ash that then crumbled, similar to (SPOILER FOR INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE! SPOILER AHEAD!) what happened to two vampires in the Interview with the Vampire movie. So he looked like a stone statue at first, but he was actually turned to ash like a person who'd been cremated. --] 02:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

	== quidditch scene ==

	I seem to remember the scene where Lee Jordan, the announcer, and McGonagall fight over the mic being in the theatrical version, but it was absent from the DVD, even the deleted scenes. Did I just imagine this or did it really happen this way, I think I am right because my brother seemed to remember the same thing happening.
	] 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
	:While I would have liked to have seen it, I'm sorry to see Lee's commentary is never biased in the movies and he and McGonagall do not argue. --''']''']''<font color="green">]</font>]'' <sup>(] \| ])</sup> 02:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Fullmetal Alchemist ==

	*There have been some rumors of the Philosopher's Stone in Harry Potter is the same type as in the one in "]" anime/manga, this is due to the fact that the versions of stone in both are exactly the same and can both grant large amounts of power.

	What does that mean and why is it here? Was ''Fullmetal Alchemist'' inspired by ''Harry Potter''? The ] is a legend that long predates these works of fiction. --] 05:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Not to mention a large amount of differences in the creation of one in FMA and such...involving the use of many human souls and such...But that's not here or there. >.> ] 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

	Yes, ] long predates either work of fiction and there is no reason for either to be connected. --] 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Differences between European and North American versions ==
	This is so I can clear something up on ]. Someone is claiming that the Canadian release of the film is different from the US version. It comes down to the name of the stone. We all know that the book was originally 'Philosopher's stone' but for some reason the US call it the 'Sorcerer's Stone'. This editor from the WP,DR page states that the Canadian version has scenes added to it where the characters say Philosopher's instead of Sorcerer's, thus changing the length of the film, thus making WP,DR out of sync with the film. Can someone confirm with me that, in the US release, the characters definitely call the stone the Sorcerer's Stone? --] 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	::In the US release, they say, always, Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's. I think you are saying that, in the Canadian release, the movie was called Sorcerer's Stone but they say Philosopher's (which would be a hell of mistake). Can you explain yourself? <font face="Verdana">] </font><font face="Tahoma" size="1">] ]</font> 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Harry, I am your father!==
	I think the HP1 movie' Harry<-->Voldi battle scene differs a lot from the HP1 book, but it is not mentioned in the article. The film scripts a quite Star Wars-like situation. "Let's become allies, hand over the stone and we can resurrect your beloved ones". This is more or less the same what what Palpatine says to Anakin after killing Mace Windu in SW:RoS. The HP1 book says nothing about resurrecting Harry's parents, why was this invented? JKR always emphasizies HP is not SW. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	:But the Philosopher's Stone can't do that. The Resurrection Stone, presented in the seventh book, ''can'' do that. I think Voldemort said that just for Harry to give him the Stone. But the creators of the movie "guessed" about the Resurrection Stone... interesting (but wouldn't have sense, since Voldemort doesn't know about the Deathly Hallows). --<font face="Verdana">] </font><font face="Tahoma" size="1">] ]</font> 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::No... I think Voldy was just trying to get Harry to give him the stone, and I think the movie writers were just trying to illustrate his attempts. They changed a lot, obviously. I have a feeling the movie creators only intended that line to be for that purpose, not to make any strange allusions or guesses to any later books. But then again, I don't know.] (]) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Star Wars Revenge of the Sith came out after the HP1 movie. ] (]) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

	==Japanese seiyū==
	Since there's nowhere else to put it...
	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-
	!Character
	!English voice actor
	!Japanese seiyū
	\|-
	!Harry Potter
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Ronald Weasley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Hermoine Granger
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Draco Malfoy
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Neville Longbottom
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Oliver Wood
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Percy Weasley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Fred Weasley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!George Weasley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Albus Dumbledore
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Minerva McGonagle
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Rubeus Hagrid
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Severus Snape
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Filius Flitwick
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Quirinus Quirrell
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Madam Hooch
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Argus Filch
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Molly Weasley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Vernon Dursley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Petunia Dursley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Dudley Dursley
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Nearly Headless Nick
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Lord "He-Whom-We-Don't-Care-To-Name" Voldemort
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Mister Ollivander
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	!Sorting Hat
	\|]
	\|]
	\|} ] 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

	== References ==

	Some of these references seem to be randomly assigned, having nothing to do with the sentences they are citing. Anyone know what happened? ] 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

	And almost exactly half of them are pages written by some Brian Linder. How has this happened? ] 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Because they just are? Is there really any problem, what sentences do you exactly mean. And yes the references are written by Brian Linder... why is that a problem, IGN is a reliable source... ]<sup>]</sup> 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

	::I was just wondering if it was just because it was handy, or if there weren't other sources that said the same. It would probably be better to use something more definate where possible; for example, rather than speculation that filming might be taking place at London Zoo, and that it will probably be for the scene with the snake, if we could find something saying that filming of that scene took place at London Zoo. ] 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

	== U.S. Release Date ==
	This movie was actually released in the U.S. on November 16, 2001 according to the IMDB, Yahoo!, and many other resourceful movie websites; I also know this is true because I live in the U.S. and saw it in November! Whoever put in the article that it was released here on December 5, 2001 was either extremely misinformed or did it on purpose. Regardless, this is a pretty discreditable and embarassing error for Misplaced Pages and I'm quite surprised that no one has changed or even brought this up yet, so I did. ] 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)(the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

	==GA fail==
	This article is a good start, but important sections are missing and several sections are simply lists. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
	*The article needs a "Themes" section. Material for this section can be found in the work of film scholars and film reviewers.
	*The article needs a "Cinematic style" section that discusses the artistry of the film: editing, cinematography, etc. Currently, only the soundtrack is discussed.
	*The lead is not a standalone summary of the article (see ] for hints on writing leads).
	*The article needs to be copy edited. The major problems are:
	:*Repetitive diction (as in "ordinary" or "immortal" in the "Plot Summary").
	:*Wordiness (as in "became an instant fan ever since" in the "Development" section).
	:*Awkward syntax (as in '' Canterbury Cathedral was touted as a possible location for Hogwarts, only for Warner Bros. offer being rejected because of concern over the film's "pagan" theme.'')
	*Is it possible to move the "Cast and characters" section lower in the article? It dominates the first part of the article and gives very little information for its size.
	*The "Casting" subsection under "Production" is a prose list. If the only information in the sentence is that so-and-so was cast as a particular character, it doesn't need to be there - the "Cast" list is already there. Only include interesting information beyond that in the "Casting" section.
	*"Filming" is also a prose list. List only the interesting and important locations, not every single one.
	*"Differences between the film and the book" is also a prose list. This would probably work better as a list or table, actually.
	*"Marketing" is another prose list. Try to make coherent paragraphs that focus on particular topics.
	*The "Rotten Tomatoes" rating should be taken out. That is a very vague number and not considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia.
	*The "Critical reception" section needs to be expanded. I would assume that every major movie critic around the world commented on this film. The current selection seems US-centric and thin. Also, more world-wide numbers on the film would be helpful; it was not only seen in the US. ] \| ] 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

	If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. ] \| ] 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

	==GA Pass==
	I am passing this article keeping in mind that major problems of the last review have been cleared.
	*Missing sections: Effects, Music etc. are more than enough. There is no need of Cinematic Style as this is not an FA nom.
	*Prose Lists: All is fine.
	*Language: OK right now.] 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

	I could be rong, but insn't Rawlings book about Sourcers, not Philosiphers? -Abc <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:No. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Different running times ==

	Philosopher's Stone runs for 147 (it says on the DVD) not 152. I think 152 is for Sorcerer's Stone <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Which would be strange, since "Philosopher's" is a longer word than "Sorcerer's". <font face="Verdana">] </font><font face="Tahoma" size="1">] ]</font> 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
	:: Did you remember to add sales tax? --] 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

	:::The actual running time of the film is 152 minutes. Because of differences between the PAL frame rate (25 fps) and the standard film frame rate (24 fps), ] --] (]) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

	==Difference between book and film==
	One difference that has to be included is the fate of Quirrell. In the book Harry doesn't actually kill him (or at least Dumbledore gives that impression as he places the blame on Voldemort) but in the film Harry directly (if unintentionally) kills Quirrell by touching his face. I have added this to the article. ] (]) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Although I know its true, unfortunately it can only be included if it is ] with a ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I concur; there will always be differences between the source material and its adaptation. The way to avoid making an ] listing of differences is to rely on independent ], as Gran stated above. We can't purport to state that this particular difference or that particular difference is appropriate for the encyclopedic context of an article. If you're interested in including how the fate of Quirrell differed, try searching for a reliable source that makes that connection, and it could be discussed here to see if the connection is worthwhile. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

	== Archive RFC seperately? ==

	During the RFC on the title, it was mentioned that this matter has been discussed before, and no doubt it will be discussed again. On matters that are likely to crop up regularly, it seems common to devote a named archive page to the subject. Might I suggest that the RFC, when archiving comes around, is given such a page to help deal with future debates? ] (]) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Agreed. Both of the ''Title'' RfC discussions will be archived in due time. Let's try and let the dust settle a bit. --''']''' ( <sup>]</sup>/<small>'']''</small> ) 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Wow I forget to check this discussion for 9 days and it explodes even more out of control than it already had well it is over now so hopefully we can just put this behind us, I do have a serious point to make however and that is as well as archiving it separately can we add this to the Harry Potter Project page or something for quick reference in the future, don't know if I'm allowed since I'm not part of the project or anything ] (]) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::As a ] in presumably good standing, you do not have to be "part of the project" to ''']''' or make suggestions or recomendations, either here or there or at any Misplaced Pages page (including a ]), that is not temporarily protected from editing due to vandalism or edit warring. Even anonymous IP editors can contribute freely on any and all unprotected pages. Project pages serve as a sort of clearinghouse for bouncing ideas and organizing formats and such, and "membership" is optional - it is more of a ceremonial badge that indicates a User's interest in contributing, perhaps regularly, to related articles, willingness to discuss issues that might come up, and helping out with housekeeping tasks and to-do lists. Anyway please feel free to bring it up yourself at the ]'s talk page, or find a suitable way to work it in to the current to-do list. Thanks! --''']''' ( <sup>]</sup>/<small>'']''</small> ) 14:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Speaking of the project...allow me to quote what the project says: "Rowling's first book was published in one foreign country under the name ''Sorcerer's Stone'', giving ''Sorcerer's Stone'' the same status as the French or German translations ("''Harry Potter a l'ecole des sorciers''" and "''Harry Potter und der Stein der Weisen''" respectively). Rowling has stated that she regrets allowing the name to be changed. All articles within the scope of the Harry Potter WikiProject should therefore use the title ''Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'' in every instance after the first, noting the alternate tile at the first instance of mention, ie., high-traffic pages warrant the following statement: "''Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'' (published as ''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'' in the US)..." at the first instance on a page. After that, only refer to the original title." Therefore, we are to use PS and not SS. Case closed. ] (]) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

			== Small change ==
	{{Y}} Done (archiving that is...) --''']''' ( <sup>]</sup>/<small>'']''</small> ) 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

			As the page is writtien in British English I changed "gotten" to "got". ] (]) 20:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
	==Village pump==
	The case for changing the title of this article was never likely to be settled by mediation, and certainly not by arbitration (which is for dealing with ''conduct'' issues that the community cannot resolve). The only sensible way to pursue such a case, after rejection at article RFC, is to take the principle to ] and see if there is a strong feeling either way within the communty that hasn't yet been tapped by discussion on the page itself. --] 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

			== Needs an explanation as to why the name was changed in the US ==
	==But why?==
	Why exactly was the movie given a different title for the US version? It's not explained in the article. -] (]) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

	~~:Because the book was given a different title~~ in the ~~US,~~ so ~~the~~ ~~film~~ ~~matches~~ ~~it.~~ ~~And that~~ was ~~only~~ ~~because ] thought~~ the ~~word~~ ~~"philosopher's" would be too confusing for Americans, or something.~~ ]~~<sup>~~]~~</sup>~~ 13:46, 7 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		Nowhere in the article does it explain why the name was changed in the USA. Why? ] (]) 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
			:We need reliable sources explaining the change. Here's an explanation: . <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 11:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

			== The American name of the first Harry Potter film ==
	::I think that 'confusing' is the wrong word. It was just because the word 'Philosopher' has a different connotation in the United States. 'Sorcerer' made it clear that the stone was a magical device. ] (]) 10:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

			The easy solution to this disagreement is to list both names of the film in the title of the article and the article itself, identifying "Philosopher's Stone" with Europe, and "Sorcerer's Stone" with the U.S. ] (]) 20:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	:This has been discussed at great length in the archived discussions here and at the book's pages, and in countless discussions at other sites (Google it!). In summary, a '']'' is a "known" mythical object that has a longstanding history in (mostly) English/European mythology and legends, dating back hundreds of years to the dark ages and beyond (], ], et al). Rowling's use of the original ''Philosopher's Stone'' title made complete sense for her (mostly) young British readers who are generally up on their King Arthur legends. However when the book was to be introduced in the Americas, the concept of a Philosopher's Stone and Arthurian legends was, well, rather foreign. American children have (or had) only had a vague idea of a Merlin/] type ], with the pointy hat, ], and magic wands and staffs, and a rather negative image of witches and warlocks (perhaps remaining from the ]), but the concept of a Philosopher's Stone was not a well known or understood quantity in the New World. About the closest thing they had to grasp a magically extended life was Ponce de Leon's ], which comes up in elementary history classes. Anyway, right or wrong, the US publisher felt that American Children, who apparently judge a book by it's cover (or title), could not easily grasp the magical nature of a Philosopher's Stone, but Sorcerer's would do the trick. They also required Rowling to change all the original "British" spellings (colour) to "American" spellings (color), perhaps to avoid confusing the children; and Philosopher's was changed to Sorcerer's, simply because it sounds "more magical" and perhaps "upbeat" and "interesting" that way. Being her first book, Rowling at the time did not have any power or influence to dissuade or prevent this fundamental title change. You can bet the house however that if ''Philosopher's Stone'' had been the name of the ''last'' book of the series, then it would have been left alone. Many of us were around to see and participate in the seven-month wiki-debate on the meaning of the ''Deathly Hallows'', and it spawned much deep research and speculation - including the creation of the ]s wiki-article in a matter of days after the release of just the title of the book. By this time, Rowling's audience included teens who "grew up" reading Potter, and also plenty of adult fans, who eagerly dived in and learned all they could about Hallows before the book came out. But none of that would have happened if Rowling was still just an unknown author from Great Britain, who wrote her first children's book about some unusual children going to an unusual school learning some unusual things and having a series of unusual and dangerous adventures on the way. At Book 1, the Editors and Publishers had the power. By book 2 or 3, Rowling had the power to write and title her books pretty much however she wanted. One could hope that, some day, Rowling might produce edited Special Anniversary Editions, which would clean up some of the small mistakes, and clarify some of the contradictory details; and in the process, restore Book 1 to it's proper original title worldwide. American youngsters should be able to "handle it", particularly if they can handle Deathly Hallows and such. In any case, the reasoning behind the title change for the Americas is available, but the extent to which it must be expounded upon in the article is not as clear. How many sentences are required to say essentially that "the US Publisher forced the title change (right or wrong) on behalf of their youthful readers". --''']''' ( <sup>]</sup>/<small>'']''</small> ) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

			:The American name already redirects to this article and is listed promptly in the first sentence of the lead. This seems sufficient to me. ] (]) 21:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	== The article says seven BAFTA nominations!==

			:It's fine as it is, coming out first in the UK, so using that title. The leading sentence already reads: {{tq\|Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (also known as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States)}}. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 21:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	So I listed them! ] (]) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I don't think a list is needed, it works fine as a paragraph, although I have now spelt out all of the BAFTA nominations. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:21, 4 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 25, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 12, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
October 17, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Novels: Harry Potter Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Wolf, Jessica (February 7, 2002). "Harry Potter DVD Features Include Games, More". hive4media.com. Archived from the original on June 18, 2002.

Philosopher's Stone vs Sorcerer's Stone debate summary

The following summarizes archived debate discussions regarding motions to change the name of the article from the British Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to the American Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. There are additional shorter discussions and queries on the same general subject that have also been archived along with the main discussions.

Requested move

The first major actionable discussion debate was proposed in July 2007 as a formal move request to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film), which was in turn in response to a discussion debate entitled Why the different name?. Both are topics located at the Move Request subpage, with the Why the different name? discussion included there as a preamble to the move request. The result of the straw poll move request survey: Three users (including one anonymous IP user) supported moving the article, to 16 users opposing the move. An ensuing discussion debate included 13 participants, with three firmly debating in support of the move, six firmly against, and three more appearing to be neutral acting as clerks: asking general questions, or making general observations without stating a clear position for or against. The conclusion was there was no consensus to move the article, and the subject was closed by a neutral non-participating third-party after 4 days.

RfC: Title of this article

In January 2008 after another Title discussion, the general subject was taken up again as a formal Request for Comment on the title - see the Title RfC subpage. Many of the participants in the original Move Request discussion rejoined, and many new ones joined in. There was no formal "poll" but rather a re-examination and discussion debate of the issues raised from the July debate. The discussion included approximately 25 participants, with 2 participants debating in support of changing the title to Sorcerer's Stone, 22 debating against, and one neutral. After one month the RfC was closed by a neutral non-participating third-party. The precursor discussion from Aug-Dec 2007 that resulted in the RfC is included as a preamble. The subsequent Notice of Mediation announcement and discussion (see also Further Actions below) is tagged on at the end of the RfC subpage as a postscript.

Further actions

Administrator's Noticeboard / Incidents

In mid-January 2008, some of the parties in support of the title change sought relief from the Administrator's Noticeboard of Incidents - see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone. The inquiry was turned away within an hour as not an issue for ANI to resolve, but rather for dispute resolution, with recommendations to take the dispute to an RfC, which was already underway but near to closing.

Request for Mediation

Parties in support of changing the title also sought relief from the Mediation Committee - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). The case was rejected after about 5 hours, as the involved parties did not agree to mediation.

Request for Arbitration

Parties in support of the title change also sought relief from the Arbitration Committee - see Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone. The Arbitrators declined and rejected the case as a content dispute, and the case was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice.

Similar discussion elsewhere

A similar discussion debate was held during April and July 2007. See Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)/Archive 3#What makes a film from a certain country?.

Music Situation/Remove Conrad Pope's Credit

Why are we crediting Orchestrator Conrad Pope? There is no reason to. We should save his name for the soundtrack page. Also, he's not the only orchestrator for the first three Potters, seriously, why don't we just credit every single individual who was associated with the music? The music is by John Williams and no one else, why should we credit someone who didn't write a single piece of music for the film, but only arranged it? My opinion, remove his credit and relocate it to the soundtrack page, because if there isn't a credit for Pope on the Soundtrack page, why should there be a credit for him on the film's page? ThatsGoodTelevision ThatsGoodTelevision, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Small change

As the page is writtien in British English I changed "gotten" to "got". 147.147.29.0 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs an explanation as to why the name was changed in the US

Nowhere in the article does it explain why the name was changed in the USA. Why? MisterZed (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We need reliable sources explaining the change. Here's an explanation: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was renamed in the US because Americans don’t know what a philosopher is. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The American name of the first Harry Potter film

The easy solution to this disagreement is to list both names of the film in the title of the article and the article itself, identifying "Philosopher's Stone" with Europe, and "Sorcerer's Stone" with the U.S. Dcenters (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The American name already redirects to this article and is listed promptly in the first sentence of the lead. This seems sufficient to me. DonIago (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine as it is, coming out first in the UK, so using that title. The leading sentence already reads: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (also known as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: