Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 22 July 2007

Template:WPHP

Film B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has an archived peer review.

Large Edit

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 John Williams, 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 leitmotif style. The score features many themes, the main theme, or Hedwig's Theme, being featured at the beginning of every Harry Potter film so far.

Alex 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. ugen64 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. MrItty 14:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Name inconsistencies

I understand the name problem with the US and I had two comments:

1. The IMDB page uses "Sorceror's Stone" in the title and the page heading, so the imdb template title should also reflect that.
2. 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.

--DropDeadGorgias (talk) 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. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is seriously getting annoying. People, this is an AMERICAN film BASED ON A BRITISH book; therefore, the BOOK page should have its proper BRITISH name, and the MOVIE page should be titled with SORCERER'S STONE. It doesn't matter that the cast was British. PLENTY of American movies have a British cast -- it doesn't make it a British movie. Even IMDB has this under Sorcerer's Stone. Get over it. That's the name of the movie. You don't like it? Too bad...

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?
Alex 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. --Icarus 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. Will 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. --Fbv65edel 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 "FullMetal Alchemist" 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 philosopher's stone is a legend that long predates these works of fiction. --Mrwojo 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. >.> 72.72.253.41 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Differences between European and North American versions

This is so I can clear something up on Wizard People, Dear Reader. 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? --Thaddius 06:47, 7 April 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Japanese seiyū

Since there's nowhere else to put it...

Cat's Tuxedo 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? Skittle 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And almost exactly half of them are pages written by some Brian Linder. How has this happened? Skittle 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... Gran 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. Skittle 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the different name?

The article doesn't explain WHY the name is different in the US? PseudoEdit _(track) 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well why should it? This is the film, the title was renamed for the book, so a reason should be included there. Gran 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, sorry. I have found the explanation in that article. Cheers PseudoEdit _(track) 09:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was a bit rude, so don't mention it. Gran 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion may garner some outrage, but maybe the title of the article should be changed to the American title. I am a Briton and not trying to be biased in any way here but it's just because it is an American film as it was produced by Warner Bros. based in Burbank, California. Reginmund 07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet it is a half British film, based on a British book, written by a British author who served as an Executive producer. The whole cast was British, it was filmed it Britain, it was produced by a Briton. It was released it Britain first, under this title. The only American things about it are WBs, Columbus, Kloves and John Williams. It should remain in its current name. Gran 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Half British? Could you please clarify that? J. K. Rowling did not executively produce the film. The fact that the entire cast is British doesn't make a film British. In that case all films with polygenous cast members would be considered "joint productions" (i.e. Witness for the Prosecution, The Third Man, Night and the City) (these films were all so filmed in Britain). The fact that only half of the producers were British doesn't make the film British. It didn't make The Third Man British just because David O. Selznick was one of the producers. You are wrong about the release date also. It was released in the U.S. on 16 November and in the U.K. on 05 December. It is an American film. Reginmund 08:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a solely American film, those sources are wrong in both release date and Rowling. Anyway, it was decided a long time ago after much discussion that this page should use this name. If you want to re-open the discussion that go to the HP wikiproject. If there is a concensous to rename, it will be renamed, but only then. Gran 08:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, they are wrong? Then can you get me some right sources please? And what makes you think that they are wrong? I don't even see a discussion about name change and there isn't an an archive page on the film. It is solely an American film if it is produced by an American company. The cast members do not make a difference in the film's nationality. Reginmund 09:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen, Reginmund! At least SOMEONE understands how Hollywood and movies work. This is an AMERICAN film that was BASED ON A BRITISH BOOK WITH A DIFFERENT NAME! That is a FACT! Don't like it? Too bad! I mean, this is seriously getting annoying. People, again, this is an AMERICAN film BASED ON A BRITISH book; therefore, the BOOK page should have its proper BRITISH name, and the MOVIE page should be titled with SORCERER'S STONE. It doesn't matter that the cast was British. PLENTY of American movies have a British cast -- it doesn't make it a British movie. Even IMDB has this under Sorcerer's Stone. Get over it. That's the name of the movie. You don't like it? Again, too bad. You people clearly have no understanding of film...

Due to the sentiment that this article has attracted, it might be necessary to request a move. However, I won't do this now, I have off-Wiki vocations. Reginmund 09:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My sources are in the article. Anyway, there is no point in argueing, you wil never convince me the page needs to be moved. As such I seriously urge you to discuss the matter at the Harry Potter Wikiproject. Talk it over with the main HP editors there, and if they argee with you, then the page can be moved. But only then, you need conseous from them first, or else you'll have a potential edit war on yours hands, with people constantly move the page back and forth. Gran 11:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you driving at? Your source is from a U.S.-based article which clearly states it was released their earlier than in the U.K.. You cannot immediately assume a source is wrong, especially when you haven't verified it it with a contradicting source. Are you up to that? You are no authority to decide whether or not this page is to be moved. It would not only depend on the Wikiproject editors on Harry Potter but anyone could vote on this subject and if they outnumber them, it wouldn't matter if they preferred it not be moved. They are not the final authority and neither are you. What urged you to assume that I was going to start an edit war? I never said that nor made any actions whatsoever to insinuate that. Take your belligerence somewhere else; I am only making a suggestion as to why this article should be moved. Don't misconstrue that. Reginmund 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class film articles
• Film articles with archived peer reviews
• WikiProject Film articles