Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:50, 12 December 2009

	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) has been listed as one of the 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
Current status: Good article

Template:WPHP

Film: British / American GA‑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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. 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.

Archives
Move Request - July 2007 Title RfC - Jan 2008

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 There are additional shorter discussions and queries on the same general subject that have also been archived along with the main discussions.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?.

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)

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. WKMN? Later 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.11.43 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's Sorcerer, not Sorceror. Just saying, hehe. WKMN? Later 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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.90.33 (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The original title of the book used "Philosopher's Stone", a concept that has a long tradition in alchemy and early science. If you reference "Sorcerer's Stone" on Misplaced Pages, you will be redirected to "Philosopher's Stone". The title was changed for the American market because the publishers thought that "Philosophers" would be too intellectual for an American readership or audience. Of course the substitution of "Sorcerer's Stone" backfired because it became a target for the Christian right: for example see http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/HP-Movie.htm. 96.54.53.165 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The movie may of been paid for a developed by an American company, but the author, cast, crew are all British and it is set in Britain. So really, the proper name of Philosophers stone should remain. Only in America did the publishers change the name to Sorcerer's Stone. The rest of the world had Philosophers stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.186.116 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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? WKMN? Later 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

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). --WKMN? Later 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.Agelseb (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Revenge of the Sith came out after the HP1 movie. Jammy (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (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)

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. 71.145.148.97 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 WP:LEAD 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. Awadewit | talk 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 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.Vikrant Phadkay 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gran 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I could be rong, but insn't Rawlings book about Sourcers, not Philosiphers? -Abc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.147.4 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Gran 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArryStreet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which would be strange, since "Philosopher's" is a longer word than "Sorcerer's". WKMN? Later 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you remember to add sales tax? --Tony Sidaway 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), films are simply sped up most of the time to fit the PAL standard. --Norar (talk) 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. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I know its true, unfortunately it can only be included if it is verified with a reliable source. Gran 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 indiscriminate listing of differences is to rely on independent verification, 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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 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? LinaMishima (talk) 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. --T-dot ( /contribs ) 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 Sin Harvest (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Registered User in presumably good standing, you do not have to be "part of the project" to boldly edit or make suggestions or recomendations, either here or there or at any Misplaced Pages page (including a project page), 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 HP Project Page's talk page, or find a suitable way to work it in to the current to-do list. Thanks! --T-dot ( /contribs ) 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. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done (archiving that is...) --T-dot ( /contribs ) 15:44, 21 January 2008 (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 Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) 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. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But why?

Why exactly was the movie given a different title for the US version? It's not explained in the article. -24.149.193.49 (talk) 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 Scholastic thought the word "philosopher's" would be too confusing for Americans, or something. Gran 13:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2008 (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 Philosopher's Stone 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 (King Arthur, Merlin, 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/Gandalf type wizard, with the pointy hat, churchwarden pipe, and magic wands and staffs, and a rather negative image of witches and warlocks (perhaps remaining from the Salem Witch Trials), 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 Fountain of Youth, 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 Hallows 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". --T-dot ( /contribs ) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says seven BAFTA nominations!

So I listed them! Garynine (talk) 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. Gran 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't work as a paragraph. I don't want to go into an edit war with someone who is wrong and being stubborn. All you have to do is go to other movie articles. These things don't work as paragraphs. Misplaced Pages is not anti having lists in articles but you for some odd bizarre reason are. Garynine (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? First off calm down, have a glance at WP:CIVIL. Disagreeing with you does not make me wrong or stubborn, it's called having a conflicting point of view. Also, let's stop assuming other's opinions shall we? As I'm not "anti having lists in articles". I don't feel there is a problem with a paragraph and this has been used in numerous other articles, for example The Simpsons Movie, which is featured class. The only reason I was really reverting you was that you were simply listing information which was already included in the article. In this instance however, I feel that a list would be far too long and ugly. But although I would prefer a paragraph, I do understand your point. Perhaps a table, similar to the one used Julie Kavner? Gran 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So I added something I found in another movie article that I used. I think its a compromise all can deal with.Garynine (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to complete it? Gran 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I plan to very soon. Garynine (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oaky, just checking. Looks good. Gran 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradicted Line Cut

"One of the lines originally included had to be removed after Rowling told him that it would directly contradict an event in the then-unreleased Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." Do we know what that line is? Mr. College (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the film in India

This film was released as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in India. The article only mentions US as a region where the film was released as Sorcerer's Stone. I edited it to include India but was reverted out of no reason. I am providing a link to the official home video website for verification of this issue.

Official Home Video Website Parthashome (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome

The edit was reverted because I couls not find any proof of the claim that it was officially released in India as "Sorcerer's Stone". You've provided a link to a DVD retailer, but that site does not show any sign of being the "official" retailer (nor would one expect a single entity to have exclusive rights to the DVD sales.) Other searches also suggest that the title "Sorcerer's Stone" was only used in the US, so it would help if you could provide proof of your claim. --Ckatz_spy 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Home video has exclusive rights to market and distribute movies and DVD/Blu-Rays from Warner catalogues in India. Check the press release from Yahoo!. Another proof wold be the fact that movie channels in India air it as Sorcerer's Stone and not Philosopher's Stone. One example would be the turner channel POGO. Besides, DVD release and theatrical release do not have different names.

Yahoo! Movies news and

Indiatelevision Press Release

POGO Promo Wallpaper

Parthashome (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome

Thank you for the links to the press releases. While it is an odd choice, I can understand POGO using the American version of the film given that it is a division of Time-Warner (a US company). However, we still need to verify if the theatrical release was "Sorcerer" or "Philosopher". I've yet to see anything that confirms "Sorcerer" was the title used in theatres, as it has always been announced as a US-exclusive title. --Ckatz_spy 01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-Ray releases and theatrical releases always have the same name. The arguments you are using are strange. You mean to say that Warner decided to go out of its way and release the DVD/Blu-ray version of the film as Sorcerer's Stone in India even though it releases the film as Philosopher's Stone in the rest of the world except US. It also decided to screen the film on Indian movie channels as Sorcerer's Stone even though the movie airs as Philosopher's Stone in the rest of asia and the world except US, but you believe they released the film as Philosopher's Stone in theaters in India even though they actually did not just because you could not find any website stating that it was released as Sorcerer's Stone in India. I am providing a link to a news release by a leading newspaper of India "The Hindu" which clearly states that the film was released as Sorcerer's Stone in Theaters.

The Hindu news article

I live in India and I saw the movie myself at the cinemas as Sorcerer's Stone and thats the reason I tried to correct it. Just because something is not there or hard to find on the Internet does not mean its false. I personally do not gain anything out of it, but since wikipedia is supposed to show fact, I thought it necessary to correct the article. I gave all the proof I could find on the Internet. But you are clearly disregarding a fellow editors claim even though there is ample proof of it. I stay in India and I have more knowledge on this matter, having seen it first hand. This is demeaning.

Parthashome (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome

Wading in... It is blatantly obvious that the film was released as Sorcerer's Stone in India as Parthashome correctly says. However I do not believe that should be included in the article (at least not in the lead section). I'm fairly sure it was released as SS in a number of countries. However, as this is the English Misplaced Pages, the general policy with film articles is that only the primarily English speaking nations for films produced by those nations are included (so for release dates etc.). So my point is: is India a primarily English speaking nation (I don't know whether English or Hindi is more prevalent so your knowledge is invaluable here) and was India one of the only countries other than the US where it was released as SS? If the answer to those questions is yes then it should be included (at least later on in the article). Gran 09:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really anything to "wade in" to... we operate on the principle of verifiability, based on reliable sources. No disrespect to Parthashome, but his/her personal assertion that it was in the theatre as Sorcerer cannot be used to verify text in an article, nor could mine or any other contributor's. Furthermore, the only sources we've had so far (including our own articles) indicated that it was released as Sorcerer in the US, and Philosopher elsewhere. The possibility of a mixed release certainly exists; I can attest to that given that in Canada, we've seen Philosopher in the book, theatres and on DVD, but Sorcerer on the film's video game. (This couldn't be used to source text to that effect, of course, because - as with Parathashome - my personal observations cannot be used to verify text. I'm sorry if he/she interprets it as some form of slight, but that was not the intent in any way. However (and I say this with appreciation) Parathashome has now provided a reference to the Indian theatrical release to help clarify the details. --Ckatz_spy 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad that an agreement has been reached on this matter. It was not my personal assersion or observation that it was released in India as Sorcerer's Stone. I provided ample proof of the fact from my very first post. I too agree that mixed releases exists. For example in India, Bloomsbury released the book as Philosopher's Stone. Even the video game was titled Philosopher's Stone. But the film got released as Sorcerer's Stone in theaters and DVD/Blu-Ray. Television channels also show the movie as Sorcerer's Stone. DVD and Television release names are generally the same as the cinema release names. No exceptions occur until the name surrounds some controversy. For example Die Hard 4.0 was released in North America as Live free or Die hard. The DVD release names were same. But it released as Die hard 4.0 in the rest of the world. The DVD releases around the world including India carry the name Die Hard 4.0 and not Live Free or Die Hard even though 20th Century Fox is an American Company. Another movie WAR, a movie with jason Statham as lead, got released in India by the name Rogue Assasin in theaters. The DVD and television release also carry the name Rogue Assasin and not WAR.

As far as English in India is concerned. English along with Hindi is one of the two official languages of the country. Hindi definitely is more prevalent but India happens to have the worlds largest english speaking population today. Keeping that in mind and the fact the this is an encyclopedia website, I think it should be included in the list. As far as theatrical release is concerned, we know that UK, Europe, Australia, Russia, Canada, Japan, PRC and SE Asia had the Philosopher's Stone release. So India is the only other country where the film released as Sorcerer's Stone.Parthashome (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome

Parthashome, it is good that we have been able to resolve this matter. However, I would like to point out that you did not actually provide "ample proof of the fact right from first post". Your initial change (here) was simply to add "India" without any explanation. Given the complete lack of an edit summary or a reference, it did in fact appear to be a personal opinion. When that was reverted as an unexplained change contrary to established references, you then posted a link to a video site. While this verified a DVD was available as "Sorcerer", it did not indicate official status or that the DVD distributor was the official agent in India; that required a later post from you. The film release was not actually verified until yesterday, when you added the link to the 2002 news article. I would suggest that in future, you provide the references at the time you make the change, as it would save a lot of unnecessary discussions like this one. That aside, your contributions are certainly appreciated as this appears not to have been noticed before. Thanks. --Ckatz_spy 19:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually by first post, I meant in the talk page. I only providing a link to the DVD website as I though it would be enough as DVD release names are the same as cinema release names for a particular market. Exceptions are almost non-existing if not at all. The official status of the distributor was not important from this perspective. If amazon sell the DVD of Harry Potter 1 as Sorcerer's Stone in US, we have reason good enough to believe that Warner is distributing the film as Sorcerer's Stone in US even though Amazon is just a retailer and not the distributor of the film. Likewise for any other country. I had to provide all those extra proof later as you were not ready to accept this. Having said that, I accept that I should have provided the link when I made the edit to the article at the beginning, which perhaps, might have avoided this whole discussion. I will keep that in mind from now on. I have made the necessary changes to the article with proper citations.

Parthashome (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome

Harry Potter. The Real Deal. The Expelliarmus. The Stupefying Truth. The real book is Harry Potter and The Sorcerers Stone No stupid philosopher just a plain old sorcerer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool715 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the sorcerers stone & and it is no stupid to be a philosopher.

My favorite one is Harry Potter and the Deathly Halllows bcuz Harry turns seventeen he actually uses more spells like Expelliarmus(his signature move) and stubefy,protego,avadra kedavra and etc and he becomes the master of death and kills Tom Riidle.If u people know naruto i'll put it in Naruto form.He uses rasenshuriken,he defeats the (dark lord) orochimaru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool715 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Snape

"Alan Rickman as Severus Snape .... He dislikes Harry due to a grudge he held with Harry's father. He was formerly a Death Eater but is trusted by Dumbledore." Do we know these plot details in the first movie? Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm taking the Death Eater bit out, I leave the other to experts, and of course revert me if I'm wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Good articles without topic parameter
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• Film articles with archived peer reviews
• WikiProject Film articles