Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)

IMAX Released Push Back

I just read that the movies IMAX release is being pushed back two weeks because Transformers has a one month long exclusivity with IMAX. I would add this myself but Im really bad at adding things, so I figured I'll leave to someone who knows what there doing. Here are just two links I found, not sure if there good soucrces but here you go anyways http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/technology/news/e3i6c932f87e11ed33af2f01700d0f26ca8

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/06/08/ap6517290.html Rosario lopez (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fan site HPANA got direct confirmation from WB's domestic distribution president that the release was delayed: http://www.hpana.com/news.20856.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.92.99 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is only in the US, I think people should know this and it should be clarified 202.154.153.87 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

At the end of the Warner Brothers press release near the beginning of the article it is signed 'Waner Brothers' which is obviously incorrect

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.148.54 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort?

Apparently Wikipedia now states that Ralph Fiennes is slated to return as Lord Voldemort in Half-Blood Prince, except that only IMDB confirms this. Is this correct? It has been stated that Hero Fiennes-Tiffin and Frank Dillane will portray young Voldemorts, instead of Ralph returning as an adult Voldemort, but he will return for Deathly Hallows. IMDB is not always right. Their information has been known from time to time to be out-of-date and/or based purely on speculation. So. Which is it? Will he really be returning as Voldemort in a full role, or will it just be archive footage? If so, shouldn't his credit be listed under 'archive footage' on IMDB, or a 'cameo appearance' be noted in his article's filmography section? Please let me know. Tds247 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB have updated their cast list and removed Ralph: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/fullcredits#cast 202.154.153.87 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Article for "Differences" section

What's cut, what stays, what's new in Half-Blood Prince at SCI FI Wire. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot?

Shouldn't there be a Plot Section in the Article? Just Wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.77.87 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It just came out today give people time to see it, it will be complete by the end of the day or tomorrow The Movie Master 1 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Has someone cut and pasted the plot section from the Simple English Wikipedia? Its written like a 13-year-old did it for a school assignment. As is the differences section. Theres enough of you out there to sort it out surely 77.103.30.92 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern over neutrality, continuity, and spoilers of "Differences" section

I've not edited much, so I wanted to check first.

I was reading over the article and found sentences that suggest a bias or favoritism towards aspects of the book and a slight disdain for the absence of material from the movie. I believe minor revisions of this section should be done to make it more fact-based and less pointed.

Examples: "There are a number of changes from the book in the film which include a greater emphasis placed on less important subplots", "...is oddly not present.", "...werewolf-like condition (as a result of the bite) plays an important role in the upcoming film's plot", etc. There may be more, I did not read the whole section a second time, but these seemed significant.

Also, the section seems to jump around the plot, presenting the differences in a haphazard manner.

And it may not be needed to include as much plot detail.

Agree or disagree?

Simulation90 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. This is the movie. It needs to be dealt with as the movie. People who want to grouch about changes from the book can go to the IMDb talk pages and whinge, complain and argue it out to their hearts' content. Everyone knows that the movie had to greatly reduce the sub-plots. As for Tonks and Lupin, the establishment of the relationship in this story tells the intelligent viewer that the realtively unimportant subplot of Lupin and Tonks' on-and-off again relationship has been removed from the last movie. What the film-makers have done is establish that there is something between them , so that when they die, side-by-side, in the last movie, the movie-goer will know why.
• As for the removal of not one but two anti-climactic scenes, Dumbledore's funeral and the small Battle of Hogwarts before the big Battle of Hogwarts..... what the filmmakers gave the viewer was sufficient: the death, the destruction, the fire, the chaos, the rage, the grief and the departure of the phoenix. For young wiki-readers who don't understand why it was done in this way, then look up anti-climax. It is done for reasons of goood theatre. Having a battle in this movie would simply have taken away from the big battle in the last movie, without adding anything useful to the story at all.
• My query about the text of this article is a much more pedantic one- it states here that Bellatrix is Narcissa's older sister. It then re-states that Narcissa is Bellatrix's younger sister. Where did this information come from? The relationship between the two women, both in the books and the movie, indicates the opposite. The very manipulative and childish Bellatrix, who calls her sister "Cissy" (as in Sissy short for Sister) relates to her sister as if she is the youngest child in the family and expects to be spoilt. Do the novels indicate that Bellatrix is the older of the two?

Amandajm (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with a few things. First off, it may be a movie, but it is a movie based on the book--no--it is a movie adaptation of a book. Therefor, it is imperitive that it captures what the book is about, the 'essence' of the book. All that you said is personal opinion. The fact is, if you're going to make a movie called Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, it should stay true to the book that it is emulating. For instance, the movie is called 'Half Blood Prince', yet they hardly have ANY recollation of that at all. Just a quick "I am the Prince-man!". At that point, I forgot all about the half blood prince plotline. Even as a stand-alone movie, it didn't make sense.

Most importantly, in regards to that battle comment, if they have to cut out a part of the book in fear it would seem repetitive, then there is a problem with the director. If he must change source material that he is using in fear of being repetitive, then that says something about his directing style.

However, I completley agree with Simulation9. This "Differences from the book" article seems too bias, or at the very least, seems to be written with some emotion. That should NOT be the case. Despite that, every point in that section was right, regardless of the feelings. If that section was written with less emphasis of comtempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple796 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor point; "Cissy" is short for "Narcissa", and Bellatrix is the oldest of the three (Andromeda Black is the mother of Tonks) sisters. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I realise that "Cissy" is short for Narcissa. That is obvious. But "Sissy" is something that little sisters often call bigger sisters. D you mind giving me an approximate reference for the info, Tarc? Amandajm (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but it isn't how it is used in this context, so not really relevant. As for the source, I believe it would be called the book. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I thought you must have looked it up to make sure, and therefore have a page number which you could provide, which is really quite a normal ask, when a fact is queried (or isn't it?).

I have a suggestion that since some people care desparately about the changes and omissions, that a whole page is dedcated to them called List of Changes etc etc etc. Then it can be tediously long, can be ordered and reordered and everyone will be happy. Amandajm (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the context in which "Cissy" is used, we (the viewer) are hearing it said, not seeing it spelt. And it is being used by a very childish person, one who is told "Bella, we don't touch things that don't belong to us!" If you haven't picked up on the context, then you've simply missed the subtleties. Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Burrow

Because the burrow was burned down, where will Bills wedding be? The wedding leads them to learn about the Hallows as they go to the Lovegoods as they know he has its symbol, it also takes up 100 pages of the book,(the wedding and other bits at the burrow). Just wondering if you know anything about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XX EOIN XX (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Americanism

'On the Hogwarts Express, Harry, convinced that Malfoy is now a Death Eater, uses his Invisibility Cloak and Peruvian Darkness Powder the twins gave him to sneak into the Slytherins boxcar.'

A boxcar is, I believe, a freight waggon attached to a train in the US. What the characters are travelling in on the Hogwarts Express is a carriage or compartment (British usage) and that is how J.K. Rowling would refer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfoster (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

'Lord' JohnPaul Castrianni

Okay, basically ive sat and dug around through every name in the credits, and theres one guy I am 99% sure is not in this film. This is 'Lord' John Paul Castrianni, he doesnt appear in any of the credits in the movie (I guess I cant prove a citation till its out on dvd!), and doesnt appear in any of the published credits on any websites that cant be edited (wikipedia, imdb, casting call pro). But note, on Yahoo movies, etc he is not listed in the credits.

This seems very, very like Wikiality of truth coming to the fore, and he has edited half a dozen webpages to make it credible he appears in the film (which from what ive seen, he doesn't).

Incidentally, is 'Lord' his first name? Or is it a non UK title I wander? He doesnt appear in any relevant listings within the UK, which leads me to believe that he is infact possibly a double fraud.

To note again, only sources used are: IMDB - Anyone can edit Wikipedia - While I love it, its been abused in this case Some interview with a potter fansite he gave - easily done Casting call pro - self-made vanity page

Lets get this sorted out and taken down asap! For the good of wikipedia! JamieHughes (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be that he's just an uncredited extra who thinks his part deserves some attention. But I agre it should probably be taken down (According to the link he's from Iceland anyway and the character he supposedly plays is as far as we know British, which conflicts with the casting policy of these films.) Gran² 08:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot section is still too long

I know I've edited it significantly down, but the plot section is still too long. (compare this to the plot for Deathly Hallows which is 3 paragraphs). We need to figure a way to reduce extraneous events to the main plot. One trick is to expand into the character section any subtle details that aren't significant to the overall plot. It can be done, but it will take time. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and add that some of the details are incorrect. For example, it says the Harry, Ron and Hermione are all suspicious of Draco being in a ritual at Borgin and Burkes. However, Ron and Hermione don't believe it was a ritual and think Harry is overreacting. JenWSU (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)