Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

Template:WPHP

Archives
January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – September 2006 October 2006 – March 2007

What makes a film from a certain country?

Throw has classified this film as a US film. The producers are from the USA (the producers are actually from the UK too), so I can understand that. However, the film was shot in the UK, the actors are primarily British, the director is British, the plot takes place in Britain… I don't understand why the nationality of the producers prevails over all other things. Perhaps a film can be from two countries? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that a film that is made and funded by a company based in a particular country makes it that country's film. Warner Brothers has the rights to all Harry Potter films and Warner Brothers is an American company, it was founded in Hollywood, CA and its headquarters are in Burbank, CA. This same argument would apply if Pixar (another California-based film company) made their next film in a foreign country. Most American films are shoot in different locales all over the world, most notably Canada. Do those films make them Canadian? Not at all. The people in front of the camera may not be American but the people behind it (including the companies and money) come from American sources. - Throw 01:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can accept this; however, do you dispute that the films are not British as well? I don't think the "filmed in" is even necessary, just putting US and UK concurrently would be the most proper, I'd say. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the HP films are British films for the reasons I've already stated. Order of the Phoenix is no more a British film than the Bridget Jones's Diary film. I understand your point of view but I think the fact that Warner Brothers owns the rights for the films take precedence over anything else. The fact that the film is largely (or completely) filmed in the UK is only a fact that should be included in the Production/Film location sections. The reason I brought up Pixar is because they make all their films on computers. The location of their computers wouldn't matter to declare them American films, wheather they were in California or New Zealand. - Throw 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll contradict myself here and point Fbv65edel to Cinema of the United Kingdom which lists Harry Potter films as 'British'. Just my way to add counterbalance. - Throw 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll ask the WP:FILMS to comment on this. I'm not really sure. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One comment here. Everyone knows The Simpsons right? Would they be considered an American production? Because some are producted in Korea. But anyway, perhaps it would be better to list it as "American/British"? GavinTing 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is based on a British book about British characters; all of the actors (minus maybe a couple) are British. It's generally filmed over there. It is a British film, and thus should be written in that form of English as well. This is why the first film goes to "The Philosopher's Stone" instead of "The Sorceror's Stone".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Throw on this - the determining factor for the nationality of a movie is the production company, not the cast or the source of the film or the shooting location. john k 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If that was the case then every Spider-Man film would have to be listed as a Japanese movie, because SONY is Japanese owned. Heck, since 1989, any film made by Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, or "Sony" will have to be reclassified as a "japanese film". Oh yeah, they acquired MGM also...so I guess that means Casino Royale was the first japanese Bond film. I mean, MGM isn't "part of Sony", per say, but Sony still owns part of the company...so maybe we could say that it's a "japanese/american film"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. That's not how it works. Sony may be Japanese-owned, but Columbia Pictures is an American film company, headquartered in the U.S. The producers of Spiderman and other Columbia movies work out of LA. john k 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Even more strongly - Sony Pictures Entertainment, the subdivision of Sony that runs Columbia, is in fact headquartered in Culver City, California. john k 02:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures is owned and operated by Sony, so that makes them a Japanese film company with a base of operations in America. The fact that the producers of Spider-Man are American is irrelevant, as you don't have to be from the country in which you work. I'm sure there are Americans that work in Japan, and vice versa. Your theory is that if Warner Brothers has a company located in the UK then that would make any film made by that company a UK film? At best, the film should be listed as both an American film and a British film, as everything about the film is British, with the exception being who is distributing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright guys, cool down abit :) IMO, for that example about spiderman, since Columbia is american, the show is american. This is because sony is more of a behind the scences company that just handles money, not much of the show is handled by them... Anyway, I think this film should just beleft as British/American. Perhaps we should have a vote? --GavinTing 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all - we must avoid trying to "reason through" anything based on where the movie was filmed, or the nationality of the majority of the cast and crew, the ownership of the Studios, or who fronted the cash. This constitutes original research. The proper thing to do is find a reasonably reliable source to tell us. The IMDB, which is used rather liberally for sourcing information in HP and other "movies" articles, is just such a source. All the HP films are shown as UK / USA for "Country". PS CoS PoA GoF OotP HBP DH (strangely CoS shows UK / USA / Germany). In any case, it may be notable that UK is shown first in each, so if we must choose only one, then the preferred answer would be the first: UK. Otherwise go with IMDB and undoubtedly other reliable sources: UK / USA. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've come to this page after a request on the WikiProject Films‎ talk page. The country of origin of a film is generally based on the origin of the countries producing the film, not on where it was shot. However, Bridget Jones's Diary (film) is considered to be a British film, not because it was made in Britain, but because it was made by a British company, Working Title Films. The Harry Potter films are made by Heyday Films (a British company) and Warner Bros. (an American one). So , as T-dot said, it's reasonable to categorise them as UK/US as IMDb does. In this case, I think UK has the edge over US as the cast/crew/locations are mostly British too. JW 10:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with JW. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be determined is the extent to which Warner is involved. If Heyday is fronting the bill, then it's a British film. Most of the time it's the bigger companies that are paying to distribute it, which is not the same thing as paying to have it made. What needs to be determined is if WB is going halves with Heyday on the production costs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As JW says. I cannot imagine that Heyday Films has enough money to pay for production on the Harry Potter movies without involvement from Warners. If you look at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/companycredits IMDB], you'll see that Warners is listed separately as a production company and as a distributor, so, no, they're not just the distributor. IMDB also mentions 1492 Pictures as a production company on the first three movies. That's Chris Columbus's outfit, and is also American. I would, at any rate, agree with UK/US. john k 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, a consensus needs to be reached about this is the primary, because we cannot swap forms of english throughout the article. Simple example, we have some dates of "13 July", and some of "July 13". It's the same thing, but there is no consistency.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Per MOS for variations of English, and a coversation on WikiProject Films, the article should be listed as "UK/US" (UK being first, based on alphabetical order, no bias or priority to either country) and the article should be written in the UK's variation of english, as the film, and its basis, have predominately more ties to the UK than to America.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for sorting this out Bignole. I'll do my best to change the variety of English, but as I am American, I may not see certain differences between UK and USA English, so a British editor should have a look at it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do too much sorting. Another editor told me about the page, and I saw the section on important ties being the condition for which english to use. My being American is also a reason why I didn't impliment any changes, as I haven't the slightest idea what would be correct. Hopefully, someone will come along and see it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide verifiable source that this film is American. Onus is yours, not mine. Matthew 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDb, which is considered a reliable source for already-release films (though not for future films), classifies the first four films as coming from the UK and the US. Of course, as this film has not yet been released, we cannot yet cite IMDb; we will have this opportunity next week. This was resolved with consensus. If you like, we can raise this again at WP:FILM. Also, please note that I was not introducing an incorrect date format with my edits; as long as your preferences are set to the date format which you prefer, the wikimarkup will not matter, but the appearance will change based on the preferences. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDb is not a verifiable source, it's user submitted, "because IMDb users say so" isn't good enough. Yes you were/are introducing incorrect dates, British article = British dates, per MoS. Matthew 02:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I have campaigned against the use of IMDb in citations a countless number of times. However, many IMDb profiles of movies carry the notation "verified as complete" as taken from the credits, so in essence it is citing the credits. I am not trying to cite IMDb for this film as it has not been released and IMDb has no way of knowing the complete credits yet; however, I was following the pattern of the previous four films, which I agree is not good enough for explicit proof; however, supported by the consensus we found from many experienced WP:FILM editors here, we decided to go with US and UK. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated below: provide a verifiable/reliable citation. The IMDb has been challenged by myself, the onus is now yours and T-Dot. Matthew 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew (re US and/or UK): IMDb certainly is a verifiable source. - anyone can click it and check it. Perhaps you meant reliable? That can certainly be debated. The consensus above indicates that the HP film series should be listed as UK/US with UK as primary for the actors and settings, and US as secondary due to the Warner Bros studio ownership. This is how IMDb has handled the previous films, not just this one. Consistency is important between the articles, as long as it is correct. We have no sources that indicate that the HP films are exclusively UK or exclusively US. We have a source if an imperfect one in terms of future films that says UK/US. In the absence of a counter-claim by another more reliable source, then we should stick with IMDb until we hear otherwise. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability. We have that with the IMDb. You are free to disagree with IMDb but you will have to supply a reliable source to sustain your argument. Without that, you need to go with the consensus, or show cause why the consensus is incorrect, with compelling proof to support your argument. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The IMDb is neither verifiable nor reliable (as you correctly point out). Anybody can indeed view the page, anybody signed-in can also change it. None the less you may consider it reliable, I do not... I am challenging it's reliability and verifiability, therefore you must provide another source, which is verifiable and reliable (which should be easy, if it really is an American film). The IMDb does get its American film credits from the WGA, but I'd personally require proof that the film credits listed are sourced from the WGA. That alone does not make it an American film, I personally require a source that explicitly states that it's American. Matthew 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, a film's country of origin is based on where its production companies are from. As we know directly from the previous film's credits, all the films have been produced by the production companies Heyday Films and Warner Bros., which are British and American, respectively. As we have not yet seen the credits of this film, we cannot say for certainty that Warner Bros. will be listed as a production company, despite the fact that they are indeed known to be the distributor of the film. So, from now until Tuesday, we won't know officially, and I can live with three days' worth of British only in the infobox. On Wednesday, I hope we can cite the exact credits of the film to state that Heyday and Warner are both production companies of the film, and thus the film is both British and American. Is there still a dispute? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"a film's country of origin is based on where its production companies are from", source? You'll need to provide an explicit source that states America is a COO. Otherwise you should not restore challenged material. Good luck, Matthew 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just to stir the pot yet more, take a look at Blackboards. That's an Iranian film shot entirely in Iran (to my knowledge), with Iranian cast and crew. While it has been cat'd to Iranian films, it has also been cat'd to Italian films and Japanese films! Although I've no doubt that this is because of financing, is it really fair to call this film an Italian or Japanese one? It seems pretty clear that Makhmalbaf came up with the idea and then raised money from wherever she could.

Now, the way this relates to Potter is as such - the film was clearly initiated and controlled in all higher-level aspects by Hollywood, which qualifies it as an American film. However, it also clearly is creatively being led by Brits, acted by Brits, crewed with Brits, and is both set in and shot in Britain. So there is a fair assertion that it is a British film. Whereas Blackboards was not initiated by the Italians or Japanese - they're only providing the money, not the control. Girolamo Savonarola 21:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The provenance of actors, writers, directors, and so forth is irrelevant. What matters is the production companies. This is always how this is done, and it is Matthew, as the one challenging this orthodoxy, who needs to cite some sources, not the rest of us. In this case, there is one American production company (Warners), and one British (Heyday). This can be verified with pretty trivial ease by looking at just about any source for the movie, and I don't see how it's some kind of "guessing game" to assume that Warner's is producing this film, just like it produced the others, when this information is almost certainly verifiable and nobody is providing any evidence to seriously question the truth of it. This whole argument is entirely absurd. john k 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Release dates are wrong for Australia.

The Aust. release date has been changed from July 12 to July 11. This can be confirmed– I read it in the paper. this has been edited. 124.179.212.153 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the official Warner Bros. web site says July 12. We have to believe WB over the paper for this. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Why does "Warner Bros. has confirmed that the film is scheduled to be released in stages, between July 11 and July 27, 2007" have 7 citations after it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the use of the seven citations. Together, they confirm all those countries' release dates, rather than putting a citation after each country name. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there not one source that can do all that? And why are we listing the released dates for every country? It should be limited to primarily english speaking countries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean just a general listing of all release dates, I prefer to use news postings that list it, just because the general list doesn't say where they got the information. They may have taken it from another list, which got it from another, and so on, whereas the news sources are independent and based on publishings of the press. And as for the style guideline, I thought that only applied to infoboxes. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When you start getting into listing every release date for every film, even in its own section, you start bordering on "indiscriminate collection of informatin". As it says in the guidelines, IMDb has the lists already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed non English speaking countries from the list. How does it look now? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Better. Is Puerto Rico a primarily english speaking country? I've never been, and my knowledge of history isn't that large. I know we have jurisdiction over it, but I think it's a spanish speaking country. Anyway, some other things I noticed about the page is the prose, which is a little lacking. Paragraphs, when writing non-fiction, should be at least 4 sentences long. The IMAX info should go with "release dates", and "release dates" should be retitled to "Release". This way it incorporates everything about the release of the film. The rest of the "technical details" should be placed in the lead paragraph of the "Production" section, until you have enough "Effects" information to have a subsection for it. The same goes for "Other media". The score info is best served in the general production section, as there isn't really anything there. Game are considered "adpatations", but since you don't have a novelization of the film, it would be pretty bare at the moment. More info could be found that discusses the changes made to the game, and why (if any). You've all done a great job in citing sources, it's just more of a formatting issue, with thin (1 sentence long) paragraphs and subsections that currently cannot support themselves. It might be better to just remove all subsections in the Production section, and blend them into nice paragraphs, until enough information can be found to expand on the different topics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, per the guidelines of the lead paragraph, if it isn't in the body of the article then it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph. That said, all citations should generally be in the body, and not in the lead, as the lead summarizes the entire article, whatever is there is going to be cited later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To address your first point: I'm not sure about Puerto Rico, but it is part of the U.S. which is obviously an English speaking country.

Second: I've fixed up the production section, but left two subsections that were adequate in length.

About the lead: Today's FA, for instance, (The Waterboys) has citations in the lead. I think that, if all the information that is in the lead is also in the article, citing it twice is okay. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the changes, and it looks better. Still some single sentence paragraphs, but the article can't get promoted to any higher status until it is released, so there's plenty of time to find more information on it. As for the lead, I think it's just generally looked at as redundant citations, at least for instances like citing the writer and the director. I think everything after citation #4 can go into the body, because it doesn't really fit with WikiProject Film style guidelines for the lead, as the rest isn't basic informatin (1st paragraph) or the film's impact (what would go in a second paragraph when it becomes available). That's below #4 seems to be more marketing information, and a brief critique of the film by Rowlings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Filming dates

I think this film was actually finished by some date in early 2007, and it is possible for people to show the theatrical trailer of any movie before the filming is done. --PJ Pete

Well, until you can find a source for this, our cited statement will have to stand. Sorry. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Poster is tagged fairusereduce ?

I don't think the poster, that I uploaded is in high-resolution. The poster size is of medium size i.e. 691 × 1024 pixels. Even WB has released full resolution of 1080 x 1600, which is far bigger than what I've uploaded to Wikipedia. So, I think i should remove fairusereduce tag. What do you think guys? Bunty Rocks 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll reduce it so that what appears in the infobox is the same, but when you click it the image page is smaller.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, you seem to have reduced it yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "Voldemort" teaser poster was a clearly illegal one - with an original full size resolution of 1947 × 2877 and 466,222 bytes. I'm reducing it to around 400 x 600 and 42,153 bytes. The purpose of the FairUseReduce tag is to request an administrator to delete the old high-resolution version, as it is not allowable under fair use claims, which claims only low resolution images of posters and such, not full-size full-resolution versions as provided to the press. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image doctoring fuss

Are we going to mention the recent fuss over the apparent alterations to the IMAX poster which "enhance" Emma/Hermione's appearance? (This blog-post is fairly helpful, showing an animation blending the two images together—the change is reasonably blatant. There's also a Swedish poster which is causing even more fuss: the changes are even more blatant. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless this makes multiple national headlines, I don't think it's notable enough to be included. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha, now we have this. I think it could be mentioned now. Not sure where though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Embargoed

I heard absolutely all pre-break VIP, critics and whatever grand premieres have been cancelled for HP5 because Warner is totally paranoid about under-coat compact video cameras and smuggled out film rolls. They must prevent the movie leak to the web weeks before.

is this true? If yes, should it be mentioned in the article?

I believe this was for Canada only. I'll think it over, it's probably not that big a deal in the wider scheme of things. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

World break for HP5 in Japan, Tokyo, 28th June 2007, Dan will be top guest. Apparently this move was inspired by the big success of Spierman3 junk movie following its Asian premiere. [1]

However, I think it will be a disaster for the studio, the movie will be stolen off the silver screen 100%. You can buy incredible gadgets in Akibahara, collegue came back yesterday from Japan holiday with an 1,8" HDD-recording tri-CCD HDTV quality giro-stabilized 18x optical zoom camcorder semi-prototype, which runs 150 minutes off battery the size of a matchbox, yet the whole device is slightly smaller than a 25pcs filter tea box! Amazing thing, one could literally stuff it up his/her hole and smuggle it inside the auditorium that way. I predict HP5 movie will be on Bittorrent sooner than you can say Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore!

Wideness?

Why is the article so wide? I think someone should fix that up.

I fixed it, thanks. It happened as a result of a starting a new line with a space. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Section order

Recently, 68.112.91.32 has changed the order of the sections in the article to Synopsis, Cast, Production. Previously the order was Synopsis, Production, Cast. I am in favor of the old version – I just think it's a better order for the page. Is there any consensus on this? Do the film guidelines state otherwise? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Which version are you refering to? I prefer the Synopsis, Cast, Production order, for several film articles are in this order. And this article was in that order until someone changed it, and has been changing it back every time I change it. I am glad that someone, though, is organizing a disscussion topic on the subject. It needs to be sorted out.

I changed the order when I added an extra column to the cast section. However, when the cast section comes second, the extra column interferes with the infobox, causing formatting issues that are particularly bad on resolutions of 1024x768 and below. Unless we want the article to be difficult to read for people with those resolutions, then I suggest we keep the cast section as third. -Panser Born- (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In the current version of the article, it appears the "casting notes" section has been deleted. -Panser Born- (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a simple solution to the column issue. Make one column and not have two. That's how it was way back when before all this came about. It was good how it was before. As for the casting notes, I believe that someone deleted them and the little picture when making two columns. I will add them back.

Having one column makes the article ridiculously longer than it needs to be, compared to the relatively minor sacrifice of having the sections in a slightly different order. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was I who omitted the casting notes. Anyway, I agree that the cast list got extremely long, and that it's necessary to split it into two. And, the production section -- the bulk and content of the article and the actual description of the film -- seems to me like it should now take prevalence, as it's lengthened from before. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In the cast columns, if you could delete all the sudivisions such as Prinicple Characters, Hogwarts staff, Hogwarts students, you could have a shorter list. But seeming as everyone wants the Production to be before the Cast, I will remove the warning, and one of you can change it back, under one condition. Every Harry Potter movie article must follow the same order. It would make the articles look better. I apologize if I had made someone mad, I only did what I thought was best for the article.

However, the subdivisions make it much easier to read, at least IMO. Don't worry about it -- I'm glad we were able to have a civil discussion about it! I agree that things need to be uniform, so I'll make the changes to all the articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Running Time

Are you sure that the stated time length is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorgana (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Take a look here for clarification. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

Comingsoon.net set visits and interviews. Interesting stuff on the sets, including the series' first all-digital one, and interviews with the kids for people who are interested in that sort of thing. Alientraveller 08:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Casting

Where could I find differences in casting compared to other movies? Missjessica254 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cencorship in China

According to moviesoon, one of the mojor film fan news sites in Chinese, Censors in People's Republic of China has cut about 30 seconds of the movie from the version showing at theatres in China Mainland. Usually, no official reason for the censorship will be announced, but unofficial sources said that some scenes may be too scary and dark for children because there's no motion picture rating system in China Mainland.

I think the news could be added because it has already been confirmed by WB China. -->happily ever after 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source for this news, it's fine to add it. I can't read Chinese, and the Google translator wasn't much help. Is there an English source? Searching Google news for WB China didn't turn up anything. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Hong Kong an English-speaking region?

If Philippines, India, South Korea are English-speaking countries, Hong Kong must be one of them as well. I suggest that release date in Hong Kong(Jul 11th) should be added to "release" section. What do you think, guys? --happily ever after 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I removed South Korea, as English is not an official language. But Hong Kong isn't a country, is it? Isn't it just a region? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

presumably it is China. Sandpiper 20:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a "Special Administrative Region" of China, but it's still an independent market from China mainland. Warner Bros. has separate companies and distribution plannings in Hong Kong and China. And English is also an official language for Hong Kong as well. You can check it out here: http://www.csb.gov.hk/english/aboutus/org/scsd/1470.html -->happily ever after 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've added it in. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted information

I deleted the following statement from the "Casting" portion of this page "However, Lockhart does not appear in the final version." This has neither been confirmed or denied. Also, there is no reference to where this person got their information.

Notes: Nigel

Isn't he Colin Creeveys little brother?

No, that's Dennis. --NetherlandishYankee 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nigel is a character fabricated entirely for the films. He does not appear in the books, though his role does appear to be nearly identical to that of the Creeveys'. Now, if they had just called him Dennis or Colin things could have been so much easier… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The voice behind Kreacher

According to this movie's IMDB entry, Kreacher is voiced by Timothy Bateson. I'm not that experienced with Wiki-Fu yet, so perhaps somebody else would like to add it? --_The Hiddey_ 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi The Hiddey, and welcome to Wikipedia! I can't track down the exact link now (but trust me, it exists!), but we've had some long discussions about the verifiability of IMDb. IMDb is very similar to Wikipedia in that it is user-submitted; however, it is quite different as there is no editorial oversity. That is, there is no record to the public about who added what information and when, and there is no source needed to back it up. The policy I linked above (verifiability) is key to Wikipedia's success. In theory, everything on Wikipedia is supported by a citation to a reliable, third-party source (of course, not everything is, but it should be). Thus, citing IMDb is basically citing your word or my word or just any other random person. So, steer clear of IMDb -- for future film releases. However, it is perfectly acceptable (and strongly recommended) that you cite it for films which have been released, where IMDb is a replication of the film's credits at your fingertips.

In this particular case, I have seen many "sources" claiming Timothy Bateson is the voice of Kreacher. I put "sources" in quotes for being not reliable/verifiable enought to cite. That Bateson is voicing Kreacher is something I do not doubt, considering we are so close to the film's release an unsubstantiated rumor like this is unlikely to crop up out of nowhere. However, it has not been officially confirmed, and until it has, I must leave Kreacher's voice actor blank as being unverifiable.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation, but I hope that explains your question! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue with that, thanks for the explanation. However, I'd like to point out that on Kreacher's own page, Bateson is listed as his voice actor (though none of the external links support this). It was also listed on Bateson's own page, but I see you already removed that. -- _The Hiddey_ 10:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Movies has it listed too: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808475612/cast. They give not only a list of actors. It is a comprehensive list of the complete crew. They must have this from a primary source. I think that can be qualified as a verifiable source and is therefore worth being included in the list AberforthD 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(We resolved this on AberforthD's talk page, and we've decided to let it stand as he's just edited it. The Yahoo! list is not a complete list [there are some omissions], but it's verifiable. Considering there are only 4 days until it will be confirmed or not, we decided it wasn't worth the fuss over.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Someone Explain or Change?

I thought that Tonks was part of the Order of the Phoenix, so why is she under Ministry of Magic? If I remember correctly, the ministry and order are quite different... 67.81.169.140 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, she's a member of both, so I don't think it matters where she's listed. AgentPeppermint 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

She is a more prominent member of the Order of the Phoenix. If we bother about grouping characters by affiliation we should put them in the group in which they play the most prominent role. Otherwise we could just as well give a list without grouping. Unless my memory fails, I don't think she was part of the ministery of magic at all. AberforthD 01:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the members of the OOtP are or were also working with the Ministry (eg: Shacklebolt, Moody, Weasley, Tonks, the Longbottoms, etc.) and most were Aurors or otherwise working to impede the Dark Arts and other illegal uses of magic. Those that were not officially with the Ministry were otherwise afiliated with Dumbledore (Lupin, Sirius, Snape, etc.) We probably ought to list both memberships with an explanation of their roles in each. Remember - the OOtP is a more-or-less secret covert organization, operating outside of the authority of the Ministry, and where only the Members know the full membership. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

what day is it really?

"According to Warner Bros. executives, the film was shown on over 10,000 theatre screens in the summer.[95]

The film was released in most countries in a two-week period starting 11 July."

ok so unless i am mistaken since i am about to go see the first airing locally at half past noon. there is no way the above can even be in the article since it is talking from a standpoitn some time in the future....

shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The line does indeed look a bit suspect. But in many areas the film was first aired at a minute past midnight this morning, so there are indeed screens on which it has "been shown" (in the past tense). --Maelwys 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the reference provided, the 10,000 theatres bit was an estimate made in March where WB was discussing upcoming releases of summer films. "We'll have between 6,000 and 7,000 on 'Ocean's' and over 10,000 on 'Harry' but that's going to be a challenge because there are so many incredible films coming," Kwan-Rubinek admits.Variety.com Someone evidently and improperly changed it from an estimated projection, to an actual happening. Fixed now. Thanks for the heads-up. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences

There definitely ought to be a "differences between the film and the novel" section (as in, Marietta is omitted in the film, the Time Room is omitted, Harry sees Snape's worst memory when he uses a Shield Charm rather than through the Pensieve, etc.) but I don't know how to create a new section.

See Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix --Maelwys 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nargles

What are nargles? It's like, a running gag in Order of the Phoenix. All I know of it is that it was the thing Harry talked about before he and Cho kissed in the movie and book. And of course, what Luna randomly talked about. But what is a nargle? I can't find my copy of Fantastic Beats and Where To Find Them, and if someone has a copy will you plese see if nargles are in there and tell me what they are, please? Thanks so much. Green Pirate 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the short wikipedia entry of the nargle, it's a pest infesting mistletoe. It's one of the creatures Luna claims to exist. -- _The Hiddey_ 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list from the HP Lexicon of creatures/things which Luna believes to exist, though whose actual existence is doubtful. [2] --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie Poster Deleted?

Who has deleted the movie poster? Someone needs to put one back up, even if its the teaser poster!

Is it so popular?

I news googled Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and got primarily negative reviews?! rabmny 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See its Rotten Tomatoes page. 77% of the its reviews are positive, which is pretty good. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stoners

Can anyone explain to me why the Wikipedia page even gives room for an opinion from Rolling Stone? Has anyone that works there even read any of these books? I'd say their opinion is pretty moot when they claim Radcliffe has grown into the role of Harry. Harry doesn't over-do every single reaction he ever has...ever. Beyond that, not giving credit to Rupert or Emma on their nearly spot on portrayals of Ron and Hermione pretty much seals this observation. Lopsider321 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, that's your own opinion that Rolling Stone's review was off. They are entitled to their point of view, and as a notable publication of film reviews, and because their review contained interesting writing that fit in well with the Critical reaction section, they were quoted. Their review is not entitled to be a review of the film's likeness to the book, but rather as a piece of cinematic work. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say having an extremely weak perspective of the Harry Potter world would in fact lessen the opinion of anything. "Candy-ass aspect" of the first two. Of course, I forgot Harry Potter was a action packed cult classic. They can have their opinion, it's just not good enough to be on the stinkin' wikipedia page. Maybe you should quit deleting criticisms from MuggleNet etc. that come from ACTUAL die-hard fans and we could have a criticism section that actually criticizes. No one wants to hear Rolling Stone step up to represent a community they don't know. In a section that should be filled with problems people had with the movie, we find the paid off ramblings of magazines. Is this wikipedia or the back of the DvD? Lopsider321 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this wikipedia or the back of the DvD? It's Wikipedia, which is here to present verifiable viewpoints found in reliable sources. That means I can't go to a random forum and cite some post where a supposed "die-hard fan" blasts the film for leaving X Y and Z out and for the terrible acting from every single person and why David Yates should be banned from directing HBP. To quote the policy: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. Don't think that I'm not one of these "die-hard fans" – why else would I have put nearly 700 edits of my time into editing this article? I've been working on it for over a year and a half, trying to present everything in a neutral point of view. However, unless a reaction from a fan is published in a newspaper or some other reliable source, you can't talk about it on Wikipedia. If you like, I'm sure there's a film critic out there who shares your view (one who's read the books and feels that the film strayed so far that it was horrible), and you can dig it up. I haven't found it yet. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Different Than Praise

If anything can they seperate the positive and negative reactions? As I said above I look for other not-so-friendly reactions and all I see is the usual "best movie of the summer" from newspaper X. We're talking a huge section of Harry Potter fans not being represented here. People don't like how it strays from the book, people don't like how Daniel Radcliffe over-acts and doesn't represent Harry from the book, just like Dumbledore is a far off shot in the dark. Basically what this page says right now is that only people who didn't read the books get to have opinions about the movie.

I guess I'd like to see a section dedicated to opinions from people who actually know at least a bit about Harry Potter. IESB applauds the barely there cameos when every Potter fan cringed at the thought of not getting to enjoy all of their other favorite characters. Make an opinion discussion thread here and put quotes from wikifans that seem to make excellent points. It's just like it wouldn't be fair for me to give my opinion on what I thought of the Transformers movie above those that actually grew up with the toys and T.V. series. MuggleNet this article up, we need more info from the ACTUAL experts on this topic. Lopsider321 12:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why should experts on Harry Potter have more valid critiques than film experts on a film about Harry Potter? Surely there are two separate concepts here: (1) Is it a good film?; and (2) Is it an accurate adaptation of the book? The two areas of expertise will have differing viewpoints, but surely in their own area of expertise they can be seen as valid critiques - HP experts will have valid critique of the accuracy of the adaptation, wheras film experts will have valid critique of the strengths of the film as a film. Corrolary question: how do we define "experts" on HP? --Dave. 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

External links:

One link (* Surprises in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) has been removed. At the present it leads to an error page and the original page contained false information about the movie.

Trivia

I went ahead and deleted the trivia section, as there shouldn't be one in the first place, and the only thing mentioned in there was change from gray socks to black tights on the girls' school uniforms (which is completely irrelevant). Legendotphoenix 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we add something about this

first off the fact that the song Boys Will Be Boys by The Ordinary Boys is used in the film which is the first time a modern song has been used in any of the films. the fact that hogwarts is portrayed as no having electricity. and how the story takes place in 1995 but the song is from 2005. possible as a goof or error in continuty --Jwein 23:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fan reaction

I'm taking out the fan reaction piece until someone does a better job writing it. There is no citation of displeasure from fans, except for the survey, which only has five signatures. That obviously doesn't represent a majority opinion. I'm heavily involved in Harry Potter fandom and this is only my reaction, but just about everyone I've spoken to has adored the film, especially the adaptation. If there is a universal love, hate, or mixed reaction to the film from fandom, the section should accurately cite sources from known and popular fansites. For example, Leaky Cauldron or Mugglenet. (I'm not affiliated with either, but they're examples.)

Cast

The Guy who played Walden Mcnair Peter Best is in this movie.