Talk:Harry Potter (film series)

Parentheses?

Why is this parenthesized? It would make more sense just to call it Harry Potter films. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SPOILERS

Someone please note that the film summaries contain MAJOR SPOILERS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.14.66 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Film Rights

I find it hard to believe that the film rights for one of the best-selling novels of all time was sold for only $2 million for the first four films. Rowling and the Queen of England are the two richest women in England. Rowling has not made all of her wealth solely from book sales. I believe she gets a certain percentage of the revenue from the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.147.35 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AFI

For the 10th anniversary of the original list, AFI is redoing their list of the 100 best movies in order to add movies that have been released since the original list. All of the Harry Potters have been released since the original list and were not elidgeable, this time around they are. However, Prisoner of Azkaban is the only Harry Potter to be one of the 400 nominated movies. (All three of The Lord of the Rings were nominated) Shouldn't this info be added?

Harry Potter in Space?

There is a Harry Potter in Space listed in the release dates section claiming it will be out in 2012. I'm sure that that is graffiti, but on the very off chance that its not, I just want to know if anyone else knows about it.

I feel so stupid even asking if its real.

Its a funny but stupid idea,some guy just put there.

Nekrogeist 00:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

This section appears to be completely Original Research. Unless someone has a good objection, I'll remove it soon. SpigotMap 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with Bond and Star Wars franchise

I removed this because it did not take into account inflation which gave absolutely no sense to the comparison.

It clearly says when not adjusted for inflation... meaning its a perfectly good comparison... Gran² 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

without adjusting for inflation the figures make no sense Spanglej (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

sold the rights to film / sold the rights to the characters?

The first paragraph under "Origins" states:

In 1999, Rowling sold the film rights to the first four Harry Potter books ... Rowling was hesitant to sell the rights because she "didn't want to give them control over the rest of the story" by selling the rights to the characters...

So, did she sell the rights to the characters? By selling the film rights, did she sell the rights to the characters? Or did she sell the film rights but NOT the character rights? Unclear.

--Drolldurham (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Response Section

The entire section seems to be mixed up -maybe biased- information that can easily confuse. I think this section should be taken out entirely, and replaced with a list of the director, screen writer, and other major staff changes for each film. thus far (Isn't the section basically arguing the differences between the movie's production staff?); somebody could always go and re-structure the whole section, though (I'm too lazy).

BombDiggady (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. The citation stating that the thrid Harry Potter movie is considered by fans and critics to be the best of the series (a statement that follows a rather biased description of it) cites a single review article about the fifth movie that barely mentions the third one. It can be argued that critics considered this one the best, but probably not fans. (I've witnessed, first hand, several complaints about it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.131.171 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at that one too. That statement in the article is weak at best. And if fans liked PoA so much as claimed, they didn't show it by buying tickets... it is the lowest grossing Potter movie by far. Jusdafax 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

yates/hallows

the imdb page for deathly hallows is now listing yates as director —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

DH split confirmed?

the following is from http://www.evannalynchfans.com

"Well guys you will get the news first. Today I went down to Millennium Bridge to check out the filming for HBP. They were set up at the base of the bridge, there was quite a lot of equipment. I got speaking to one of the crew who was really friendly. There were about 120 extras standing on the bridge. There was a helicopter that was filming it all and coming down right close to the bridge to get the shots. The crew member told me that they will have stunt men jumping/falling into the Thames from the bridge later on (shame I couldn't stay to watch it).

They closed off the area when the scenes were being filmed but you could still see everything. They are only allowed to film every half hour, so as to allow members of the public onto the bridge. I then started speaking to the crew member about filming, I asked him about Deathly Hallows and YES IT WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO MOVIES!!! which will be shot continuously. There are also still location shoots to be done in London but he said he's not allowed to tell me where."

shall we mention this or wait for someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

mugglenet is now reporting this as well…… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthew "Neville Longbottom" Lewis confirms DH split

its is currently (at the time of this post) at the top of mugglenet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Filming locations

Should we add a section about filming locations? Is there a particular building used for Hogwarts? --DearPrudence (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Harry Potter series is not, I repeat NOT the most successful film franchise of all time. Just google "most successful film franchises of all time" or whatever.

The top grossing film franchise is arguably either James Band or Star Wars, not Harry Potter. Just go to google, almost every site contradicts this hilarious claime. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So Variety are lying are they? I did Google it, as you suggested, and four of the first ten results it came up with quite clearly (in the title) stated that Harry Potter was the most successful film franchise of all time. Of course, when adjusted for inflation Star Wars comes out on top, but it's stated that the results are not adjusted in the article (or at least should be). Gran² 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Axactly. Adjusting the original star wars trilogy for inflation, triples those films numbers. In fact Guiness Book has the original Star Wars movie (episode IV) at 3.5 billion alone. It'll take Harry all seven of his films to equal the six Star Wars movies. Give it up buddy, the harry potter franchise will never, I repeat NEVER will touch the Star Wars' prodigious impact on society as a whole. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I say it would? In fact what does "prodigious impact on society as a whole" have to do with box-office takings? When not adjusted for inflation, Harry Potter is the highest film franchise of all-time, as is shown by many many sources. Therefore I fail to what you argument is. I was able to find at least six sources in about 2 minutes that show the HP series as the highest grossing series. I don't see how you can dispute that. I agree it should be clearly stated that it's only the highest grossing because inflation is not counted, but that's still notable, and still the truth. Gran² 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being debated to vehemently? "I repeat, NEVER will touch the Star Wars' prodigious impact on society as a whole"? Are you kidding? This isn't a forum for discussion about Star Wars' effect on society. Please keep your discussion limited to facts and not opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.51.197 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

highest film series

The Harry Potter series is highest unajusted for inflatuation 2nd is james bond 3rd is star wars ajusted id james bond 1st star wars 2nd harry potter 3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.232.172 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

when wuill the DH films get their own pages?

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is too much information on the film to fit on the current article it is on which is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It's not coming out for a long while, so there is not much point in making an article on it now. Jammy (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When filming starts. Gran² 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate, WP:FUTFILMS forbids articles on future films until they are actually filming: this acts as a threshold to all articles because of the numerous films that get trapped in years of scripting problems, like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While unlikely for these films, it would be biased to allow an article on it now. Alientraveller (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It takes far too long to get the last films out. The current actors won't be teenagers but grandparents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.191.249 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshire? I think Not

The books are set in the Scottish Highlands, not in Yorkshire, and I have never seen anything which implies, much less clearly shows, that the films are set in Yorkshire. Among other things, the Hogwarts Express is clearly seen going over the Glenfinnan Viaduct in three of the films. The viaduct is not only in Scotland, but famously so, giving the impression that its inclusion was designed to show the films' location: Scotland, not Yorkshire. It may well be that parts of the films were shot in Yorkshire, but they are not set there. Pelegius (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Material to be updated

No time to correct this, so if someone can be so kind:

The sixth, Half-Blood Prince is scheduled for a worldwide release on the November 21, 2008. Steve Kloves is returning as screen-writer.

Why Philosopher's Stone?

The name of the book is the Sorcerer's Stone as well as the movie. The name of the book should not be changed based on what the majority feels it should be called. The name should be changed back to the correct name of the Sorcerer's Stone. Tar9888 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Harry Potter franchise is British, we should go with British spellings and forms, which the first book/movie in the series in the UK was called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then it should say Philosophers stone (also knows as Sorcerers stone), just to clear up the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.222.180.213 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, for the same reason we won't include the title of the German or French translation for the title. — CHANDLER^#10 — 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

== Philosopher's Stone is incorrect. ==

It's Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone.

British work = British title. Gran² 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

it was originally philosephers stone but it has a different meaning in america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.6.7 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that the first book/movie has the sole and only title of "Philosopher's Stone".
Agreed, this should be fixed to at least say "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (aka Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)" as the Sorcerer's Stone is the official title in the United States as well as the title "Sorcerer's Stone" is endorsed and approved by the author JK Rowling. It is biased to discount the validity of the "Sorcerer's Stone" title based solely upon the fact that it was the second, but extremely well known and accepted, title. I recommend fixing this as soon as possible.

This article is about the films, and therefore the appropriate title should be used. Which title are seen in the beginning of the film? I havent got it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.173.21 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then this should be disscused that in the certain film article itself because it's not necessary to change the link of it here if that's the name of the article in the first place. No need for redirection. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

half blood prince 153 min

says mugglenet and HPANA who claim to have got the info from WB distrubituors id edit it but itsn ot letting me

First movie title is incorrect

{{editsemiprotected}}Please change the title of the first Harry Potter movie FROM Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone TO Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Theflume (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The original title of the book and the film is "The Philosopher's Stone". This was adapted for the American audience, as it was felt that the nuance of the word might cause an issue. This is mentioned in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), but perhaps more information about the reasons could be added?

 Not done  Chzz  ►  03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

editsemiprotected: Someone has written (multiple times) that the first Harry Potter film is entitled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but that is absolutely incorrect. The first movie is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo4h7 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that Harry Potter is a British subject and so British titles have been elected to be used on all Harry Potter-related articles. This includes the title of the first novel/film/video game/etc... which was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the UK. BOVINEBOY2008 11:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Producer David Heyman - also, this article needs work

Happened to read a July 21, 2009 L.A. Times article ( http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/07/when-harry-met-pally-rare-photo-of-day-dan-radcliffe-met-rupert-grint-.html ) on producer David Heyman, and decided to include some information on the man who started the ball rolling on the films, including casting Daniel Radcliffe as Harry. I can't help but notice that this rather important article is still rated a 'B', and rightly so. How about a push to make it an 'GA'? It will be a challenge to do it right, including staying NPOV, but it should be done soon. Jusdafax (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

edit semi protected

i created an account so i could edit this page but i am new so it won't let me. on this page it lists the first movie as harry potter and the philosopher's stone but that is wrong. it is actually harry potter and the sorcerer's stone could someone please change it for me. thanx. --Babyjeep81 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is only called Sorcerer's Stone in the United States. The actual title is Philosopher's Stone. faithless (^speak) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording and Punctuation

This section is intended to discuss wording and punctuation.

I will begin by saying I think it's unnecessary to begin the second paragraph in this article's Origins section with the sentence connector, "Therefore." The sentence should simply begin, "This led to Rowling's 1999 sale of the film rights..."

AlvinMGO (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As the author of the new first paragraph in the 'Origns' section, I put it in to ease the transition to what was the original start of the section. You are right, it's not needed, so I just pulled it. Jusdafax (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite the text to use less marketing jargon. For example, in the Origins section, replace "Impacted highly favorably" with "Impressed".

Again, that's my wording. I've kept the L.A. Times interview with Producer David Heyman, and his quote seemed to be to be a bit more than just 'impressed'. After deliberation, and a little help from you, I've decided to put Heyman's actual quote of his reaction to meeting Daniel Radcliffe into the article. I initially left it out, fearing reaction that it was "too much"... but you've made me come to conclude that what is there is too little. After all, this is the guy (Heyman) who bought the rights to the 'Potter' books, talking about meeting the kid who wound up playing the title role in one of the biggest movie franchises of all time, so the L.A. Times quote should be included. See if you agree with me that 'impressed' is not strong enough to cover Heyman's reaction.

One other thing, please don't forget to sign comments here with 4 tildes (~). Jusdafax (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I misunderstood what you meant. Well, I'll add the quote anyway, and we'll see where it goes. Sorry 'bout that. Jusdafax (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section: Casting the roles of Harry, Ron and Hermione

Added a bit more material to the 'Origns' section and decided there was enough to make a separate section regarding this. Jusdafax (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Switched order of 'Production' and 'Plot' sections, also, more work still needed

After considerable thought, I think moving the 'Plot' section down one chapter gives the article a better flow. To be honest I'm thinking it could be moved down another one as well, but I'll leave that up for discussion. This article still needs a lot of work, as the flagship Wikipedia article for the world's largest-grossing movie franchise. How about a short section on the soundtracks, for example? By the way, it seems John Williams may be coming back for the last two movies. Jusdafax (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Many thanks to Jonny7003 for starting the section. It's a decent start but needs some references. I've taken the liberty of tweaking the section a bit, feel free to undo any of my tweaks if you feel they do not improve the article. Jusdafax 17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1st Movie Title

The copy of the first movie that I own is called "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone" !Philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.212.187 (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Revamping the Box Office table

I'm thinking about re-doing the Box Office table to like these articles have it (The Twilight Saga (film series) and Saw (franchise), among many others) so it looks better, more organized and more informative. Also, I don't think Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows should be listed in the tables as they have not bee released yet, so it's a bit redundant to have them in the table with "N/A". Also, having all the film's linked within both the Box Office and Critical Reception table is bordering WP:OVERLINK, so I would like to address that also. Any objections? Please state now or forever hold your peace. ;-) Thanks and I look forward into (hopefully) improving this article's quality. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice table Mike! I just removed some bolding per MOS:BOLD. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)`

Oh I did not know about MOS:BOLD.  :-\ I'll need to change all the tables I've done, because I've bolded them all. Thanks for letting me know. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I know where I got the bolded titles, from here: Halloween_(franchise). Since it's a GA, I figured that's how it was supposed to be done. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way it's a fine improvement to the article, and I salute you, Mike! Jusdafax 01:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask if we should have the directors and the running times on the table.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

In the reception tables? I am not sure what those have to do with reception other than very trivial responses (one director was more favorable than another, longer films did better in the box office that shorter films). I think if we added them, we might step to far into POV or OR. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that data is already listed under the infobox. Box Office PERFORMANCE is for how the films did in the box office. So why should the director and runtime go in there? Some articles have (mostly franchise articles, that don't have film infoboxes) all of that listed in a table under "Production/Crew". But again all of this is listed in the infobox, and it would be redundant to add it again in another table. This user has done the same thing over at the Twilight film series, and I'm trying to get a 3rd opinion about it over there. But I strongly object to this. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly what it will do. Some people (including but not limited to me) see the director and the run time affect how the film is accepted and how the film does financialy. If we were to add one other table just for those purposes, it would be pointless. Why not add these things to a box where we already have the films listed? One box, more information. If it does turn out to be really bad, we can change it. Also, does anyone else see the references in its own box as a disturbence? I'll see if I can remove it while still keeping only that information while we try to agree on another (possible) box.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

All of this is in the infobox AND under Production. It's pointless and repetitive to add all of it in another table. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, can we PLEASE clear up the box office totals? Before the edit, we had the movies having over 5.4 million. Now all of a sudden, they have a total of 4.9 million. Thats a huge difference! Personally, I think we should use ONE reference to get all of our information so the total will be consistant. Box office Mojo lists Movie 1 as having $974,733,550 worldwide. It is listed on here as $976,475,550. I notice there are two references, one for foriegn BO and one for BOM, but BOM lists both domestic and foriegn totals, so why use two references? If we can do this, the references section can be condenced to where we can make note that all totals are from Box Office Mojo. User:ChaosMaster16/NewMoon is where a box office table is that I am working on, Mike please feel free to help me work on it. Once we get a good table where we both (and hopefully other people too) can agree on, we can use the table in The Twilight Saga and Harry Potter articles. I will leave what we have for both pages now until then.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

They way I see it the one site that has the most is the most accurate. Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm just trying to make the totals as accurate as possible. All articles that have the box office table (that I've encountered thus far) has it's OWN reference box. I think because it looks more organized like that and because sometimes film may have more than one reference. Also another problem I have about your table, including the Director and Runtime is WP:ACCESSIBILITY. The whole table is very wide. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in what sense is the word "billion" used? I'm asking as here are differences in meaning: some people teke it as 1.000.000.000 and some others as 1.000.000.000.000. Which would be the right meaning in this case?--Luke in spanish (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thousand million. For that reason the MOS recommends avoiding the word billion. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

First book/movie title inaccurate; Recommend Fix

{{editsemiprotected}} The official request is that the references to the first book/movie of the series be changed from "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (aka Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)".

The title of the first book/movie in the United States is "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", not "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". I fully understand and recognize that the British title of the book/movie is "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" but it should also state in parenthesis, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (aka Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)". This will make it so there isn't any confusion on the readers side about the title and will fully acknowledge that this book/movie legitimately has two widely-accepted titles. The title "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was approved and endorsed by author JK Rowling upon its use in the United States and is widely recognized by United States readers/viewers as its title. It would be extremely biased to omit this title based solely on the fact that it is not the 'first title' or isn't the 'British title'. Therefore, I would request that an edit please be made that informs (as Wikipedia is created/designed to do) the reader that the book/movie is known by both titles.

Several official sources have been provided that show "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" as a legitimate title of the book/movie.
US Book Publisher Official Page: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/stone/
US/International Movie Producer Official Page: http://www.warnervideo.com/harrypotterdvd/
IMDB Official Page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/
Cotrevor (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done as a {{dablink}}, name in brackets in the title field would have made a very long section title.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Buget problem

The top chart of the article isn't including half blood princes buget it should be 905 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.232.172 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No photo

Just noticed the infobox photo of the boxset (of movies 1-6) was deleted from the Commons, and therefore was removed as a redlink. I went looking for the old photo of boxset 1-5 (which I preferred anyway) but it too was deleted from Commons. No permissions, it seems. I then looked through Commons for a photo to represent this rather important Wikipedia article. The existing shots of Daniel Radcliffe out of character don't cut it, in my view. At the least, we need a good-to-great shot of the three lead actors, I'd think, or we have to get permissions for professional photos that exist. I'm hoping someone who attended one of the HP film premeres has a shot that they are willing to upload to Commons and donate - yes, give away for free. Or, as I say, ideally (heh) some employee of Warner Bros. who has permissions and a good shot. Failing those - any ideas on where to go from here? This article needs photo(s)! Jusdafax 11:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the box of films 1-6 is back, and even tilted so we can see Ron and Hermione on the edge. Good! I, ah, assume you have permissions? Thanks. Jusdafax 08:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia doesnt know harry potter

i just wanted to somehow point out on this site that wikipedia has the first book in the harry potter series name as the philosophers stone... and its not its the sorcerers stone... i no longer find this site reliable, if they cant even get a book name right... i think this website needs to do more research before posting its imformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.16.181 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the title of the original book in all countries except the United States and India, where it is called the Sorcerer's Stone. Because HP is a British subject, we use the British version of titles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter 3D announcement

Warner Bros. said it will release the next two "Harry Potter" films in 3D.

Ctdaniels2 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please correct the errors on the page

This is to the editor of this website. In the US the first movie is called "Harry Potter and Sorcerer's Stone". The first book may have been released in other countries under different titles but if you want people to find this information useful then please correct the errors. I find this page no useful and very unreliable sorce for Harry Potter, until the errors are corrected. I have made several attempts at correcting them and can not get in to correct the errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyP331 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This comes up a lot, but the article clearly states (in the individual plot sections for each movie) that in the U.S. and India the title for the first film is 'Sorcerer's Stone'. The question really becomes one of 'should Wikipedia be USA-centric' and the decision has been not to be. I personally have no strong feelings about the issue except to feel that the decision has been made, and shouldn't become a political football. Let's just settle on the way it is and move on. Jusdafax 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ThePidge001, 2 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hi im telling you there is a error on this page. Harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban has made 800 million worldwide and on the grossing for the hole series should have 5 million more instead of the grossing being $5,412,504,276 it should be $5,417,504,276. thanks i no ive made a few errors but this is not one.

ThePidge001 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide a reliable source and the exact text you would like to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

"Alfonso Cuarón's approach was more stylized and lively, using many handheld long takes and dark uses of colour. Unlike Columbus, his dislike of expository dialogue or explanation of back story (most notably the Marauder's story) led to criticisms of his approach being "style over substance". His re-imagining of Hogwarts and student attire caused some to feel the continuity of the series had been hurt, though some find it to be closer to the descriptions in the novels. Furthermore, his quick fire pacing led to a shorter film, leading some to call Cuarón "lazy". However, the film is often perceived by fans and critics to be the best in the series."

This paragraph doesn't specify what film is 'the best in the series' and the citation dosen't mention the fans feelings towards the film --78.149.14.134 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire "Reception" part of the article is ridiculous. "Some" call Cuaron "lazy"? "Many critics" said Half-Blood Prince was "the funniest of the series"? Since no decent sources for these claims of critical consensus are provided, I think it's obvious that somebody is stating their own opinions as fact. I say delete the whole section and let the critical consensus and box office chart speak for itself. 98.161.53.124 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.231.177.49, 10 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

the first harry potter movie is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. not Philosopher's Stone.

72.231.177.49 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Only in certain countries. In the United Kingdom, where the series is from, and throughout most of the world, it is titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actors who played Dumbledore in the "Infobox film"

In the infobox for the films, it is put to where it shows the differences in directors, producers(etc). But it doesn't show the differences with Richard Harris and Micheal Gambon as 2 different actors who played Dumbledore. So, could someone who can change the infobox put it to where it will show that difference so it will look like the example of the infobox shown(on the left).

Harry Potter
Starring	Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, Ralph Fiennes, Richard Harris(PS, COS), Michael Gambon(POA, GOF, OOTP, HBP, DH), Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith

To whoever changes it, make that change to the cast in the infobox as shown above or some other way that will show the differences. And I would like to give my thanks to whoever responds to this and changes it to what it needs to be. 75.91.5.34 (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done and thanks for pointing it out. Jusdafax 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. 75.89.207.39 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Christ Church incorrectly labeled as filming location for The Great Hall in Hogwarts

Someone with experience in editing wikipedia should remove the mention that Christ Crurch in Oxford is used for filming the scenes involving the Great Hall, and remove the photo of it (which appears to the right of the text in the short summary of "Goblet of Fire". Christ church main hall was merely the inspiration for The Great Hall, and actual filming takes place at the Great Hall set in Leavesden Studios. The set has been there since filming started in 2000.

Or actually, to be more informative, change the text under the photo so it reads something like "...( (The Great Hall).. was inspired by the hall in Christ Church..." Along those lines.

--Cohf88 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the heads up. Jusdafax 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

'Reception' section needs a lot of work

As others note above, this tagged section is riddled with uncited POV. One suggestion was to deep-six the whole section. I think some of it can be salvaged, but I welcome other thoughts, as this sub-topic can be a bit touchy. Jusdafax 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Update - I see no interest, and having given warning here and waited a couple months, I will be tackling this section asap. Jusdafax 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

'Foreign'?

In the table for box office totals, it has a column named 'Foreign'. In any international context this doesn't work. When 'foreign' here includes the UK, this is ludicrous (though not unexpected). The source may use the term, but this should be changed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and it is done thanks to you. Good observation. Jusdafax 17:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Go back to semiprotection?

Looking over this page's history, little to no IP edits have stuck and about a hundred have been reverted since pending changes was applied. It seems like an awfully big waste of our resources for the little gain from a rare constructive edit that we don't have to revert. Am I missing something, or have the pending changes not helped this article at all? If the latter is the case I say we go back to semiprotection. ThemFromSpace 04:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There are several reasons to do so, including numerous attempt to change the first book title to the American version, etc., and the run up to the next movie release later this year. It will just get worse. Jusdafax 09:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have added a request at WP:RPP. Jusdafax 18:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done 6 months!... Thanks to admin HJ Mitchell. This will take us past the next release in the series. Thanks also to Themfromspace for the suggestion and Aristophanes68 for the backup. Jusdafax 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.99.152.117, 16 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} On this site "Harry Potter (Film Series)", they have incorrectly referred to the first movie and book as "Philosopher's Stone". It should be "Sorcerer's Stone". Please fix!

74.99.152.117 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's a longstanding consensus to use Philosopher's Stone in this article as that was the title of the British release and the original title of the first book. Look through some other conversations on this talk page to see this point reiterated. ThemFromSpace 23:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Harry potter films logo history

I thought of making a new section of the harry potter wiki franchise page with a section called logo history and it starts like this: The logo of the first two films of harry potter which is light toned and directed by chris columbus was gold,The latter films which were dark toned starting with the prisoner of azkaban till deadly hallows has the logo silver with a bit dark tone in it. Do you accept it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the change in the logos, and find your comment of mild interest, but don't think it merits inclusion as a section or elsewhere in the article. Not sure where it would go if not in the article though. This is all just one editor's opinion, however - let's see what others think. Thanks for asking first, which truly shows good faith. Jusdafax 18:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

I would agree with the above poster that this is of mild interest. However, the logo history doesn't appear to be notable enough for the article unless you have a reliable secondary source which discusses the logos. If you're only basing your discussion upon your own observations of the logos, that is ranging too close to original research or at least original synthesis. If you have any secondary sources, that would help a lot in overcoming my objection. Princess Lirin (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We have one now:http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/explore-the-wizarding-world-harry-potter-logo-designs/Belrien12 —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

I notice there is a related Harry Potter logo in the infobox of the Wikipedia article for the Harry Potter theme park in Florida. Do you (or anyone else here) know one or more versions of the film logo(s) that could be uploaded cleanly (with all needed permissions, if any) to Wikimedia Commons, after which it could be included in the article and a brief mention of the stylistic changes added in that context? It would be way down in the body of the article, of course, but having the logo might add to the visual appeal. Jusdafax 21:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Stone

Sorry, I'm not totally up regarding the original old British releases of the books, but Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the ONLY title I have ever seen. Do you know what complete fools you look having the Philosopher's Stone listed there?

Tell me, what title is this sold under since it was written? What title is the film? This Philosopher's title should NOT be anywhere mentioned except as a footnote that Rowling originally called it that. I've seen the arguments above in the posts over the summer. Stupid, I must tell you frankly. That ought to be changed, and this is exactly why NO ONE trusts WIkipedia at all.75.21.111.206 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)