Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

It is inappropriate to redirect this article to the Book, because anyone who wants information about the book would not type (film) in their search for the article. So, if they get to this page, it is obvious that they want information about the film and it's production. Even though there is little known at this point, there is more than nothing, and the artlicle should reflect the known details.

-Removed comma before "Sirius" so that it was clear that Sirius is Harry's godfather; within the list, it looked as if godfather and Sirius were two different people.

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) afterwards. Phoenix1304 15:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

What's this "Harry Potter fans U suck" nonsense someone please get rid of it! find me on my talk page LOTRrules 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Release Date

Look here! Deathly Hallows is set to be released in 2010! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.24.56 (talk • contribs)

IMDB can not always be relied upon, as they have such a huge database, many of the dates are "out of date" as it were, however it can be assumed that it will be out by 2010 because they hope to have wrapped up the films by then. (Sorry no source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviejunkie99 (talk • contribs)
IMDb is working on the assumption of a continuation of the current 18-month cycle pace which has taken hold since the third movie was released. Remember the first two films came out back to back in Nov '01 and '02 - on a pace partly to keep the child actors having a reasonably similar appearance. The third film was slown down by 6 months to release in Summer '04 - giving everyone a bit of a break (also to replace the actor for Dumbledore's role). Since then it has been Nov '05 and July '07 for the fourth and fifth films. The sixth is officially scheduled for release on Friday 21 Nov '08 (and I'll bet you it gets released early on Wednesday the 19th or Thursday the 20th, just like the previous films were), and it follows that the seventh and last will be planned for Summer 2010. We can debate the reliability of the IMDB, and that things sometimes change, but it is a decent source, usually accurate "for now", and it is probably correct, and it can be checked from time to time for updates. I think we can say Summer 2010 (projected) with a source reference to IMDB or any other reasonably good source has also "verified" with Warner Bros. their intent. There is no reason to stick our heads in the sand and pretend IMDb does not exist and ignore the information that is open and available and easily verifiable to them. If IMDB proves to be wrong, or if disasters destroy the global economy, and everything is put on hold and delayed, then we can correct our information accordingly as better information becomes available. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellatrix Lestrange

How do we know if she's in book 7 when it hasn't yet been released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviejunkie99 (talk • contribs)

There was one interview that was released saying she plays a significant role in book 7, and is posted on many Harry Potter websites..... and in this interview :The last question on the second page states, that she is in Movie 7. ---User:Smartjoe299

Thanks for the information. I've been staying away from such sites to avoid knowing too much about what's going to happen in the book. I want my own theories and such like :) --- Movie Junkie 16:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for not signing before, merely forgot.)

ya she's in the first chapter
Well, she's in it! I just read it! Niyant 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Having now read the book, I realise its true :) — Movie Junkie 09:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit strange that she has confermed for the 7th movie but not the 6th. In the books she is in both after all. Lovingnews1989 08:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, she was only in the one scene: Spinners End in the 6th book...knowing the filmakers they will probably cut that scene...but even if they don't, shes not that important in it and can be cut out of it. She's far more important in the last book.---Smartjoe299

thanks now i get itLovingnews1989 23:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

She may indeed be in the sixth film, but all she mentioned in the interview was that JKR said that she was "significant" in the seventh. She's not "significant" in the sixth, but she may still be in it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous roles and new characters section

I hardly think you could classify these sections as OR or speculation. Nothing about them says that these roles will definitely make the cut. The lead paragraph of each section might be reworded to the following to make it clearer:

The following is a list of actors who have, in a previous film, filled a role that recurs in the novel, the source material for this screen adaptation. No information on their return in Deathly Hallows has been confirmed, and the characters may be recast or removed from the screenplay adaptation.

There is nothing speculative about this -- it provides a resource for potential continuity among the series. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that paragraph would be the one for "Previous roles"; here's a potential one for "New characters": "The following is a list of characters who have a role in this book but who have not appeared in previous films. Any of these characters may not be written into the screenplay." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"For potential continuity". That's problem I have. It's guessing. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not guessing. Nowhere does it say these actors are to come back for the film. It's saying that they were the last people to appear in the role. The contunity is inferrable, but not written. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We should not be inferring anything. Anything that is not stated explicitly should not be added to an article. These lists/topics pertain more to the book and the previous movies than this one, and they are already covered there. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The reader can infer things if they like, it's not up to us. If what is said is not anything like "we're almost sure that Snape will be in the movie because he's kind of major in this one" but more like "Severus Snape appears in the source material for this film; previously he was played by Alan Rickman," I don't see what's wrong with that. We're not coming out and saying that Snape is likely (or there's a 78% chance or whatever) to appear, we're simply saying that he appeared in the book, and this is who played him, so you don't have to go to two other articles to find that out. If that's something which you still don't agree with, I could potentially envision directing the reader to List of Harry Potter films cast members. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Inserting cast members without a source fails WP:RS, regardless of whether the character is in or not the source material. See how the screenplays of the last two movies in particular have strayed from the novels. Additionally, unsourced material about a living person can be construed as a violation of WP:BLP. Will (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What is unsourced about saying that Alan Rickman played Snape in the first five films? That Ralph Fiennes played Voldemort in the fourth and fifth? If you'd like I'm happy to go and cite each individual case just so that there is a citation next to each name. Nobody is "inserting cast members." I am making it very clear that we are not saying these people are signed on for this film, but rather are saying they were the most recent actors to play certain characters, certain characters who appear in the source material. If anything is OR, it is the suggestion that the fact that the screenplays of the last two movies have strayed from the novels is supposed evidence that HBP's and DH's screenplays will also stray from the novels. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The thing about these sections is that, even though they're not saying it directly, they are implying that these actors may or may not play roles that may or may not be in the movie. If someone wants to see what characters are in the book and who played those roles in the previous movies, they can go to the applicable articles to see. You say that readers can infer what they want, but that just makes it clear you want to imply the speculation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That is what I personally have implied. With a stronger lead, it is not speculation. Besides, rather than making work for the reader and having them go to different articles to find who appears int he book and then who played that character, we're making it easier for them. Incidentally, I've put in a notice at WT:FILMS for a few more comments on this. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If the roles aren't confirmed for this film: they shouldn't be listed, period. We don't need list clutter of "previous roles", if none of those roles are relevant (as they aren't confirmed right now). When things are confirmed: then it can be put in the article. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball: speculation doesn't belong here. Also I want to point out: a list of book characters isn't needed for this article, as the full cast of this movie isn't known yet. If people want to know the book cast: they can look at the book article. RobJ1981 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is that this is most definitely not speculation, and WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Obviously these roles are not yet confirmed, as it is quite explicitly stated. The list is being used as a reference guide listing characters who appear in the book, and who do not all appear in such a list form in the book article anyway. And even if they did, the reader would have to click on each individual name to see the actor who portrayed him/her. Why not make it easier and put it all in one place? It is quite clear that these roles have not been confirmed. Also, instead of having a revert war in the article, let's resolve the issue here first. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is speculation because as you say, these roles are not yet confirmed. Their inclusion itself is speculation. What reason other than that these might be in the film is there for including these lists? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be speculation to say that the roles are confirmed, or are "probably" going to be included in the film. It is not speculation to say that the roles appeared in the book upon which the film was based, giving no subjective opinions on whether they will be included or not but simply being comprehensive in their listing. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why might someone want to read these lists? A list of roles from the book belongs in the article about the book, not here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, including these roles is either speculation (if it's meant to suggest a likelihood that they'll be in this film as well) or irrelevant (if it's just facts about the book and other movies). 24.152.170.55 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It is "just facts" about the book and other movies, but included here as a convenience and resource, so that people don't have to hunt down every character who appears in the book, since that's not listed anywhere else on Wikipedia, and then search for the actor that played them in whatever the last movie was that they appeared in. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(restart indent) But there's no logical place to list roles in the book article. It makes sense here because of the actors previously linked to them, IMO. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As this topic has been halted for nearly two days now, I've decided to start an RFC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

This is to determine whether roles that occur in the novel and that also appeared in earlier films should be listed, with the actor/actress that played the role in the previous film(s), in this article, as well as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). It is also to determine whether new characters that appear in the book should be listed as well. The inclusion of one may not necessarily support the inclusion of the other. 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fbv65edel (talk · contribs)
  • The inclusion of these lists is not speculation, and the lead paragraph that would accompany each section would quite clearly state that none of these roles have been confirmed to recur in the screenplay and the actor that previously filled the role is not confirmed, nor has any obligation, to return. Rather than having to go to the book article and try to find every role which occurred in one of the earlier films, then go to each individual character article and find who played the role previously, we've put it all on one page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Statement by IamHermionie (talk · contribs)
  • This list does nothing to the article but add info that is already placed in other articles. If people want to find out what previous roles were played in the other movies, they can just look it up in the specific articles. I really don't think that this section was made other than to imply that these characters might be in this movie, which is against Wikipedian standards and really, I think people will infer this without our help. I can understand where somebody would like to make a list of characters that were not in previous books or movies and would like to make a list to point out that these characters from the book might get an actor in the movie. All, in all, I don't think that this list should be in the article, rather replaced with a list of new characters from the books that might have an actor representing them.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Pairadox (talk · contribs)
  • I think Chris Griswold expressed it best when he wrote about the implication of including information about actors that are not confirmed. It should be left out. Pairadox 05:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DH film needs it's own page.

This is the edit that started the HBP movie page date: July 2005, 3 1/2 years before the movie. It's now 2 1/2 before Part 1. DH needs a page!!! 202.154.153.12 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Wikipedia:FUTFILMS forbids articles on films which have yet to begin filming. The policy was introduced after the original HBP page was created. Filming for DH is due to start next year, it can get it's own article then. Gran2 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

old comment

Should be incorporated into the section about filming below: http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=tragic-harry-potter-stunt-double-will-never-walk-again&method=full&objectid=21200151&siteid=93463-name_page.html (Don't have a login, someone else do this please) --145.116.8.109 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


I think....

Boy, I'm not trying to brag or anything, but, whoever helped me on this article, I think it turned out really good and thank you for helping me start it. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Thanks. Let's hope we get more information than the fairly limited amount relased for HBP. Gran2 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the cast table idea, but as we don't actually know when the split will be, it's speculation at the moment, so I've commented it out for now. Gran2 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I figured if we did this, it would be way easier to understand and see who is in which part. And no problem. I placed a "warning" on top of it.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved --Aervanath (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a two part film adaptation, I believe that it should be set up in the same manner as the Kill Bill article (another film split into two parts). Thoughts?--Snowman Guy (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is set up the same way as Kill Bill. Gran2 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the name of the article should be Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) not (films). A: There is really no other article on wikipedia with (films) B: This film is an adaption of one book but is being split into two parts, as discussed thoroughly in the article, this is ONE FILM, TWO PARTS. C: I think (films) can be confusing. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I think it might be confusing either way, if you see film you might think it's about part one only at first glance... I know they've said they treat it was one film, in filming only perhaps? In the same case as I think they treated the LOTR trilogy "as one" while fimling, doing it at one time etc... It might even be hard in this early stage to even know how it will be split or treated, I don't know how many films there exist that are split in two yet one etc. For example I'll bet WB will release separate DVD's for both parts. I would be OK with both film and films, perhaps the Film Project knows what to do in these cases... One thing I'm for though is to keep it one article, but split the infoboxes (perhaps not needed until later, 2010 or 2011) into two as in Kill Bill. — CHANDLER#10 — 01:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. One page, two infoboxes when the movies are released i guess. But the name thing is really bugging me (and I mean REALLY). I think even if in filming was treated as "two parts", we go to the book. The book is ONE WHOLE PART. The movie is based on the book. So, in conclusion, we have ONE WHOLE FILM, just released as two parts. Say it WASN't two parts. It would be one huge 2 and a half hour film. So why not just keep it as one film? I also agree that it would be confusing as both film and films, it's just, why be wrong, when we are right? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Is it known that both parts will be titled simply Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, or will they have different titles? For know, I think (films) will be alright, but it may need to be split in the future. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The Lord of the Rings is a single movie made in three parts. Based on a novel, divided into 6 books, released in 3 volumes. There are three film articles. "the film article" is at The Lord of the Rings film trilogy 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold It is too early to request a move. As we all know its gonna be two separate parts, hence the names are also supposed to be different like HPATDH part 1 and HPATDH part 2. So untill and unless the names are confirmed lets keep a hold on the move. Once WB confirms the name for the first movie we can move this page. --Legolas!! (talktome) 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the three films have own articles The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring etc (the three volumes are at The Fellowship of the Ring etc), "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" could be likened to "Harry Potter film series", but the LOTR films are specifically divided into three films. - User:Chandler (not logged in) 85.227.242.28 (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, The Lord of the Rings was 3 books that were filmed at one time. It was not a single movie that was merely broken up into 3 segments. It was three films just filmed at the same time. This is one book, one film, all filmed at the same time, they're just dividing the final product in half because of the length. It should be "film", and no, there should not be two infoboxes (what's the point of that, nothing is going to change from one infobox to the next, except maybe the poster...which isn't a reason to have a second infobox).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Bignole. Gran2 09:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)If you compare the Kill Bill infoboxes there are going to be similar changes, they're both going to have a separate running times, gross revenue, imdb links, perhaps different actors in the starring list, if they follow the book. — CHANDLER#10 — 09:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole too. Acctually one info box is fine. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
  • It looks a lot like two films to me: it is like whether a book in two volumes is called two books or not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The difference between this situation and Kill Bill is that this needs disambiguating, Kill Bill does not. If it did, it would certainly warrant (films) as a dab as well. That it is a single story doesn't seem to be the most relevant factor here; there are two feature-length films covered by this article, and as such, the disambiguator should be plural. Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Video game arragement?!

What is the video game porting arangement of this film, being that it is in two parts, is it likely that the film will be made into a game in both November 2010 and May 2011, or will it both two parts be releaced into one game in May 2011? If someone could answer my question, or give me something releated to a answer that would be helpful. Thankyou, mcjakeqcool. Mcjakeqcool (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is no info on this. WB are engaged with the game version of Half-Blood Prince only. --Legolas (talktome) 04:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DellTG5 (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Good Queston! You can check the Harry Potter wiki, or see a page I made,User:DellTG5/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The Video Game. Sign my talk page!

British/American date formats...

Why on Earth does the first sentence of this article pronounce the film as Britsh-American ? 98% of this film is British and it irritates me how the Americans try to stake claim to anything that is decent and/or British. Please edit the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.174.150 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, having looked at WP:ENGVAR, I still see no reason why American styles should be retained. Yes, I acknowledge it does say that "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety" and that this article was started by an American. But it then goes on to say "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic". I would think, given that this film will be based on a British book, with British actors, a British director, and being set in the UK itself, warrants an appropriate use of British formatting - how much stronger would the ties have to be? Gammondog (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. I'll revert my changes. I would note that the film is written by an American and it is being produced by an American film company, Warner Bros. With the book, I think you are clearly correct, with the film perhaps less so. It's not that important.--2008Olympianchitchat 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

If you want to improve this article, can take information from this sandbox of Italian Language Wikipedia: [1].--82.52.144.251 (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the story

Is there any indication of where the story line will be split to produce two movies? Obviously Rowling didn't plan it that way, even if she did give permission. CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Director David Yates, the story is being split leaving the first part as a cliffhanger. Though this hasn't been confirmed, merely mentioned in an interview with LA Times. See Here for more information.

Personally, I think that there could be several places where they could make a cliffhanger out of it, most likely for me is that they end part one around the point of Dobby's death perhaps just before or after. Right now, nothing is definite. Futuristic Monkey (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above there are many places toward the middle of the book where the film could be split. Ending the first film with Harry drowning in the Icy Pool containing Gryffindor's sword would be a hell of a cliff hanger for the non-book-readers who watch the films. Disagreeing with above however i think the death of Dobby is too far into the book. (Being about 3/4 of the way in). On the other hand Yates may wish to extend both The Battle of Hogwarts and Nineteen Years Later making Dobby's Death an ideal split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.174.150 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The films will be split right after Harry, Hermione, and Ron get captured by the Snatchers and taken to Malfoy Manor. It was revealed by Joshua Herdman, who plays Gregory Goyle in the movies. For further information see [2]. November19thdh1 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources to be implemented

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gran2 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleftorium (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnote problem

There's something wrong with footnote 29. It says:

^ "Helen McCrory to reprise Narcissa Malfoy role in Deathly Hallows". Daily Mail. 12 April 2008.

But the link is to:

http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/helen-mccrory-reprise-narcissa-malfoy-role-deathly-hallows-55484/.

I'm not sure what's happened here. It looks as if a non-RS is masquerading as a RS. Can somebody fix? AndyJones (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Snitchseeker is a RS when it comes to HP news. Yes their news are posted in long form in that forum-format, does that make hem less reliable? chandler ··· 21:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe. But even if Snitchseeker is a RS (and frankly it looks like a forum to me) the point still shouldn't claim to be sourced, instead, to the Daily Mail. AndyJones (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I think Andy's point is that the section lists the Mail as the publisher, but doesn't link to the original Mail article. I'll change the link. Gran2 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Now you've fixed the link, I've changed the text to match the Daily Mail article title also. AndyJones (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

cast announcemets

jamie campbell bower has been confirmed for the role og gellert grindelwald http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/5/30/deathly-hallows-casting-updates-teen-dumbldedore-cast-chris-rankin-returns-and-more i think it would be great if the harry potter and the deathly hallows page would be updated with these cast announcements—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzcooper2006 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

harry potter

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/6/12/deathly-hallows-movie-updates-charity-burbage-cast-possible-historic-home-for-exterior-shots-and-more harry potter cast announce mets --Cruzcooper2006 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Character summaries

Do we need those little summaries of each character? Hardly anybody will be reading this who doesn't know them, and the rest can look them up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As the sixth film in the franchise I think they'd only be needed for new characters, who should only be mentioned if they are important to the plot, in which case they would be described adequately in the Plot section. I think also it realy needs to contain are "Someone as Someone: Casting related information". Gran2 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Poster

Is the movie poster official? Because it took them like forever to put up the half blood prince one and this seems way too early to already have one... Kgreg10 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not official. Gran2 14:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to find information on Deathly Hallows films, the voice in Italian is written very well[3].--82.52.136.153 (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cast List Order

The cast list for this page is huge and contains almost every single actor and actress that is confirmed. That's all fine, for now. But as of now, besides the trio, the cast is listed in alphabetical order. A member changed the list into alphabetical and not in order of importance because he or she said it would end edit wars, which makes sense. Even though it might fix that, all the other Harry Potter film pages have had the cast list in order of importance. I think we should remain consistent with the others and have it in order of importance. We could, of course, remove a lot of the more minor characters from that list to make it easier to order. What do you think? Joe

I think a good compromise would be order of importance of previously-appeared characters, and then alphabetical order for the rest until importance can be determined when the films are released. BOVINEBOY2008 21:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's adequate, but I would prefer order of importance. I think listing by screentime (which obviously can't be done now) would be best. Gran2 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, in the mean time, alphabetical seems logical. BOVINEBOY2008 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why it lists many in this order: cast member as character. simple. But then later on is cast member is excited to return according to his agency and will reprise the role of character. I tried putting them all in a standard list but it was reverted. Other film pages are the same way, not sure the reasoning behind that. Seems like the extra info about the character joining the cast would go under production or development and such. Moonraker0022 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So you guys think we should just keep it as is? I guess it'd be kinda hard to list the characters in order of importance without seeing the movie but we can still do a pretty good job. We've all read the book and we all know how much every character appears. We may mess up in a few spots but I think it could be workable to make it in order of importance now. Joe 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason it wasn't all in one list was that we didn't want non-readers to think that Blaise Zabini and Mrs Granger were the stars of the movie even though they have very minor roles. --Debbie rocks (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the cast section so that there's a list of castmates with bigger roles and one that is labeled 'minor roles'. What does everyone think? It's been changed quite a few times so is that a good compromise?--Debbie rocks (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hooper want WIlliams to return, out of project

[4]

Not only do the producers want Williams to return, composer Nicholas Hooper is bowing out!

UPDATE: JWFan member 'Maestro', who just interviewed composer Nicholas Hooper for an article which will appear in the next issue of FSM Online, has the latest news: I spoke with Nicholas Hooper yesterday (the interview got delayed), and I can assure all of you that he is a very humble and kind man.

He explained a little why he chose to take the series in a totally different musical direction. He testified of his admiration of John Williams. (I won't go into more detail, because I want everyone to subscribe to FSM Online!)

The one juicy tidbit, which I also mentioned in the interminable "Williams may score seventh Potter film" thread, is that Hooper is bowing out of the series altogether. He told me that the films have put too great a strain on his family life, and that he always thought that a certain composer "whose name I know well" should finish out the series, "since he started it."Cinema1138 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article into two, one for each film

I think that even though the films are going to be shot back to back, perhaps we should consider splitting them giving them their own seperate article. It will be easier to divide up the information on the plot and reviews. The Cast may also be different for each film as well with production credits. For instance, when Mad-eye dies in most likely the first part of the film (if it is going to be included) his character might not be in the second one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwolvesto50 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, and I think this page will eventually be split into two, but at the moment it's not really practical- we don't actually know for sure where the story is going to be split, so we can't know for certain which characters/actors will appear in each part. When the films are released there will be separate marketing, box office and film review information for each part, but at the moment the only production information available applies to both films equally. If we split now we'll just end up duplicating the entire article.I think we should wait until the release of Part I before trying to split this article. Iscaria (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering if we should treat this as Kill Bill, which was a film released in two parts, or two individual films. If they are going to be released as a "Part 1" & "Part 2", then they shouldn't be separated. BOVINEBOY2008 02:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Kill Bill was conceived of as a three/four hour movie, whereas these two will be two movies. Especially if one is given a different name than Deathly Hallows. 209.40.210.222 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Has there been news on them being two separate films? I may have not heard it. If there hasn't, we shouldn't speculate (obviously). BOVINEBOY2008 04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep them together. Yates and Heyman have commented in interviews that it is being treated as one film, just released in two parts. I don't think there will really be that much difference between things like cast/crew; it really wouldn't be too hard or overly long to leave it as one article. Gran2 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's inevitable by the time November 2010 comes by, they'll be split. --Mdilchaser (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support making two articles for these two films Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? They are not two wholly separate films, they are two parts of the same film, just released separately. If the story could be condensed (and if WB were not such money-loving capitalists) it would be one film. Heyman (as cited in the article) has said they are treating it as one film and filming back-to-back as if it were. To me this is just like Kill Bill and Che. You could also compare it to the various Pokemon game articles: Red, Blue and Yellow do not have their own pages, they are all together. Now it is certainly possible that they would be split, and it's certain somebody will try, but I really fail to see the point (certainly now, when the first part hasn't been finished and won't be released for well over a year). I cannot see any major complications of their only being one article. Gran2 14:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My only understanding is that they are two seperate films. Back to the furture 2 and 3 are continual stories (both released closely together), yet the films are made into two seperate articles. That said though I see your point As in right now. It seems that it would be a strecth to have two articles as they would be basically the same at this point. Though down the road when more info is available. I think two articles would be appropriate. But thats crystal balling so, lets stay status quo then unless something changes in the articles to warrent it. happy editingOttawa4ever (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Query

It is the seventh and final film in the popular Harry Potter films series. Is the pharse in the opening paragraqph which seems to suggest the last book is one film. Can someone claify his a bit better making clear that it is not the the 7th and last film (which sounds like its one film), and establish that they are two films. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be made clearer that there are two films, part 1 and part 2, for the final book. Futuristic Monkey (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done - I feel the issue is now clear to the casual reader. Jusdafax 07:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality

This article is very poor! The Italian Wikipedia version is much better, why do not you translate them from?--82.52.161.42 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, this article is perfectly fine. If you think the Italian is "much better" then why don't you add some things from it. It appears that article is filled with a fair amount of speculation and every single filming report, which is hardly encyclopedic. Gran2 16:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, add information to that voice then! I read it and aren't speculations, but every single informations appeared on film since his official announcement. Moreover, next to each actor is a few lines on his character (important or not), his salary, his work, and more. I think not a bad voice, indeed, is excellent; would be put on "good articles" but nothing a year at the release, because you find each information you'd like to know.--82.52.143.223 (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you think there's anything good then please add it to this article. But I read through it a bit (with the help of a translator) and I have to say quite a lot of it isn't offically confirmed. For example, the budget is source to IMDb, which is not reliable. And the list of directors who rejected the film includes Spielberg, but that was just an unsubstantiated rumour in the Mail, a paper which hardly ever reports anything true. But, as said, please feel free to add stuff here. Gran2 22:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, Spielberg and other are reports without foundation, but are still relevant information when one considers his candidacy, others showed interest etc....--87.2.220.109 (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Waylett

Somebody needs to add the Jamie Waylett as Vincent Crabbe will not be returning due to his drug conviction. This has been confirmed by Joshua Herdman whose character Gregory Goyle will take his death scene. http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/jamie-waylett-won-t-return-deathly-hallows-66514/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SirR2009 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex Crockford as Charlie

It says on IMDB that Alex Crockford will reprise his role as Charlie Weasley in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. I added this to the article with a reference and everything but it was deleted. Why is this? The reference exists here. [1]

Its already there in the casting section under the main cast. I added when the news first came out last month. It was most likely deleted because it was 1. Already there 2. Not important enough to be listed in as part of the main cast.--Debbie rocks (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow Part 1 and Part 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is slated on November 19, 2010 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is slated on July 15, 2011. The book is longer than the movie is to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.90.25 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Poster is fake

That poster was revealed to be a fake. It should be removed. (www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/12/13/purported-first-deathly-hallows-poster-fake-says-wb)

harry potter and the deathly hallows part 1 is going to be r rated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.50.18 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly won't be rated R. David Heyman has assured us that an R-rating is simply unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Umm so.. do we really need a source for each and EVERY character? Can't we just have one source for the entire cast? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 02:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there was a single source listing all the cast (like WB releasing a full cast list) then yes. In the meantime though, we'll have to make do with the multiple sources. I haven't looked at the cites, but I'm sure the Trio would be one cite, and smaller characters typically get casting releases in bigger groups. But until we have one source listing EVERYBODY in the movie, we have to stick with what we have. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot section

The section has nothing to do with the films plot and it doensnt need an intro or 3 sub sections I think it should be deleted until a short synopsys is released until then I think its an useless horrible section The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

After looking more thouroughly at it its about the book witch ALWAYS greatly differs from the film whats wrong with you guys you all should know that doesnt belong there I'm deleting it until further notice The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you on that this article is about the movie, not the book, and that it should be deleted until we have a plot synopsis, but I also think that it made more sense to put a section like that in the Deathly Hallows page more than the others before it because the movie is supposed to be very like the book as it's two movies. --Debbie rocks (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) sneak peak on DVD of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on Blu-Ray Disc on Tuesday December 8, 2009

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be a sneak peak on Blu-Ray Disc of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.82.179 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not notable to include here. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Madam Maxime

Just a small note, but the characters name is Madam Maxime, but is currently listed as Madam Maxine. Alwrighto (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Alwrighto

Fixed. Thanks for letting us know. Anakinjmt (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nudity?

Should we include the part of Daniel Radcliffe being naked for two scenes and should we add the two pictures that were released? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal:

Until Further information should come out, I think we should merge this page with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows under a FILM section, and remove the long cast list for now. WP standards do say that when prodution on a film begins, to create a seperate film page, but I think if we removed the long and (unnessacary) cast section, this would be fit for a merge into the book article until we get more information on the two films. This will settle a dispute over the two films and whether they should be one or two articles, and will condence an article that could be placed in a better suited spot.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Opposed : I don't agree. There is information coming about the production of the movie every week. It would be unnecessary to merge and recreate the article in a month. As for creating 2 article, one for each part, I do not take position. --Stroppolotalk 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - As you rightly say, the guidelines state that articles should remain if a film is in production. It would therefore be counter productive to merge it. There is plenty of information which could be added to the article, from filming reports etc, but I personally have not had the time. The article is only going to get bigger so there's no point in merging it now. How would that "settle" the currently non-existent "dispute" about whether to have one or two artices? It would have to be unmerged when the films were released. Gran2 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: The film is in production, and there is more than enough information about it to warrant its own article. Andrea (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose: For all the reasons listed above and its ridiculous to have a merge proposal when the content itself is so huge. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Even with the plot and cast sections taken out, this is definitely substantial enough to have its own page. C Teng [talk] 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cast list section too long

This section needs to be shortened significantly. It should be about as long as the same sections in the other articles about the films. DP76764 (Talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the cast list should be shortened but not to the degree of the rest of the films. I think that since it hasn't come out yet, it should be longer than the others because people want to know whether or not an actor or character is going to be in the film(s)--Debbie rocks (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's not really what Wikipedia is about to provide that much of that kind of information. If that's what people are looking for, they should be going to IMDB instead. Take a look through WP:FILM, particularly the Style section for ideas on how this section should be structured. DP76764 (Talk) 02:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
IMDB is not a reliable source and dont forget The Deathly Hallows has a lot more characters than normal appearing it should remain as is for the confirmed characters not shortened, maybe if they were made in to sub sections such as Major characters, Villians, Death eaters etc... Just an idea The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
True about IMDB, but that doesn't mean we have to take over those responsibilities here. All the minor characters that make appearances should be listed here anyway. No need to duplicate them here. DP76764 (Talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
How did you choose which cast members to eliminate and which to keep? Small5th (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the same section in the other movie articles, it's fairly easy to see who should be listed and who should not. Also, looking through WP:FILM helps. I just made a first pass at the list; many more still need to be trimmed out. DP76764 (Talk) 18:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

John Williams to score "Deathly Hallows"

Hello, I am from Germany. I wanted to say that it is not confirmed that Williams will score the last "Potter" movie. So it is not right that Williams is showed as composer on this site. PS: My english isn't so good. Thank you, --79.232.51.50 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the article uses as reference one statement by David Heyman in which he says "David Heyman confirmed they have indeed talked to Mr. Williams about his return to writing the music for the series, noting 'if we can make work , and that's a big if, for his schedule and ours then yes' ". It doesn't sound as a fact to me either.--Luke in spanish (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw this last night and was briefly excited. It would be great if John Williams were to score "Deathly Hallows, Part 2," but there has been no confirmation by any official source. In an interview that's over a year old, producer David Heyman stated that it would be great if Williams could return (which is cited in the article). Since that time, Alexandre Desplat has been confirmed for Part 1, and no confirmation has been made about ANY composer for Part 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingEdmund (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dursleys

Will the Dursleys appear? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unknown right now although they could easily be taken out though I doubt it as the film will follow the book more closely and its the last film, wait until its confirmed The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Huge Fire

A huge fire recently broke out at Leavesden Studios during the filming of a scene where Hogwarts gets blown up. 6 fire engines had to be brought in. That's something you might want to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.151.87 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from IPlayTS3, 2 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The film is split into trilogy.

http://www.mugglenet.com

IPlayTS3 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide the exact text you would like to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That Mugglenet article was an April Fool. Lizzie Harrison 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

cast announcements

jamie campbell bower has been confirmed as the the role of gellert grindelwald. chris rankin will return as percy, toby regbo will play a young albus dumbledore hebe beardshall will play ariana dumbledore and chase armitage and adam bradshaw will play snathcers

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/5/30/deathly-hallows-casting-updates-teen-dumbldedore-cast-chris-rankin-returns-and-more

The mention of Bill Nighy saying he will be playing a "goodie" meant that he is playing a good role, not that he is actually playing a character called "goodie". The way it's written makes this confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissviss (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Surely, Clemence Poesy (Fleur Delacour) and Domnhall Glesson (Bill Weasley) should be included in the cast list also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.190.65 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I Agree.PercyFanGirl44 CHAT 07:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Budget

"The film's budget is reportedly £250 million." The Telegraph -- Please add this to the article. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC

Differences from the book

Will Bill, Mundugus or Peeves finally appear on screen? Will Fleur or Krum return and will they be the same actors? Does anyone know of any confirmed differences from the book?Rocknroll47 (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Domhnall Gleeson will portray Bill Weasley. (1)
  • Andy Linden will portray Mundungus Fletcher. (1)
  • No word on Peeves.
  • Clémence Poésy will reprise her role as Fleur Delacour. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • Stanislav Ianevski will reprise his role as Viktor Krum. (1)
  • For differences from the book and film, some sourced, some unsourced: try Harry Potter Wikia.

Alex Douglas (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Trelawney

Earlier it said that Emma Thompson wouldn't be returning to play Professor Trelawney because she chose to do the sequel to Nanny McPhee but now I see that she is. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.55.67.200 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has said that she does make an appearance in the film, and that the quote about her doing McPhee instead was (I think) taken out of context. Propaniac (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Klove's quote

The "development" section already states that a two-part Goblet of Fire was considered. His wife's reaction is nonsense. I don't think the quote adds much to the article; it could be summed up with two-part Goblet of Fire consideration and "Kloves called the split the "most sound creative decision"." I think it should be removed. Any objections? Alex Douglas (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine and adds some insight to the decision. The quote isn't about his wife; he's indicating that he understands the decision might seem odd to other people. If you're that bothered by the mention of his wife, I'd be okay with removing that sentence, but it hardly makes the whole quote into gibberish. Propaniac (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

final?

Sources seem to say final. Why the revert? Ward20 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  • "Seventh, eighth and final" sounds like there are three different installments. Although the current phrasing doesn't make a lot of sense either; if it's one movie, it's the seventh and final installment (singular, not plural). Propaniac (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Official Poster?

I dont know if this is official or not, its on the apple trailers site. http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/harrypotterandthedeathlyhallows/images/poster-xlarge.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.162.32 (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, but I didn't know how to create a new section... I have proof of computer editing (or something like that) at the MuggleNet website. It was noticed by Yahoo, but i could not find that article... (To see the change, click "side by side comparison".)96.231.217.111 (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Anonymous

The Burrow

Has there been any mention (of The Burrow) if it was rebuilt or something otherwise Harry cant go there after the escape nor can the wedding be held there and the director wants to make the films like book as much as possible. Ghost07 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Burrow was rebuilt and will be in the last film(s). In the books there is no mention of rebuilding it but it does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaker565 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thats because in the books it was never burned down. That scene was all the script writers ideas Ghost07 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Who will appear in which Part?? Few corrections may be needed in the article

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

I see that the Cast List for actors appearing in both parts, (or specifically Part 1 or Part 2) has been added. Most of the additions are correct, but there are still a few clarifications required. Firstly, we don't know for sure, exactly where the split is going to take place. Malfoy Manor's been talked about, but then nothing definite has been revealed. It might even be something totally different in the films. Hence, the appearance of certain actors in specific parts may have to be re-checked, and also corrected (only after the release of the films).

Actors such as Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, etc. will appear only in Part 2, and actors such as Imelda Staunton, Bill Nighy, Miranda Richardson, etc. will appear only in Part 1 (as correctly mentioned in the Cast List), because their characters appear either during the latter part of Part 2 (Battle of Hogwarts), or during the early-to-mid part of Part 1, respectively (read the book).

But then again, I recall reading an interview by Helena Bonham Carter where she says,"You won't be seeing me until 2011" [5], referring to her character's appearance in the film (which obviously means that her character Bellatrix will appear only in Part 2). But, in the list of actors (cast list), it is given that Bonham Carter will appear in both parts on the film (in the book, Bellatrix does makes a brief appearance in one of the earliest chapters). Hence this bit of information needs to be confirmed for sure, whether Bonham Carter will be in both Parts, or only in Part 2. This might be partly due to the fact that the information about the split in the films has not been confirmed for sure. [6]

Also, Hagrid is paired with Harry during the Seven Potters' chase scene, and (in the book) is also seen attending the wedding (two of the earliest events of Part 1). But in the Cast List, Robbie Coltrane is mentioned as appearing only in Part 2. This information is incorrect, because the Seven Potters' chase scene has been confirmed in the film (Part 1) [7], and a few pictures of Harry and Hagrid on the motorbike (during the chase scene) have already been released. [8]. So, Robbie Coltrane will appear in Part 1 [9], and Part 2. [10]

A scene has been added in which a Death Eater stops the Hogwarts Express, which has been shown in one of the released trailers. [11] Also, an additional scene with Ginny, Luna, and Neville in the Hogwarts Express has been confirmed for Part 1 (this scene was not part of the book) [12], which means that Matthew Lewis will appear in Part 1 and Part 2.

Everything else seems fine. But then, final corrections will definitely have to be made, when the films are released. Thanks. 59.184.188.224 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm sorry, I did not know how to convey my views about the confirmed appearance of the cast actors in specific parts, without bringing in spoilers for the film.

Cast List

I think it should have more order, perhaps with subheadings. And I don't think there should be the whole part 1/part 2 thing, since we have no idea where the split point is. 202.154.155.236 (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead proposal

I propose we change following:

The two parts are the final instalments in the popular Harry Potter franchise, as well as the third and fourth films to be directed by Yates, who helmed the previous two movies. David Heyman and David Barron serve as producers for the film and the screenplay is written by Steve Kloves, the screenwriter of the first four and sixth entries.

into a single sentence that cuts out the mini-biographies of the director's and writer's past involvement on the series -- this can be mention in the article, but I think its currently being given "inappropriate weight", see WP:LEAD. Also, it removes the redundant "two parts" phrase -- the first sentence states this -- and also informs readers that its the seventh film of the series.

The film is the seventh and final instalment in the popular Harry Potter film series and is written by Steve Kloves and produced by David Heyman and David Barron.

— Alex Douglas (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, except that I'd suggest changing the end to "Steve Kloves, the screenwriter for all except one of the Potter films." I just find "the first four and sixth" to be confusing (and it seems unnecessary to specify, at the beginning of the article for the seventh film(s), that Kloves specifically did not write the fifth one). Propaniac (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood me; I am proposing we replace the top/first 'two sentences' with the bottom/last 'one sentence' because it seems unnecessary to specify any of the director's or writer's previous Harry Potter work. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops, of course you're right -- obviously I wasn't paying enough attention. Sorry about that. I have no objection to your proposed change. Propaniac (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No problems at all mate. Glad you reckon there's nothing wrong with it; I wonder what others think. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Does anyone at all have any objections to the change? Let's try and reach consensus.. but first we need a quorum. Alex Douglas (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If nobody's objecting, I suggest you WP:BEBOLD and make the change. Propaniac (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made the change. [13] Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the change. Why take the details about the production staff out of the lead? We might as well take details about who Harry Potter, Ron Weasly, and Hermione Granger are since they are stated in the previous articles as well. ChaosMasterChat 15:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the director and screenwriter are being given "inappropriate weight", see WP:LEAD. Only there names need to be mentioned, unless the film was important because of the way it was directed -- perhaps if it was Yates' directorial debut, or Yates was the "greatest director in the world", or died during production. This is because the opening paragraph should "summarize the most important points of the article" (Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section). You see, its important to the crew's individual biographical articles, that they have reprised their role for a long time, but it is not important to the film, and so should not be mentioned in the lead. It could however be mentioned later on in production/crew sections, and I am in support of that. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I do understand what you are saying. However,

It will serve as the final instalment of the popular Harry Potter franchise and will be the third Harry Potter film to be directed by Yates, who helmed the previous two movies. David Heyman and David Barron serve as producers for the film and the script is written by Steve Kloves, screenwriter of the first four and sixth entries.

the bolded words are the only ones statng the directors and screenwriters previous credits. And since they all are Harry Potter movies, they should be given some credit for those. It follows the same manner as the previous movie in the series, which was nominated for GA status, but failed. The main issue brought up reguarding the lead, was that there was many "and"s in it.

The film is the seventh and final instalment in the popular Harry Potter film series and is written by Steve Kloves and produced by David Heyman and David Barron.

Your suggestion is just one sentence, yet it presents more "and"s than the current form, which has two "and"s per sentence (2 sentences). That really wouldn't help the article in any way come next year when we want to nominate this article for GA status. I like propanic's suggestion about getting rid of the last part of the sentence and stating "all but one", to get rid of the other "and" there. ChaosMasterChat 14:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I understand your concern and I too believe that "they should be given some credit" for their work on previous Harry Potter films, however, as per WP:LEAD, to mention this in the lead would be giving this information "inappropraite weight" for it is not 'important' to this article. Beyond this, also as per WP:LEAD, a lead is an 'overview' of the article - it should not go into specifics, and so to mention which specific movies that wrote/directed is a bit much. We could repace this with something more accessible in the 'production' section of this article, for example, "The film retained many of the crew members from the previous installments of the series", (or similiar), to introduce the producer's/director's/writer's previous work on the series, before going into 'general specifics'. This would be giving this information appropriate weight. See the Star Wars 1, Star Wars 2, Star Wars 3, Star Wars 5 and Star Wars 6 articles, and you'll find that George Lucas' past work in the series is not mentioned in the lead.
Beyond that, the 'and' situation is a bit "tricky" but we can get around it. I know very little about grammar, but there may be (atleast) two ways to use the word "and" -- one to connect sentences, one to connect words. Also, "my" lead proposal follows the same manner as the GA article for the first movie in the series. I think "seventh and final" and "David Heyman and David Barron" use the word 'and' very differently to the other two occurences of 'and' in the sentence. But, I'm not a grammar whizz. Regardless, I think WikiProject Harry Potter needs to sort this matter out properly, once and for all, to find concensus on the exact 'structure' of the lead section for seven of the Harry Potter films. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I improved it so the article will just reflect the director, rather than the screenwriter. I think the films in the series should also reflect a similar format. This is formated after the first, so should I format the second - sixth as well? ChaosMasterChat 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded the lead a little bit. Because, a director controls the film's artistic and dramatic aspects, and guides the technical crew and actors.. I agree that the article should reflect only that the director has previously worked on the series, as it is important to this film, and therefore the article. I don't believe this article should state which films or even ", who helmed the previous (two) movie(s)", as it is unimportant to this film, and therefore the article. I definitely agree that the other film articles' leads should be formatted similarly --> I have proposed a change to Harry Potter films' leads HERE. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Split

OK, so the split point has been confirmed by MuggleNet. (http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/show/3704) Should this be put in the article ? 81.157.83.56 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure when we will add the 'split point' to the article. There has been a lot of different opinions/reports/etc about when the split will be, over the last many months, aswell. But, when we add the 'split point' to the article, we need to split the plot section into two subsections: "Part one" and "Part two". That's all I know. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
May I ask why this is in a totally separate section? It can be incorperated into the development/production section.... ChaosMasterChat 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree with you ChaosMaster16. "In the August edition of Entertainment Weekly, it was revealed that part one "will end at about Chapter 24 of the book, with Voldemort gaining possession of the Elder wand, one of the three Deathly Hallows that allow the bearer to conquer death." Alex Douglas (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, this falls under WP:CRYSTAL. How do we know this is acurate? I have heard of films using false marketing, especially with films with a huge fanase. Could this be an example? I mean, I do understand the notition to put it in the article, but we can easily just put this in the first movie's summary. ChaosMasterChat 01:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Removed and added note. ChaosMasterChat 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but how do we know anything is accurate for that matter? If a reliable source tells us something is true why shouldn't it be added to this article? You can't just say "well they could be lying for marketing purposes" and then not allow it, see where I'm coming from? You could do that about anything to suit your fancy. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

cast list hidden?

Is there any particular reason why the cast list is hidden from first sight?  The Windler talk  05:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, I think its because its so long and because the films haven't been released yet so the cast section reflects 'all' confirmed cast rather than just billed cast. Alex Douglas (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Lets just keep this simple: if we didn't have the cast list hidden, there would be little point in having this article called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)" and we would probably end up calling it "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film cast)". ChaosMasterChat 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Simply split it into two columns so it looks nicer. Infact i'll do that now. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Official Part 1 Main Cast

I've only visited this page once before but there seems to be some confusion over which actors will be appearing in which parts of the Deathly Hallows. The following website contains a sypnosis of the 1st film, sent out by Warner Bros and includes a main cast list: http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/miranda-richardson-reprise-rita-skeeter-role-deathly-hallows-70121/. Couldn't this page now be updated with the information provided by Warner Bros? At the moment actors such as Alan Rickman are not listed as appearing in either part, yet this announcement clearly shows he will be appearing in Part 1. Also, I know you cannot include every actor on the cast list but it seems strange to list those in minor roles such as Hazel Douglas (Bathilda Bagshot) and Nick Moran (Scabior) without including more prominent actors such as Natalia Tena (Nymphadora Tonks), Clemence Poesy (Fleur Delacour) and Chris Rankin (Percy Weasley). Is there some particular reason for this, and if not can these actors be added to the cast list? I hope my comments are appreciated.

Fryelwhxjd3's (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We know that Radcliffe, Grint and Watson will be appearing in both parts 1 and 2 (since they are the leads). But for the other actors, I think any mention of their appearances in the film should be added only after the film is released. I mean, we've only had a test screening for Part 1 so far. Some minor characters appearing in the test screening of Part 1 might just end up on the cutting room floor in the final edit of the film. Also, mention of the other actors who will be appearing in Part 2 should be removed for the time-being (except for the trio). It would be better if we waited for Part 2 to be released (instead of doing a million edits to the cast list). Thanks. 59.184.170.90 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cast in Parts 1 and 2

I don't think it is necessary to have the check marks for "Part 1" and "Part 2" in the cast list. There are very few, if any, citations for which parts the actors are appearing, and it seems that the checks are mostly based off of where the characters appeared in the books. Because they aren't cited, I'm going to get rid of the that those columns in the table for now unless we can find some sources for it. EWikistTalk 15:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Is it possible to rename Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I (soundtrack) to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (soundtrack) which holds information representing both soundtracks ? The same goes fro the games, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I (video game) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (video game), since this is considered one film in two parts ? These merges would bring the articles inline with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), since this is not split into two articles. 86.143.125.3 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been done. 86.143.125.3 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is composing the soundtrack?

The section Music says "Desplat will compose throughout the summer with the London Symphony Orchestra...". Surely Desplat will compose the music himself and conduct the LSO? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Runtime issue

There seems to be a dispute over the running time. It has a well cited source, but some IPs keep reverting it to 147 minutes, but according to the source, the runtime is 150 minutes. Should we just leave it at 150 minutes? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy Linden

The link to the man who plays Mundungus Fletcher leads to an American racecar driver who died in 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.123.202 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I see...I'll create an article called Andy Linden (actor). Thanks. --Glimmer721 talk 14:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Runtime

I am having constant battles with people who are placing the incorrect runtime down. The BBFC has released the official runtime for the film, yet others are so eager to delete this source, they are causing edit wars. Here's the BBFC runtime distributed to all UK cinemas, reported by MuggleNet: http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/show/3887

Rounded to the nearest minute, the runtime is 146 MINUTES, NOT 150 Minutes as claimed by another user who provides a source that is inferior to the BBFC reference. The BBFC has distributed the runtime to all UK cinemas and should therefore be considered as a valuable source. Jonny7003 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The user Mjs2010 is constantly reverting the official runtime, without explanation and a valid reason. It's pure vadalism. Jonny7003 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What if runtimes are different in differnt countries? My source was very reliable, so please do not push it aside! Mjs2010 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fan sites are never reliable. I'm reverting that based on guidelines. Things like this aren't even up for discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we wait until the movie actually comes out (2 weeks!) and then a reliable source will post the runtime? --Glimmer721 talk 22:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Okay, a problem we have is that a lot of stuff is coming from fanstiest like MuggleNet, the Leaky Cauldron, SnitchSeeker, etc. The 6th movie was nominated for GA but lost because of the fansites. Most of these fansites, I noticed, actually has a link to where they got the information from. --Glimmer721 talk 23:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Something else -- the film classification in Australia is given as M but the reference in the article is an online video store that gives MA15+ (O.o). I checked on the OFLC website and couldn't find a classification for the film there, even though it should be, given there are only eight days until release. Cinema websites give it as CTC (Check the classification) [14]. 114.76.51.217 (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Irish Film Classification Office has it as a 12A, as does the Odeon cinema website. [[15]]-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Composer

Some more info on the music here. Glimmer721 talk 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast

The cast list was an immense double-column table full of names [16] listing everybody including Harry Potter and the actor who voices Kreacher. At the same time it refers to the excellent List of Harry Potter cast members. I urge all who would expand our understanding of the casting aspects to direct their attention to the latter article. I've arbitrarily trimmed the cast list and converted it to the form used for earlier films in the same series. Please restore casting detail that you think is essential to this particular film (for instance I expect the actors who play Snape, Harry, Ron and Voldemort are pretty important within the film, Molly Weasley less so even if she is played by the gorgeous Julie Walters, but I haven't seen the film). So please do correct me. --TS 22:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the cast section needed trimming, and I also haven't seen the film. But, I think David Bradley as Argus Filch and Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn will only appear in part two. I also think Frances de la Tour as Olympe Maxime will only appear in one scene, the wedding scene, in part one and not appear in part two. I think Alan Rickman as Severus Snape needs to be added sometime, because although he has only one scene in part one (or so the early reviews say), he will play a big role in part two, obviously. Um, perhaps add Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy, I've heard a bit about him in part one. // Really, the casting is a pain because some actors will only appear in one part and then there's an issue of "is someone who plays a less prominent role in two parts as 'notable' as someone who plays a more prominent role in only one part." Then, there is also billing to consider.. Fiona Shaw and Richard Griffiths have billing on the theatrical poster, but from what I've read, they are only onscreen for literally a few seconds, whereas 'less prominent' actors such as, (what I call the "second trio") Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood, Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley and Matthew Lewis (who I've heard as more sceentime than the character did in the book) as Neville Longbottom, have 'lesser' billing. I have brought up some problems, but I have no solutions; I hope someone can find them. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception section

There keeps being a "reception" section cropping up. I think there is no need for this. Any comments? Guy546(Talk) 18:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I definitely believe there is a need for this. It is a section in the Manual of Style, see MOS:FILM. Critical response, Box office, Accolades and Home media are vital to any film article. I really don't want to come across as rude or ignorant, but I honestly don't know why you feel otherwise. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see your point. The bloody thing doesn't even screen until 18th so there should be no reception (at least by the general public - top critics will have had screeners). But it is needed as people will have gotten copies (usu. from the more unscrupulous "top critics") and iwll have their opinions - there are reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (although how many of these are based solely on the book is unknown).Angry Mustelid (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1472349/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_1/Archive_1&oldid=1136273623"