Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/Archive 1

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

Quirrel

It says that in the film version Quirrel was "cremated" where Harry touched him, but I seem to remember him being turned to stone. Which is it?
Alex 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

If memory serves (I unfortunately don't have the DVD here to check), he turned to a statue of ash that then crumbled, similar to (SPOILER FOR INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE! SPOILER AHEAD!) what happened to two vampires in the Interview with the Vampire movie. So he looked like a stone statue at first, but he was actually turned to ash like a person who'd been cremated. --Icarus 02:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I have the books and the films

" Quirrell's body was burnt so horribly that Voldemort dispossessed his body and left him to collapse and die. " http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Quirinus_Quirrell

quidditch scene

I seem to remember the scene where Lee Jordan, the announcer, and McGonagall fight over the mic being in the theatrical version, but it was absent from the DVD, even the deleted scenes. Did I just imagine this or did it really happen this way, I think I am right because my brother seemed to remember the same thing happening. Will 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

While I would have liked to have seen it, I'm sorry to see Lee's commentary is never biased in the movies and he and McGonagall do not argue. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist

  • There have been some rumors of the Philosopher's Stone in Harry Potter is the same type as in the one in "FullMetal Alchemist" anime/manga, this is due to the fact that the versions of stone in both are exactly the same and can both grant large amounts of power.

What does that mean and why is it here? Was Fullmetal Alchemist inspired by Harry Potter? The philosopher's stone is a legend that long predates these works of fiction. --Mrwojo 05:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention a large amount of differences in the creation of one in FMA and such...involving the use of many human souls and such...But that's not here or there. >.> 72.72.253.41 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alchemy long predates either work of fiction and there is no reason for either to be connected. --Thaddius 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese seiyū

Since there's nowhere else to put it...

Character English voice actor Japanese seiyū
Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe Kenshō Ono
Ronald Weasley Rupert Grint Yūki Tokiwa
Hermoine Granger Emma Watson Yumi Sudō
Draco Malfoy Tom Felton Kyōsuke Saegusa
Neville Longbottom Matthew Lewis Kanbase Ueno
Oliver Wood Sean Biggerstaff Tokuyoshi Kawashima
Percy Weasley Chris Rankin Mamoru Miyano
Fred Weasley James Phelps Mitsuhiro Ozaki
George Weasley Oliver Phelps Mitsuhiro Ozaki
Albus Dumbledore Richard Harris Ichirō Nagai
Minerva McGonagle Maggie Smith Ikuko Tani
Rubeus Hagrid Robbie Coltrane Shirō Saitō
Severus Snape Alan Rickman Takaya Hashi
Filius Flitwick Warwick Davis Kinto Tamura
Quirinus Quirrell Ian Hart Etsuo Yokobori
Madam Hooch Zoë Wanamaker Kachiko Hino
Argus Filch David Bradley Takeshi Aono
Molly Weasley Julie Walters Teiyū Ichiryūsai
Vernon Dursley Richard Griffiths Naomi Kusumi
Petunia Dursley Fiona Shaw Ai Satō
Dudley Dursley Harry Melling Kōki Oshiashi
Nearly Headless Nick John Cleese Otaka Taka
Lord Voldemort Richard Bremmer Masashi Ebara
Mister Ollivander John Hurt Katsuya Kobayashi
Sorting Hat Leslie Phillips Takkō Ishimori

Cat's Tuxedo 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Some of these references seem to be randomly assigned, having nothing to do with the sentences they are citing. Anyone know what happened? Skittle 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And almost exactly half of them are pages written by some Brian Linder. How has this happened? Skittle 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because they just are? Is there really any problem, what sentences do you exactly mean. And yes the references are written by Brian Linder... why is that a problem, IGN is a reliable source... Gran2 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering if it was just because it was handy, or if there weren't other sources that said the same. It would probably be better to use something more definate where possible; for example, rather than speculation that filming might be taking place at London Zoo, and that it will probably be for the scene with the snake, if we could find something saying that filming of that scene took place at London Zoo. Skittle 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article is a good start, but important sections are missing and several sections are simply lists. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • The article needs a "Themes" section. Material for this section can be found in the work of film scholars and film reviewers.
  • The article needs a "Cinematic style" section that discusses the artistry of the film: editing, cinematography, etc. Currently, only the soundtrack is discussed.
  • The lead is not a standalone summary of the article (see WP:LEAD for hints on writing leads).
  • The article needs to be copy edited. The major problems are:
  • Repetitive diction (as in "ordinary" or "immortal" in the "Plot Summary").
  • Wordiness (as in "became an instant fan ever since" in the "Development" section).
  • Awkward syntax (as in Canterbury Cathedral was touted as a possible location for Hogwarts, only for Warner Bros. offer being rejected because of concern over the film's "pagan" theme.)
  • Is it possible to move the "Cast and characters" section lower in the article? It dominates the first part of the article and gives very little information for its size.
  • The "Casting" subsection under "Production" is a prose list. If the only information in the sentence is that so-and-so was cast as a particular character, it doesn't need to be there - the "Cast" list is already there. Only include interesting information beyond that in the "Casting" section.
  • "Filming" is also a prose list. List only the interesting and important locations, not every single one.
  • "Differences between the film and the book" is also a prose list. This would probably work better as a list or table, actually.
  • "Marketing" is another prose list. Try to make coherent paragraphs that focus on particular topics.
  • The "Rotten Tomatoes" rating should be taken out. That is a very vague number and not considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia.
  • The "Critical reception" section needs to be expanded. I would assume that every major movie critic around the world commented on this film. The current selection seems US-centric and thin. Also, more world-wide numbers on the film would be helpful; it was not only seen in the US. Awadewit | talk 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I am passing this article keeping in mind that major problems of the last review have been cleared.

  • Missing sections: Effects, Music etc. are more than enough. There is no need of Cinematic Style as this is not an FA nom.
  • Prose Lists: All is fine.
  • Language: OK right now.Vikrant Phadkay 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Gran2 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

No. Gran2 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Differences between European and North American versions

This is so I can clear something up on Wizard People, Dear Reader. Someone is claiming that the Canadian release of the film is different from the US version. It comes down to the name of the stone. We all know that the book was originally 'Philosopher's stone' but for some reason the US call it the 'Sorcerer's Stone'. This editor from the WP,DR page states that the Canadian version has scenes added to it where the characters say Philosopher's instead of Sorcerer's, thus changing the length of the film, thus making WP,DR out of sync with the film. Can someone confirm with me that, in the US release, the characters definitely call the stone the Sorcerer's Stone? --Thaddius 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In the US release, they say, always, Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's. I think you are saying that, in the Canadian release, the movie was called Sorcerer's Stone but they say Philosopher's (which would be a hell of mistake). Can you explain yourself? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Village pump

The case for changing the title of this article was never likely to be settled by mediation, and certainly not by arbitration (which is for dealing with conduct issues that the community cannot resolve). The only sensible way to pursue such a case, after rejection at article RFC, is to take the principle to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see if there is a strong feeling either way within the communty that hasn't yet been tapped by discussion on the page itself. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive RFC seperately?

During the RFC on the title, it was mentioned that this matter has been discussed before, and no doubt it will be discussed again. On matters that are likely to crop up regularly, it seems common to devote a named archive page to the subject. Might I suggest that the RFC, when archiving comes around, is given such a page to help deal with future debates? LinaMishima (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Both of the Title RfC discussions will be archived in due time. Let's try and let the dust settle a bit. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow I forget to check this discussion for 9 days and it explodes even more out of control than it already had well it is over now so hopefully we can just put this behind us, I do have a serious point to make however and that is as well as archiving it separately can we add this to the Harry Potter Project page or something for quick reference in the future, don't know if I'm allowed since I'm not part of the project or anything Sin Harvest (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As a Registered User in presumably good standing, you do not have to be "part of the project" to boldly edit or make suggestions or recomendations, either here or there or at any Wikipedia page (including a project page), that is not temporarily protected from editing due to vandalism or edit warring. Even anonymous IP editors can contribute freely on any and all unprotected pages. Project pages serve as a sort of clearinghouse for bouncing ideas and organizing formats and such, and "membership" is optional - it is more of a ceremonial badge that indicates a User's interest in contributing, perhaps regularly, to related articles, willingness to discuss issues that might come up, and helping out with housekeeping tasks and to-do lists. Anyway please feel free to bring it up yourself at the HP Project Page's talk page, or find a suitable way to work it in to the current to-do list. Thanks! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the project...allow me to quote what the project says: "Rowling's first book was published in one foreign country under the name Sorcerer's Stone, giving Sorcerer's Stone the same status as the French or German translations ("Harry Potter a l'ecole des sorciers" and "Harry Potter und der Stein der Weisen" respectively). Rowling has stated that she regrets allowing the name to be changed. All articles within the scope of the Harry Potter WikiProject should therefore use the title Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in every instance after the first, noting the alternate tile at the first instance of mention, ie., high-traffic pages warrant the following statement: "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (published as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US)..." at the first instance on a page. After that, only refer to the original title." Therefore, we are to use PS and not SS. Case closed. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Green tickY Done (archiving that is...) --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry, I am your father!

I think the HP1 movie' Harry<-->Voldi battle scene differs a lot from the HP1 book, but it is not mentioned in the article. The film scripts a quite Star Wars-like situation. "Let's become allies, hand over the stone and we can resurrect your beloved ones". This is more or less the same what what Palpatine says to Anakin after killing Mace Windu in SW:RoS. The HP1 book says nothing about resurrecting Harry's parents, why was this invented? JKR always emphasizies HP is not SW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

But the Philosopher's Stone can't do that. The Resurrection Stone, presented in the seventh book, can do that. I think Voldemort said that just for Harry to give him the Stone. But the creators of the movie "guessed" about the Resurrection Stone... interesting (but wouldn't have sense, since Voldemort doesn't know about the Deathly Hallows). --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No... I think Voldy was just trying to get Harry to give him the stone, and I think the movie writers were just trying to illustrate his attempts. They changed a lot, obviously. I have a feeling the movie creators only intended that line to be for that purpose, not to make any strange allusions or guesses to any later books. But then again, I don't know.Agelseb (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Star Wars Revenge of the Sith came out after the HP1 movie. Jammy (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But why?

Why exactly was the movie given a different title for the US version? It's not explained in the article. -24.149.193.49 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the book was given a different title in the US, so the film matches it. And that was only because Scholastic thought the word "philosopher's" would be too confusing for Americans, or something. Gran2 13:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that 'confusing' is the wrong word. It was just because the word 'Philosopher' has a different connotation in the United States. 'Sorcerer' made it clear that the stone was a magical device. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed at great length in the archived discussions here and at the book's pages, and in countless discussions at other sites (Google it!). In summary, a Philosopher's Stone is a "known" mythical object that has a longstanding history in (mostly) English/European mythology and legends, dating back hundreds of years to the dark ages and beyond (King Arthur, Merlin, et al). Rowling's use of the original Philosopher's Stone title made complete sense for her (mostly) young British readers who are generally up on their King Arthur legends. However when the book was to be introduced in the Americas, the concept of a Philosopher's Stone and Arthurian legends was, well, rather foreign. American children have (or had) only had a vague idea of a Merlin/Gandalf type wizard, with the pointy hat, churchwarden pipe, and magic wands and staffs, and a rather negative image of witches and warlocks (perhaps remaining from the Salem Witch Trials), but the concept of a Philosopher's Stone was not a well known or understood quantity in the New World. About the closest thing they had to grasp a magically extended life was Ponce de Leon's Fountain of Youth, which comes up in elementary history classes. Anyway, right or wrong, the US publisher felt that American Children, who apparently judge a book by it's cover (or title), could not easily grasp the magical nature of a Philosopher's Stone, but Sorcerer's would do the trick. They also required Rowling to change all the original "British" spellings (colour) to "American" spellings (color), perhaps to avoid confusing the children; and Philosopher's was changed to Sorcerer's, simply because it sounds "more magical" and perhaps "upbeat" and "interesting" that way. Being her first book, Rowling at the time did not have any power or influence to dissuade or prevent this fundamental title change. You can bet the house however that if Philosopher's Stone had been the name of the last book of the series, then it would have been left alone. Many of us were around to see and participate in the seven-month wiki-debate on the meaning of the Deathly Hallows, and it spawned much deep research and speculation - including the creation of the Hallows wiki-article in a matter of days after the release of just the title of the book. By this time, Rowling's audience included teens who "grew up" reading Potter, and also plenty of adult fans, who eagerly dived in and learned all they could about Hallows before the book came out. But none of that would have happened if Rowling was still just an unknown author from Great Britain, who wrote her first children's book about some unusual children going to an unusual school learning some unusual things and having a series of unusual and dangerous adventures on the way. At Book 1, the Editors and Publishers had the power. By book 2 or 3, Rowling had the power to write and title her books pretty much however she wanted. One could hope that, some day, Rowling might produce edited Special Anniversary Editions, which would clean up some of the small mistakes, and clarify some of the contradictory details; and in the process, restore Book 1 to it's proper original title worldwide. American youngsters should be able to "handle it", particularly if they can handle Deathly Hallows and such. In any case, the reasoning behind the title change for the Americas is available, but the extent to which it must be expounded upon in the article is not as clear. How many sentences are required to say essentially that "the US Publisher forced the title change (right or wrong) on behalf of their youthful readers". --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Different running times

Philosopher's Stone runs for 147 (it says on the DVD) not 152. I think 152 is for Sorcerer's Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArryStreet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which would be strange, since "Philosopher's" is a longer word than "Sorcerer's". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you remember to add sales tax? --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The actual running time of the film is 152 minutes. Because of differences between the PAL frame rate (25 fps) and the standard film frame rate (24 fps), films are simply sped up most of the time to fit the PAL standard. --Norar (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says seven BAFTA nominations!

So I listed them! Garynine (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a list is needed, it works fine as a paragraph, although I have now spelt out all of the BAFTA nominations. Gran2 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't work as a paragraph. I don't want to go into an edit war with someone who is wrong and being stubborn. All you have to do is go to other movie articles. These things don't work as paragraphs. Wikipedia is not anti having lists in articles but you for some odd bizarre reason are. Garynine (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? First off calm down, have a glance at WP:CIVIL. Disagreeing with you does not make me wrong or stubborn, it's called having a conflicting point of view. Also, let's stop assuming other's opinions shall we? As I'm not "anti having lists in articles". I don't feel there is a problem with a paragraph and this has been used in numerous other articles, for example The Simpsons Movie, which is featured class. The only reason I was really reverting you was that you were simply listing information which was already included in the article. In this instance however, I feel that a list would be far too long and ugly. But although I would prefer a paragraph, I do understand your point. Perhaps a table, similar to the one used Julie Kavner? Gran2 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
So I added something I found in another movie article that I used. I think its a compromise all can deal with.Garynine (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to complete it? Gran2 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I plan to very soon. Garynine (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oaky, just checking. Looks good. Gran2 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradicted Line Cut

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

Snape

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

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

Regarding the name of the film in India

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

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

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

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

Yahoo! Movies news and

Indiatelevision Press Release

POGO Promo Wallpaper

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

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

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

The Hindu news article

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

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

Wading in... It is blatantly obvious that the film was released as Sorcerer's Stone in India as Parthashome correctly says. However I do not believe that should be included in the article (at least not in the lead section). I'm fairly sure it was released as SS in a number of countries. However, as this is the English Wikipedia, the general policy with film articles is that only the primarily English speaking nations for films produced by those nations are included (so for release dates etc.). So my point is: is India a primarily English speaking nation (I don't know whether English or Hindi is more prevalent so your knowledge is invaluable here) and was India one of the only countries other than the US where it was released as SS? If the answer to those questions is yes then it should be included (at least later on in the article). Gran2 09:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really anything to "wade in" to... we operate on the principle of verifiability, based on reliable sources. No disrespect to Parthashome, but his/her personal assertion that it was in the theatre as Sorcerer cannot be used to verify text in an article, nor could mine or any other contributor's. Furthermore, the only sources we've had so far (including our own articles) indicated that it was released as Sorcerer in the US, and Philosopher elsewhere. The possibility of a mixed release certainly exists; I can attest to that given that in Canada, we've seen Philosopher in the book, theatres and on DVD, but Sorcerer on the film's video game. (This couldn't be used to source text to that effect, of course, because - as with Parathashome - my personal observations cannot be used to verify text. I'm sorry if he/she interprets it as some form of slight, but that was not the intent in any way. However (and I say this with appreciation) Parathashome has now provided a reference to the Indian theatrical release to help clarify the details. --Ckatzchatspy 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Actually it is both, i am sick of having this argument, It Is Philosopher in Britain and most countries because the BRITISH author called it: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, it is Sorcerers stone in America, India etc because Philosopher means something entirely different in the US! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.66.32 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


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

Title's just as mucked over here!

Seemingly the British-centric, impenetrable stupidity never ceases. This FILM IS TITLED HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE. Half the world knows it as such. Yet here I just read that "philosopher" doesn't mean the same in America or anywhere else as it does in England. My heavens, you people are really out there. Is the internet British? Is Wikipedia all suddenly going over to England now? I'd say you are untouchable because you are so touchy about this subject. But I also say you are stupid, bullying and anti-American. This thing should be titled everywhere as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, a.k.a. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It is tiresome to listen to all you smart asses calling me dumb while I see listings like this!76.195.86.50 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeat diatribe from here. Possible troll; do not feed. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to be British to find your anonymous position to be untenable. I'm an American who was familiar with the term Philosopher's Stone and whose reaction to the American book title was "WTF is a Sorcerer's Stone?" The movie derives from the book, and if calling the Philosopher's Stone the Sorcerer's Stone was dumb for the book then it remains dumb for the movie. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Place your posts in the CORRECT spot. You had no right to muscle in between the above post and my post which followed. Either you are a fool or you are trying to make me look like the guilty party, posting in the wrong place. And keep your dopey remarks to yourself. What is "untenable"? You are, that is for sure. It was "dumb"? GREAT intellect, keep it sharp!76.195.86.50 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, mr. do-not-feed! I see from the beginning of this article that logic and correct lsitings won the day. Feed on THAT. As for trolls, look at the article about the book. There's nothing but trolls over there while I have been pushed aside.76.195.86.50 (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is me, IP 75/76--however my rotating IP prefers on any given day--hoping my apology will be accepted for going nuts.
It's just that between the beating I get because I do not come from Britain, coupled with annoying people who accuse me of logical fallacies...well, it's tiring. By the way, thanks to the person here who decided to try and turn me in for "personal attacks". I don't know which of you it was...and that is how "personal" my "attack" was. You are, like me, some very strange, thin-skinned people! But a fact is a fact.75.21.150.217 (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Difference between book and film

One difference that has to be included is the fate of Quirrell. In the book Harry doesn't actually kill him (or at least Dumbledore gives that impression as he places the blame on Voldemort) but in the film Harry directly (if unintentionally) kills Quirrell by touching his face. I have added this to the article. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I know its true, unfortunately it can only be included if it is verified with a reliable source. Gran2 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur; there will always be differences between the source material and its adaptation. The way to avoid making an indiscriminate listing of differences is to rely on independent verification, as Gran stated above. We can't purport to state that this particular difference or that particular difference is appropriate for the encyclopedic context of an article. If you're interested in including how the fate of Quirrell differed, try searching for a reliable source that makes that connection, and it could be discussed here to see if the connection is worthwhile. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully and belatedly disagree. While we wouldn't want this section to become bloated beyond recognition, WP:IINFO states that articles shouldn't be: Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports, Who's whos, or FAQs. Nothing about noting differences between two versions of the same story (i.e., the film vs. the book), falls under any of those categories.
As far as the verifiability of noting any of the differences, the original sources (i.e., the films and the books), are the only ones that seem to be necessary in this case; you'll note that the original sources are listed as reliable/verifiable sources WP:SOURCES.
Lastly, while No Original Research states that one cannot simply add their own "analysis or synthesis......to advance a position not advanced by the sources," simply stating the differences is not original research. [WP:NOTOR] states that, "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source. For example, if there are multiple versions of a particular story, and one version does not have a particular character, or has extra characters, that is clear simply by reading or watching the work."
Bottom line: there is nothing wrong with simply including the differences between two versions of the same story (so long as there is no analysis or synthesis of those differences). There need not be more "reliable sources" beyond the original source materials that point out any differences.
Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk)
The problem is that these sections always become listcruft. I'm all for including differences...if there's sourcing to establish notability and ideally some indication as to why they exist. Doniago (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
On the problem of listcruft..... agreed. But the question of notability doesn't come up unless the section is being considered for it's own article because, "notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article or list on Wikipedia. They do not govern article content or whether to include an item in a list. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."WP:NNC
Moreover, nothing in a list of the main differences between the films and the books would inherently constitute listcruft, unless the list became an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:IINFO
I think the principles of "due/undue weight" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" would seem to indicate that any differences listed should exclude cosmetic differences and be limited to things concerning differences in major events or omitted sub-plots (like the whole S.P.E.W. sub-plot) and characters that have been cut out or consolidated. As for the reasons why such differences exist, I agree that it would be nice, though I'd stop short of saying that the lack of such reasons would be reason to strike something that is otherwise significant.
Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk)

Changes/Deletions in Order and Members of Cast List

See [1]. Evil Genius77 (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Please do not change! This has been implemented across all seven film pages! Evil Genius77 (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • And you are in charge because? I strongly oppose these changes. This article is a GA. It passed that with the cast list as it was: much more informative than it is now. This article is supposed to be a complete, stand-alone article and as a result of your changes it is not. A random discussion which occured somewhere should no be used to apply blanket changes to seven different cases. Gran2 13:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it should in some cases. There are quite a lot of cast members in these films, and not all of them should be listed on the article for each and every film. We should respect billing and add in only those who are central. The further can be looked at for minor actors. Please see the discussion and the reasoned arguments at the HP:DH talk page. 184.58.164.191 (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, I've already read that and I disagree totally. Why should Warner Bros. marketing department dictate what our articles say? The article was far more informative and not overly long before. I fail to see a need for change. I repeat: This article is a GA. It passed that with the cast list as it was: much more informative than it is now. This article is supposed to be a complete, stand-alone article and as a result of these changes it is not. Gran2 14:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I do see your point, a bit. Perhaps we can list the cast in credits order, though, to remain objective? I know the credits order, I can fix it, if this is okay with you. However, I don't really think that Rick Mayall is important seeing as he has a deleted seen, or Richard Bremmer. Both are verging on trivia, and aren't in the film credits. Evil Genius77 (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
            • No, they are not trivia, especially not Rik Mayall who should be mentioned at the bottom. It's relevant production information on a casted yet cut character so of course it should be included. I still strongly oppose using the credit ordering, it should be done in order of screen time. Gran2 15:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Do we have definitive screentime data? Also, there is an issue of characters being present for a shot but not having any lines (the Great Hall scenes) and it's not as objective as possible. Evil Genius77 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Large Edit

I just made a large edit to the artice, removing several sections. The cast section was completely unnecessary, as it can be viewed in IMDB. The name alteration section pertains to the book primarily (because the movie follows the book). The music section is rather random, but if anyone feels the need to integrate it somewhere, here it is:

The film features a score composed by John Williams, the fourth collaboration between the composer and director Chris Columbus. The score re-established John Williams as the top film composer, and leader of the leitmotif style. The score features many themes, the main theme, or Hedwig's Theme, being featured at the beginning of every Harry Potter film so far.

Please do NOT make large edits unless you fully know what you are doing. If you want to remove something big please post it on the discussion. This is an encyclopedia and the cast list is included on nearly all major movies. It is necessary. Just because it can be viewed on another site does not mean it shouldn't be listed here. The music section is not random and is also on most movie sections. Please post on the discussion before you make any drastic changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.45.152 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Alex 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

regarding the final inconsistency, Harry did see Diggory die in the goblet of fire, so this isn't as big of a deal as the article makes it seem.

Yes, that was the whole point -- the reason Harry saw the thestrals is because he saw Cedric's death at the end of GoF, not because he saw Quirrell "die" in the first book. There is no inconsistency, you're correct on that point. ugen64 01:36, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
There will be an inconsistency if the explanation for seeing the Thestrals (sp?) remains true to the book. In the Book universe, one can see the Thestrals after they have witnessed and had time to understand a death. In the movie universe, it will be four years since Harry saw someone die, and never saw the Thestrals in the intervening time. MrItty 14:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The fifth movie has been released, and Luna Lovegood explains about the Thestrals to Harry. She only says that, to see a Thestral, one must "see the death", or something like that. But I think, beyond that, that one must see someone you care about dying, which would explain why Harry sees the Thestrals after Cedric died, and not after Quirrell died, 'cause he didn't care about Quirrell. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rowling as a producer

It has been stated that Rowling is an executive producer of this film (citing a press article from 2000). However, that is untrue. The IMDb does not include Rowling in the crew credit list (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/fullcredits), and in addition to that it is stated on the trivia page of HP and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 that the latter is the first feature for which Rowling received a producer credit (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/trivia?tr1360473). You can doublecheck this when you look an the credit roll of HP and the Philosopher's Stone. Rowling is not mentioned there as an executive producer. --139.18.5.100 (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be justified as a source to back up the claim. The credits on the film is a tricky situation. But since Columbus does not actually mention Rowling as an "executive producer" in the source, then I say she only received creative control. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
She really had very little to do with most of the films - she was still writing the rest of the books full-time, although as Hallows Horcruxes said she had "creative control", i.e. the producers listened to her opinions and she was allowed to point out what should and really shouldn't be included. As the Deathly Hallows films were made after the books were finished, Rowling could be on set the whole time and had much more control over the project. Cooper 25 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Name inconsistencies

Not to beat a dead horse, but this really should be "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The movie was made by an American company and paid for with American money. The movie was released in America (pop. ~300 mil) as "Sorcerer's Stone." It was released in Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia (combined pop. ~100 mil). The naming conventions state that when naming an article of this nature, users are to "use the title more commonly recognized by English readers." This means, it should go without saying, readers of the English language, not readers from England.

il —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.11.43 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the name problem with the US and I had two comments:
  1. The IMDB page uses "Sorceror's Stone" in the title and the page heading, so the imdb template title should also reflect that.
  2. Can we get a poster for the UK version to use in the infobox? It's a little confusing to see "Philosopher" in the infobox banner and "Sorceror" in the poster.

--DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was able to find the UK poster, so I made these changes. I'm still not thrilled with the formatting of the page, as the three images are hard to place on the page without muddling everything up, so if you have any suggestions on better layouts, please be bold and implement them. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
It's Sorcerer, not Sorceror. Just saying, hehe. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Not sure where to put it, but in talking about Harry's being given to the Dursleys, it should say "Dursleys," not "Dursley's." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.90.33 (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with above. J.K. Rowling is British, the story line is British, it was set in Britain, The actors are British and therefore it should be kept as the British name! : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.111.94 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Just too bad. Perhaps American protestors should direct their efforts into educating their countrymen more on classical ideas and literature, one could feebly hopeLife is short, but the years are long! (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC).

It's also incorrect to say that the film was completely bankrolled by American companies, because it was co-produced by Heyday Films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.72.78 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete Theatrical Version/Extended Version run time comparisons in template

On the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Ultimate Edition DVD Gift Set, it lists both the Theatrical Version and the Extended Version running times on the lower right-hand corner of the slipcase. This information is 100% accurate and verifiable. So, do not delete it from the template.[1]

74.197.200.162 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Christopher

It is standard practice to only list theatrical running times in the infobox. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing person from cast list

the cast list appears to be missing an important character. The character is the woman who teaches the children how to fly on broomsticks. The actor is a well known British comedian, but her name escapes me at the momet. Does anybody know these names?__DrChrissy (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorted! __DrChrissy (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not add any more cast

I have just gone to the edit page to add Zoë Wanamaker to the cast list and saw there is a notification that says "Do not add any more cast". Whilst I agree there needs to be a cut-off at some point, I felt the character (Rolanda Hooch) played such an important role in the film that it really should be in the cast list. Antway, who decides when such a list should not be added to any longer?__DrChrissy (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally we go by the primarily billed actors, of which I don't believe the actress playing Hooch qualifies. Failing that we would establish a consensus for inclusion here. I'm going to have to argue against inclusion unless she was primarily-billed, which off the top of my head I'm doubtful of. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. At least I know now it is not just arbitrary. However, it does seem a lttle inconsistent. At the end of the cast list, it is stated "Rik Mayall was cast in the role of Peeves, a poltergeist who likes to prank students in the novel. Mayall had to shout his lines off camera during takes,[23] but the scene ended up being cut from the film.[24]. So this is listing a member of cast who did not even appear in the film. Hmmmm.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I have just noticed that the list also discusses at least one actor who auditioned for a cast place in this film but did not get the role.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, with regards to Mayall it helps that reliable sources discussed his casting and what happened with it. If RS'es talked about Hooch as well you may have grounds to add her to the article...what we really don't want is, for instance, a list of every single character that's no more than who played them and a description of their role. I'd recommend coming up with text you think would work well and bringing it here to discuss. DonIago (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

How come Draco Malfoy (played by Tom Felton) is not listed among the cast? He is an important character in the film and should be there.-Schnurrbart (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Um. Did you read the above conversation? DonIago (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I agree with some of the others here. The strict and ambiguous cutoff of the cast list on this article and all the others is very dumb and not really supported by guidelines, but by some so called consensus that was allegedly agreed upon years ago, but somehow that conversation can't be found. JOJ Hutton 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the consensus at WP:FILM has been to use the primary-billed cast members when disputes arise, so that's a decent fail-safe position to take. What we definitely should not be doing is listing each and every actor who appears, especially if they're minor and there's no independently-sourced discussion involving their casting. I'm not sure whether a specific consensus was reached relating to either this particular film or the HP films in general, but I'm open to revisiting the subject. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm very much doubting the "minor character" label that you are placing on Draco Malfoy for this film. His role and other roles in other Harry Potter articles are clearly more involved than minor. JOJ Hutton 15:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not calling Malfoy a minor character, I'm discussing whether the actor was among the primary-billed cast. In any event, I've asked for additional opinions at WP:FILM and the HP task force. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry, I thought that since Malfoy was the topic of discussion and you said "we defiantly should not be adding minor characters" I just inferred you meant Malfoy. JOJ Hutton 16:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. There are no small parts, only small actors. :) Anyway, if you want to toss out an idea for the best way to reconcile this (ideally one that would work for all the HP films) I'm open to hearing it. Alternately we can wait to see whether we're joined by other editors who may have useful insights. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well my only complaint on this topic is that actors who have pivotal roles in the plot of the film are being left out based on some formula that is difficult to interpret by most standards. Usually these actors are the children. In this article, the most obvious exclusion is the Draco Malfoy character. In the article Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film), the three "champions" are not in the list. They are given a brief mention in the bottom of the section which was added a while ago, but only after I questioned the logic of keeping them off of the list. Just as I'm questioning the logic of keeping Draco Malfoy of of the list here.--JOJ Hutton 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree in principle, but I think we need to establish criteria by which we can distinguish which actors are appropriate for the Cast section rather than picking and choosing. As I said, I'm pretty sure WP:FILM goes by primary billing, so unless we can come up with a better idea that would be my default position. But again, maybe we should wait for a bit to see whether other editors chime in. DonIago (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment It is worth bearing in mind that WP:FILMCAST doesn't actually impose limits on the number of cast members we include, simply because it is impossible to determine who is important and who is not without the context. I think a good rule of thumb is to include blue-linked cast members since they are by definition notable cast members; beyond that it becomes a case of editorial discretion, bearing in mind WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go by "primary-billed or blue-linked" as our criteria, though I'd like to hear from additional editors on that...ideally ones who may have had a hand in the initial cast list discussion, assuming there in fact was one. DonIago (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather just use common sense and logic. There's very little harm in crediting more actors that just the ones whose names appear on the poster. Also, why does there need to be a long description of each actors role? Can't we simply just put the actors name and the role they played? Additional character descriptions are already covered in another article. And each character is blue linked anyway. JOJ Hutton 13:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Except that "common sense" and "logic" will vary from editor to editor, which is why it's best to have an underlying principle regarding the criteria. Ideally the cast section is really supposed to be more about the casting process for the actors and decisions made regarding the characters that attracted attention from sources; it's not supposed to contain a lot of in-universe information. If the character's role in the plot is already discussed in the plot section, no need to duplicate that in Cast. And we're not talking about blue-linked characters, we're talking about blue-linked actors. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a thing about common sense, it's suppose to be common. It's what most people will see as reasonable. Of course not everyone will agree. That's apparent with the manner in which this issue has been edited. That being said, there's not a problem with having a criteria for a cast list. I just feel that the criteria being presented by some isn't based on logic or common sense. Not listing an actor because his/her name isn't on the movie poster is a very stringent and illogical assumption. Why not include actors whose roles were important to the story? It's bit logical. JOJ Hutton 14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, but the reality is that with regards to the HP films editors have disagreed over which roles were "important" in the films (an argument can be made that Malfoy is of little importance in several of them, and even in this one he doesn't do anything that's crucial to the plot (that I recall)). I'm not even saying that defaulting to the poster is the best, or even a good idea, but it was a way of establishing a universal baseline for inclusion, which could then be modified for specific films as needed. In any case, I hope you understand that I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just explaining what I believe the rationale has been to this point; this is why I asked for other editors to get involved in the discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

IMDb link

When I click on it I get sent to an article that clearly says Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone at the top, so it seems to be that that's how the link should be titled on this page. Another editor has indicated that they get linked to Philosopher's rather than Sorcerer's. I don't really care to edit war about this, but can anyone else comment one way or another? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably depends on which country you access it from. As for how we reference it that poses an interesting dilemma and perhaps you should ask at WT:CITE. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:External links given that we're talking about an external link rather than a citation. Thanks for your input though; it does seem to be locality-based, which isn't a situation I've seen come up before. DonIago (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Release Date

This movie was actually released in the U.S. on November 16, 2001 according to the IMDB, Yahoo!, and many other resourceful movie websites; I also know this is true because I live in the U.S. and saw it in November! Whoever put in the article that it was released here on December 5, 2001 was either extremely misinformed or did it on purpose. Regardless, this is a pretty discreditable and embarrassing error for Wikipedia and I'm quite surprised that no one has changed or even brought this up yet, so I did. 71.145.148.97 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)(the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

I actually want to verify this. I saw the film at the midnight release, one of the first of its kind in the wee hours of Friday, November 16th, 2001.
I am going to provide sources... Many of them.

"The film shot primarily at Leavesden Film Studios, as well as historic buildings around the country, and was released in the United Kingdom and the United States in November, 2001" [[ http://free-time.forumotion.com/t324-harry-potter-and-the-philosopher-s-stone ]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.41.67 (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition

Please, allow me to edit this short prose information (as you have recommended me) about well-notable AFI’s recognition:

In 2005, the American Film Institute nominated this film for AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores.[2]


If there is another possible method how I can add this information I will acclimatize willingly. I am very sorry for difficulties. Dr.saze (talk) 07:09, 08 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ HarryPotterYear1UltimateEditionBackCover.jpg
  2. ^ "AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores Nominees" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-08-12.

Awards wikitable

As part of a HP Wikiproject in Albanian (called WikiPotter) I've been recently using this article as a good article to get information and references about the Albanian equivalent we're editing. The links need a little revision but the table of awards is lacking several awards comparing it with the IMDb page. I tried adding those to the Albanian article I'm working with (not wanting to experiment here) but couldn't do so without ending up destroying the whole table. If one can, I guess we all could benefit from it. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You've made a lot of improvements since that page was created 4 years ago. Looking at the two awards lists they look comparable to each other and pretty well filled out. IMDb's awards list is exhaustive and they definitely list many more obscure awards including ones based on viewers choice that EN-Wikipedia doesn't usually include. But on the whole the ALB-Wikipedia list looks good. Which ones were you having trouble with today?  spintendo  19:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand what you mean (and I thought the same at first) but the list already does have some that seem "obsure" (at least to me) and I thought adding them all would be a good idea, since there aren't much left. Besides, there are some awards that I think should be on the list. For example, there already exists the award (or nominee) by Art Directors Guild and the one from the Costume Designers Guild. Why not add the one from the Publicists Guild? Also "The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards" looks important as a "criticizing award", since there aren't any on the actual list (even-though I'm a fan of the series :P ).
The complete list of the ones missing:
  • Awards Circuit Community Awards
  • DVD Exclusive Awards
  • Golden Schmoes Awards
  • Golden Trailer Awards
  • GoldSpirit Awards
  • PGA Awards
  • Publicists Guild of America
  • The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards - Klein Muçi (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. The general consensus for the past 12 years at WikiProject Film has been that "adding huge lists of awards on a page isn't really useful, since very few people would want to read through them all."[1] I would suggest raising the issue with editors there to see if it's time for a new consensus. Regards,  spintendo  02:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "WikiProject Film: Archived Discussions Regarding Award Sections in Articles - 5 February 2004 through 19 July 2018". Wikipedia. Retrieved 20 July 2018.
I just found out I can edit the table in the visual editor, without using code that much. :P As I said, I'm a little bit inexperienced with tables. Thank you very much for your answers though! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

At the time of writing this the article claims Harry was delivered to the Dursleys in 1981 which is true in the books but this timeline is not strictly enforced in the films e.g. a sharp eyed viewer noticed a newspaper dated 2001 and that year also appears on Dudley's certificates from primary school on the film set which implies it it set ten years after the timeline in the books. Tk420 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Box office

Its box office earnings should be changed after its post COVID-19 Chinese re-release. https://deadline.com/2020/08/china-harry-potter-eight-hundred-interstellar-bad-boys-for-life-inception-international-box-office-coronavirus-1203013370/ ਬੱਬੂ ਬਰਾੜ (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of the film vs the novel

I have already included a paragraph on this under differences from the book but I am struggling to find a clear reference that appears in the final cut of the film considering the certificates in 4 Privet Drive cannot be seen clearly in the film. Sharp-eyed viewers have already noticed the Daily Prophet report on the Gringotts Bank break-in bearing the year 2001 on the top right of the paper implying the film is set ten years after the timeline in the book. I have tried to add this in the article but it was removed for not citing a reliable source. I did not think this was necessary considering it can be seen in the film if one looks carefully. In trying to find a source, some images of the article do not even have the date on them and on those that do I cannot see it clearly when zooming in. I think this might be because images have to be below a certain resolution to claim fair use. Tk420 (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In the past the general consensus has been that for "differences from the novel" sections, sources are required to establish that the differences are considered significant in some manner. Any sources being used to establish a different timeline between the two should explicitly mention the fact that the timeline's different between the two, and we shouldn't build evidence based solely on what we as the audience see in the film or read in the book. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Poster's nationality

@Facu-el Millo: I didn't realize until now about last year's discussion (Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 31#RfC: Nationalities in infobox poster captions) and WP:FILMPOSTER. Now what to do about Dr. No (film), which contains the poster's nationality? --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say just remove it and see if anyone reverts you, then start a discussion if others disagree. —El Millo (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The apparent reboot/remake

I just noticed there's no source or citing reference to say there is one. So should the reboot be removed for now? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Removed it as unsourced. —El Millo (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay thank you as much I did like that notion of animated remake/reboot I’m obligated by the rules to point out it had no valid source or citing. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Difference movie vs book

In the movie we just see the three-headed dog, the plant, the flying keys and the chess match. The potion-challenge from the book is missing which is carried by hermoine before she goes to help ron 79.246.195.186 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To avoid WP:UNDUE concerns and as a way of determining which differences are generally considered significant, they should only be mentioned in the article if a reliable source has discussed them. DonIago (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Billion dollar club and Box Office Mojo

@Betty Logan and TropicAces: we have a situation here. It's been recently reported by several outlets that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has joined the billion-dollar club. However, it has since become clear that that was based on Box Office Mojo's corrupted numbers, which have now been corrected to show the right number: $996.1 million. El Millo (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

right, but BOM isn’t the end-all/be-all. There are other sites and services that track box office grosses, and the odds of Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline all solely using Box Office Mojo as their financial information is slim-to-none (I can tell you for a fact Deadline does not). We don’t have to take BOM as gospel; the billion dollar figure is properly cited. Warner Bros. head of international distribution even acknowledged it; BOM is a mess, but I think we’re safe leaving the billion dollar note. That being said, its likely to make another $4 million in China and cross it anyways this weekend, so we can just update it then. TropicAces (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)tropicAces
  • Comment TropicAces actually makes a very sound point: if Box Office Mojo is anomalous and the other sources are consistent then we must question the accuracy of Box Office Mojo. However, I can perhaps shed some light. When contacting Box Office Mojo about some of the errors in their data this was their explanation:

    The cause of these problems is that distributors are inconsistent when reporting data for re-releases; sometimes they start counting gross-to-date from zero, and sometimes they start reporting it from the last known value, even if it was decades ago. Sometimes they use the re-release date and sometimes they use the original rele ase date, and what they choose to do varies by distributor/area/week. Box Office Mojo keeps track of grosses/GTD starting from zero for each individual re-release in each area, which many distributors don't do themselves, so it's often a case of us having to deduce concrete figures via heuristics based on limited data, intent, and history. The situation is acute at the moment because with COVID-19 there's a glut of re-releases around the world dominating the charts and industry is scrambling with ad-hoc auditing and reporting procedures.

    So in other words the problem isn't BOM, or Deadline, or Variety, the problem is the distributor. It reports raw data and sometimes they have to reverse engineer the figures to get the gross for the new release. This explanation would seem to chime with this situation: the distributor reported the raw data and when added on to the lifetime gross this took Harry Potter 1 over $1 billion, and this was reported as such. Box Office Mojo subsequently corrected the error. The other outlets may or may not follow suit. BOM only corrected it because we noticed they were counting some of the grosses twice and notified them. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

If the "reliable sources" are not actually reliable it might be better to not use that source as a reference alongside figures that do not match what that source claims. In the unlikely event that a reader actually looks at the reference the mismatch between the source and the figure in the Infobox is confusing and unhelpful. The hidden comment points to WP:BOXOFFICE which does partly explain the discrepancy but it is hidden and really not clear enough. Ignoring the reliable source seems highly irregular but there seems to be consensus to override it anyway. It is an awful mess. Using an {{Explanatory footnote}} would at least be an improvement over a hidden comment. Also whatever the correct box office gross is actually supposed to be is not easy to verify, and the article body does not match the figure listed in the Infobox. The infobox is supposed to summarize not the supplant the article body, please make sure the figures match! -- 109.79.66.134 (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1219728511"