Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Sneak

Any official line yet as to who it is whose going to rat out the D.A.? If Marietta is being cut there is a lot of specualtion that Cho is to become the 'sneak'. Any ideas? Should anyof this go on the article? (E-flah)

There has been no official word on this, and Wikipedia is not for speculation. When it is found out, it should be added to the plot differences section of Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Additionally, please sign your posts using ~~~~, E-flah. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

General Rule

(This was in response to a chat-like post.)

Please be more civilized in your postings. Also, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, but an encyclopedia. Take suggestions to a fan forum, like the ones at The Leaky Cauldron or MuggleNet. However, the sixth film will be made into a movie; a director search is currently underway. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the above as talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not chit-chat about its subject. I have however left Fbv65edel's comment as it is perfectly valid. — Gary Kirk // talk! 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

The word "upcoming" in the "Taglines" section is misspelled and I can't edit it. It's really bugging me. Can someone fix it?

I've removed the word altogether as it was redundant to mention that it was about the film. Thanks for the heads-up. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

tv preview

has anyone else seen the preview for the fifth movie on tvguide today (November 21, 2006)? It looked cool Chikinpotato11 03:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't, but if you have, Wikipedia's not the place for it. If you were able to record it, or even if you weren't, alert fan sites like The Leaky Cauldron, MuggleNet, HPANA, etc. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actors presents

The short video of OOF seems to present Timothy Spall and possibly Adrian Rawlins in the scene where the photo of the first order of the phoenix is took. It is Emma who talk about the scene.. Do somebody have a confirmation?

See the below conversation. Unfortunately, there's no official confirmation, even though I believe that to be Timothy Spall too. It's a no-can do for now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

Currently, I would congratulate those who've made the article well referenced, but if you'd like to get this article listed as GA or FA maybe, I'd advise to take the information and start turning it into prose. Currently it is a giant list. I may want to have a go but right now it'd be difficult, considering the many multiple cites. I'd also advise no taglines. Wiki-newbie 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this page is huge and most of it is a cast list of even the most insignificant characters (Look at the one for "Slightly Creepy Looking Boy", which even has it's own reference) and a list of scenes infered from the casting or other sources. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. I know there's a lot of junk pages about pokemon out there but that doesn't mean this page should list every single actor in every single scene...I think it needs a bit of pruning to be considered good or featurable.Simondrake 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually on my way to posting on the talk page, having just returned from a brief Thanksgiving vacation. I agree that

• the page is not written in prose for the most part, and that it is listish.
• the taglines should go; they were added just before my departure and I wasn't sure how to handle their removal.
• the sections on "confirmed scenes" is starting to get a bit long. I was planning on suggesting the removal of the section. It was originally created a while ago when just a few scenes were known to be included, but now with a trailer and some extra footage released of the film, the list could go on for a while; I'm thinking perhaps just the "cut scenes" should be included.

The thing about "Slightly Creepy Boy" is that he may actually be a real character from the books whose name Warner Bros. didn't know at press time: he's in the D.A. and he wears Ravenclaw robes, and "slightly creepy" matches the description of Michael Corner. So, thanks for the compliments on the references (it took a while to track down all of those pages). I've actually been trying to find a GA or FA that's a movie whose structure might mirror that of this article's, but have been dreadfully busy (and have forgotten too…). I think this article, though, is definitely going to go through a big revision soon. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the confirmed scenes section as there seems to have been no opposition on the talk page. The original purpose, when just a few scenes were known to be included, no longer serves its function. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the filming locations section, one paragraph starts "Production also took place in England". Was it meant to say "London" instead of England? The paragraph goes to mention a number of locations in London, and the earlier parts of the section talk about other places in England itself. --141.156.218.116 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Pettigrew has a 'cameo' in this movie

Timothy Spall who portrays Peter Pettigrew in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Goblet of Fire, can be seen in this movie when Sirius Black is showing Harry Potter a photo of the original order of the phoenix. If one goes to here and then pauses at 16 seconds you can see him in the left-hand corner of the shot. Should he now be added to the confirmed cast-list? Scouse 13:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw this too; however, I think we should wait for "official" confirmation, better than our own eyes, to reference this. Good spotting though! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the picture of that shoot present in www.veritaserum.com proove that Timothy Spall and Adrian Rawlins are back for a cameo (Adrian Rawlins always did cameo in Harry Potter movies except for the last where he is talking).

Here is the link of the usb picture adress: http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/albums/ootp/tvspecials/2006-12-abcpreview/ootp-order40.jpg

How do you know it's not just a really good look-alike? Until there is written or verbal confirmation from reliable sources (as in not your own eyes), the answer is a strict no. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY what the last poster said....i dont really think it matters if hes on the cast list or not, i have more of a life than thatVoldpotter 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)voldpotter

I already saw this movie in November!

Did anyone else see the movie yet? I didn't think so. Mewtwowimmer 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, and unless you saw a special preview because you have connections inside WB, it was unauthorized. Besides, the film didn't even finish filming until December. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. KathzzZz^{cHat | siGn heRe} 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Owned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mechasam (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

ya, you've definately never seen this movie beforeVoldpotter 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)voldpotter

Run time?

Any hard info on how many minutes for the movie? HP5 is by far the thickest of the six books, so far. HP2 book was way thinner, yet some litte kids wet themselves when the movie was shown without interruption (owing to great lenght and partly scary scenes). I do not think it is possible to make a meaningful HP5 film without splitting it in two 90-minute episodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, David Yates commented in October he'd shot about a 3-hour film and that approximately 45 minutes would have to be lost. No official info yet. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

apparently previews are currently running at 2 hr 30 min. Sandpiper 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

good, it better be long, and they better not do a hack-job like they did on GOF, because they left SO much out of that movie it was patheticVoldpotter 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)voldpotter

This page is to discuss changes to the Wikipedia article about the film of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, not to discuss the film itself. Skittle 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Influence on British film

This could be used in the article, although I'm not entirely sure where. HornetMike 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

Since the film has yet to come out, its unlikely that it will be passed as a GA since it could become unstable as the film gets closer to its release date. Also, once it reaches its release date there will usually be multiple edits by the hour of people who just saw the film and want to add to the plot, details they heard, and other information (most likely lacking sources). I would recommend waiting for the film to be released and to keep the article at the high quality it is at right now and then renominate it. I believe the current GA Snakes on a Plane was nominated before its release and was immediately failed for that reason. Somebody may pass this article for its good quality but I just wanted to comment on waiting until after the release. --Nehrams2020 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I did anticipate that, but was hopeful that perhaps the quality of the article would supercede any stability questions, and that if the article suddenly becomes shaky after the release of the film it would receive a review. However, for a good solid five months at least, the article is probably safe from anything drastic. I hope that when the movie is released it could maintain the status by being closely watchlisted, which is what I do, for one (I've bookmarked the RSS feed to the page's history). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

GA

{{future film}} This will not be a GA, because it hasn't been released, and has this tag. To add to that there is an Unconfirmed cast list which make the article not accurate, half the article is a list of cast, several one sentence paragraphs. Still things to be added like, reviews, reception, profit, awards etc. Just wait until it's released to re-nominate it, person above also makes valid comments. M3tal H3ad 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing Spotted on Page

I'm going to remove the obscenities on this page. I don't know how to fix the coding but I'm sure someone here knows how to. I just wanted to let everyone know. 28 January 2007

Well, someone got there before I even fixed the page. Nevermind.

Re-scheduling

Rumor in Hollywood is the HP5 movie will be rescheduled to October 2007 to avoid lost patrons due to 21st July coming of the HP7 book. Other option is to send JKR a bloody horse-head in an attempt to convince her withhold the book until pre-Xmas season 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh really? Please provide links to reliable sources that prove your assertions. Who is saying these things other than you? Did you make this up out of thin air? Do you live in Hollywood, or perhaps work in the executive offices at Warner Bros, and this is the panic-driven consensus reached at an emergency meeting of the Board of Directors? Let us know so we can verify your assertions! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenings

Should information on the recent screenings be reported as well as publically surveyed opinion based on the test screenings? (Four of them were recently done in Chicago with articles on Mugglenet.com and HPANA and just about everywhere else.) --Thanks, Yossi842 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I saw the news about the screenings. However, as none of the information is verifiable, and as it's clear it's not the final product of the film, it's best to leave this info out for now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed scenes

I'm not sure but we might be able to put the confirmed scenes in back again. APAD 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was never a question as to whether they were unverified or not. Every single one of those scenes had a citation. However, the reason they were removed, and will stay removed, is because it was unencyclopedic -- too "fan"-centered and less "big picture"-centered. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A very good point, so much of the Harry Potter pages are swamped in unencyclopedic information put in by fans. The confirmed scenes section was not appropriate, all it did was please the fans to know their favourite scenes from the books would be in the film, it had nothing to do with encyclopedic information about the film.Simondrake 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that doesn't mean it wasn't cool information. You can see what scenes were known to be included at the last revision this section was included in, here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New pics released for HP 5

[1] Let's add some of them to the article? Maybe the one with harry kissing cho chang =D Berserkerz Crit 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, butfair use images like these cannot be used decoratively. You might want to read the relevant policy. Sure, they'd be nice to add, but it doesn't help Wikipedia's purpose of being a free encyclopedia. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok just thought to let you guys know. But IMO adding the harry-cho kiss picture is not for decorative purposes only, but will show harry's first kiss in the series. =) Berserkerz Crit 23:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes a film from a certain country?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Release dates are wrong for Australia.

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

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

But in actual fact the release date was 11 July, regardless of what WB says. Cinemas in Melbourne were actually showing it on July 11. I saw the TV ads and it struck me as odd because usually movies are released on a Thursday but 11 July was a Wednesday. That's the reason I remembered it. -- Rick69p 07:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)