Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filming dates

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

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

Why Poster is tagged fairusereduce ?

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

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

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

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

Image doctoring fuss

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

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

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

Embargoed

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

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

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

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

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

Wideness?

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

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

Section order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Running Time

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

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

Citations for use

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

Casting

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

Cencorship in China

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

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

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

Is Hong Kong an English-speaking region?

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted information

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

Notes: Nigel

Isn't he Colin Creeveys little brother?

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

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

The voice behind Kreacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Someone Explain or Change?

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

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

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

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

what day is it really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences

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

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

Nargles

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

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

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

Movie Poster Deleted?

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

Is it so popular?

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

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

Rolling Stoners

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

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

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

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

Criticism Different Than Praise

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

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

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