Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Class Start on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Archives
July 2005 – May 2006

Contents 1 Grint 2 Watson 3 IMDB Sources 4 Protection 5 Release Date 6 Possible reprises — Hermione Granger 7 Cutting to the Bone 8 Possible reprises 9 Film in post-production 10 Kevin Baldwin? Who?

[edit] Grint

In this link dailyrecord.co.uk are claiming Rupert Grint has been signed up for the HBP movie. Does that constitute a suitable source (or one that is indeed credible enough) ? 61.69.60.238 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watson

BBC Newsround reported a while ago that Emma Watson would take each film step by step. Do we put that in the Expressed Interest in Returning category? The section header is off as Afshan Azad does not Express interest in returning, so maybe we do move Watson to expressed interest. ForestH2 ^{(discuss | contribs)}

[edit] IMDB Sources

Any sources from any other websites reportying that David Heyman will produce the film and that Christian Coulson is In Negoitations should replace the IMDB sources as they don't list sources, though they are good enough for now. ForestH2 ^{(discuss | contribs)}

Forest, I'm sorry, I'm just checking in really fast from my trip, but IMDb is just like Wikipedia. It is edited by people, not sources. Anybody can go and say that somebody will be in any movie. Most of the time the vandalism is caught before the page is published (it's not instant), but for a new movie, it's very likely the information could be inaccurate. For this film, please know that casting has not begun. Filming is still going on for OoP, David Heyman said himself (somewhere, don't have the time to look), that they have not started to cast anybody. I'm not going to revert anything, but nobody is in negotiations. Sorry if I don't reply immediately, as you know I'm on vacation and quite erratic at the moment. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 07:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you and Foxearth seem to have a reason for not citing IMDB. I tagged the Prisoner of Azkaban Differences because it was mainly about some other film. On the other hand, a lot of people think IMDB can actully cite sources. For example me and Evilphoenx both think so. I'm going to revert Zetawoof's verison now. ForestH2 | + | √ | -

And where does it say that nobody has been casted in this film? ForestH2 | + | √ | -

Given that the OotP movie isn't expected to be out for another year or so, it's unlikely that much has been done toward getting started on the HBP film. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct...though Muggle Net and IMDB are reporting this. Obviously, they haven't chosen a director yet but then David Heyman's going to produce this film and Steve Kloves will do the Screenplay and it is highly likely David Barron going to "Execuite Produce" the film. Also, it is likely Dan, Rupert and Emma will return. ForestH2 | + | √ | -

What's "likely" and what's known are two very different things, though. One isn't verifiable; the other is. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For example it's known, David Heyman's going to produce the film and that Steve Kloves will do the screenplay. Your right though, known and likely are two different words. ForestH2 | + | √ | -

[edit] Protection

This page has been protected since April. It's time that it is unprotected due to the protection policy. Protected pages are only supposed to be protected for a few days. This one has been protected for two months. I am going to request unprotection. ForestH2 | + | √ | - 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date

The release date of Nov 21 2008 is a tentative target date - even if it is "confirmed" as such by Warner Brothers - it is a TARGET date. Who knows what sort of production delays and national or global emergencies might preclude that particular release date. All we can say at this point is that the date is a target - and practically 2.5 years out! --T-dot 01:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. By confirmed I was noting the difference between Joe's Harry Potter Fan Site noting that date, and Warner Bros. "confirming" the date. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I agree that a direct link to a press release or other information sourced from Warner Brothers is much more authoritative that the innumerable fan sites and blog pages. I would expect that the Harry Potter franchise is powerful enough to lobby for an "exclusive" release to theatres on or before Thanksgiving Week (US) leading into the Christmas holidays - much as they did with HP1 (Nov 16 '01), HP2 (Nov 15 '02), and HP4 (Nov 18 '05). So HP6 (Nov 21 '08) is not unrealistic by any means, it seems to be "on pace" and that time frame makes sense, especially in America if WB is looking for another record box office smash in the first week of release. It appears that HP3 (Jun 4 '04) and HP5 (Jul 13 '07 target) are the "outliers", and at this pacing we might expect HP7 to be released sometime around mid-July of '10. Of course the original actors in HP's "class year" will be 21-ish by then, while playing 17 year-olds.

In any case i propose that we "label" all these future release dates as target or planned or tentative, with a link to an authoritative source as close as possible to WB - as opposed to what some reporter / investigator dug up in a search through WB records or whatever. I distinctly recall occasions where even the teasers and trailers released to movie theatres just six months in advance of the release had the date all wrong, due to last minute editing, refilming scenes, and screening adjustments. Many of them now just say something like "Summer 2007" or "November 2008", rather than applying a specific date ... and these are the way i think the Wikipedia should present the release dates as well. We seem to keep forgetting that the Wikipedia is supposed to be an authoritative reference of encyclopedic information - with content that stands the test of time. The fan sites and blog pages are filled with breathless revelations of the latest gossip, rumors, speculation, wild guesses, and information acquired from "insiders" - many times it seems like there is a competition among the fanatics to be the first to post such info on the Wikipedia, regardless of the quality or sourcing of the information. This corrupts the whole Wikipedia, as was discussed at Wikimania 2006 [1]. --T-dot 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand your argument there. I remember the GoF trailer, when we knew November 18, and it said "2005" and that was it. So, my vote is for "target," or even "confirmed target," as that to me suggests the official announced date, while subject to change. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reprises — Hermione Granger

"It is possible that... these characters, who appeared in the book, will not be written into the screenplay."

I can see why this is written into the article with way, but I think that the chance of Hermione not being written into the screenplay is pretty close to zero. ;) —JeremyBanks Talk 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

lol. It'd be pretty interesting to see the climactic tower scene played out without either Dumbledore or Snape being in the movie either, I've gotta say. ;-) Yeah, those top three characters at least are pretty certainly in the movie, whether the actors return or not. But still a good disclaimer, since it is pretty much crystal-ballery as it is, that at least makes it a seem a bit less "predictive". --Maelwys 11:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article fully says, "The following list of actors have not said anything about continuing their role in Half-Blood Prince. It is possible that any of these expected actors will not return in their role, or that these characters, who appeared in the book, will not be written into the screenplay." Thus, I'd say Hermione's not to the top section because Emma Watson hasn't confirmed anything yet. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. I said I understood why it was there, I just thought it was funny. :P (If I thought it made no sense at all, I'd have removed it.) —JeremyBanks Talk 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry, I am really good at seeing through jokes (especially when they're written!). :-) Just clarifyign for anybody else following the discussion… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What about denoting key characters in some way. There are a number of characters whose absence would create significant deviation from the plot of the book.

This is an issue of judgment. Simply directing readers to the book article is sufficient. We always put Harry, Ron and Hermione on the top since they are the three protagonists; everybody else, from Crabbe and Goyle to Dumbledore, are tied for second. We can, of course, dicuss this, but I think it works fine as it is. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting to the Bone

I'm sorry, but who just shredded this article? It was better the way it was, in my opinion; no offense intended. George "Skrooball" Reeves 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Skrooball, I completely agree with everything you've said, except in your edit summary where you wrote, "This article is for speculation." Wikipedis is not for speculation. In the article is information based on the book and comments from actors, but it is important we keep out speculatory remarks, such as, "Emma Watson is most likely to return, because it would be silly to drop out now" or "Alan Rickman will almost definitely return as he has been in all the films and his character is most importat in this one," or things of that nature. :) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Fbv65edel; no faux pas intended. My mistake. :-P George "Skrooball" Reeves 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just wanted to make sure you knew of WP:NOT. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks! George "Skrooball" Reeves 05:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reprises

The entire section on Possible reprises is speculation. The only reason the section exists is because there is no information on regarding the return of these actors. This section clearly violates the policy Wikipedia: Not A Crystal Ball. I cannot see how it could be viewed as anything else.Simondrake 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but I've reverted your edit, removed all speculation, and reworded so it fits the guideline. If this is still a concern we can discuss. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film in post-production

Um, I think that this article needs an update since they've already finished filming and are into post-production of the movie. The characters/cast section needs particular attention as to who has been ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMED to have returned and who've left. Can someone please take a look into fixing/updating this article pls? (And oh, the trailers are now online.) 74.96.186.207 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused. This is the article for the sixth movie, not being released until November 2008. You may be thinking of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), being released this July (2007). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Baldwin? Who?

Is there some reason the anon user 71.110.167.112 has been repeatedly cutting out the statement that Tom Felton is playing Draco Malfoy in place of Kevin Baldwin is playing Seamus Finnigan? It looks just a BIT suspect, especially considering the recent creation, and lack of so much as stub content and quality of the article Kevin baldwin[sic].--AgentCDE 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; you'll notice I've reverted this edit every time for lack of a WP:RS and I've speedied the article for the same reason. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I just didn't want to flip and start reverting stuff without having read all the books, much less kept up to speed with the news about the movies.--AgentCDE 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to; if an editor adds something without citing a reliable source, it's fair game, as long as you note the reason for the reversion. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)