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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 31, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

Image:Dumbledore.jpg

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.

GA This article has been rated as Class GA on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click Show → Merge articles that we have agreed to merge at Notability Work on pages in our improvement drive to bring them to GA or FA status Remove original research from every article that has it Check the to do list for the Harry Potter article to help get it to FA Improve plot sections in accordance with WP:WAF Perform some much-needed work on fair use images Help expand content at the Muggles' Guide Expand factual subsections of HP book pages (such as editions and translations) Help the article Horcrux Add critical reviews to all book pages edit tasks

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority 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.
Additional Information: This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Archives
Move Request - July 2007 Title RfC - Jan 2008

Contents 1 Philosopher's Stone vs Sorcerer's Stone debate summary 1.1 Requested move 1.2 RfC: Title of this article 1.3 Further actions 1.3.1 Administrator's Noticeboard / Incidents 1.3.2 Request for Mediation 1.3.3 Request for Arbitration 1.4 Similar discussion elsewhere 2 Large Edit 3 Name inconsistencies 4 Quirrel 5 quidditch scene 6 Fullmetal Alchemist 7 Differences between European and North American versions 8 Harry, I am your father! 9 Japanese seiyū 10 References 11 U.S. Release Date 12 GA fail 13 GA Pass 14 Different running times 15 Difference between book and film 16 Archive RFC seperately? 17 Village pump 18 But why?

[edit] Philosopher's Stone vs Sorcerer's Stone debate summary

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] Name inconsistencies

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 "He-Whom-We-Don't-Care-To-Name" 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 embarassing 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.").

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)