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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHarry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 28, 2005Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 5, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Plot editing[edit]

Could someone do a really good proofread/edit of the entire plot section? At the moment it reads really badly, with grammatical mistakes etc. aplenty. 202.46.136.129 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, it has numerous unexplained elements (Snapes is released from what spell?), the chronological order apparently came from a series of "oh yeah I forgot"s. It is a mess.--24.209.110.222 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"numerous unexplained elements" haha, well that's just like the movies are, aren't they? ;) — chandler — 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I just saw the DVD in order to catch up for the current movie in theaters, and take issue with the following:

"Harry refuses to hand over the prophecy just as Sirius, Kingsley, Moody, Tonks, and Lupin arrive. ... Harry corners Bellatrix in the Atrium and attempts to torture her with the Cruciatus Curse, but to little avail."

As far as I can tell, Harry was in the process of handing over the prophecy when Sirius appears, telling him to get away from his Godson. Also, it doesn't look like harry is trying to torture Bellatrix with the Cruciatus Curse, but rather contemplating it. 66.57.19.109 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible GA[edit]

Okay this article looks pretty good, and, once it becomes more stable over the next few weeks, could become a GAC. I strongly suggest you make a few changes first though.

  • Plot needs a little shortening, not much though.
  • Infobox flags - I removed the clearly non primarily English speaking ones, but it still looks ridiculous. As the rest are primarily English speaking, you might get a backlash, but in a few weeks you should think about removing all of those there apart from UK, USA, Aus, New Z, Can and Ire. Because it doesn't look very good at the moment.
  • I'd remove the ratings box, unless there was a controversy over the ratings it is not notable and the main USA and UK ratings should be given in the text, there the only cited ones anyway.
  • The cast list - I'd prefer this in prose - like HP1 is now. But if you want a table like this, with all of the cast, you'd probabky get away with it.
  • Marketing section could use a little work, for example, the large amount of toys that were released. The one Lego set, and the action figures, should probably be mentioned.
  • As for the Awards, as its only one thing, and it didn't even win it... I'd move the sentence into the release section.

These are just my (crazy) suggestions so you can just ignore me if you want, but I do think this is very near GA class, and (I think) with my proposed changes, could be there. Gran2 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I shortened the plot a little. I'm going to wait until about a week or so to remove all the flags; I agree, it's ridiculous, but technically most of those have English as an official language (though there are others that don't which I'm going to remove). I've removed the ratings box. As for the cast list: I can understand the rationale behind having a prose list, but I think that the table is much easier to access, visually. However, if the GA reviewer suggests that it's important to list the role of each of the characters, then I guess I'll convert it. I'll work on the marketing section. As for the awards – it's bound to be nominated for a few more awards somewhere down the line, so I figure it's not worth it to cut out the section now. Thanks for your comments. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that (for the cast list), so we'll have to wait and see what a GA reviewer says. Anyway, The Simpsons Movie is out now and all that's left to on it (aside from the odd source addition here and there) is wait for some stability in a week or so. So until then, I'll give you a hand here, as it does actually seem pretty stable at the moment. Gran2 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects[edit]

Order of the Phoenix: Escalating Potter VFX -- Part 1 - Use BugMeNot to access it if you are unable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great articles, thanks for the link. I'll try to start adding in some of the information. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain why they used a different (and less effective to my mind) visual effect for Sirius speaking through the fire in this film? Lee M 20:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a guess, because there hasn't been any statement from the producers why it was done so. However, in the books Floo powder communication is done through flames, not through embers, so going by the book, the fifth film was accurate and the fourth wasn't. I know a lot of fans complained about the way that was done in the fourth film, so they may have done it to follow the books; I don't think there was a technical difference. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute: Repeat Reverting Has Been Used by Someone on the Plot Section[edit]

Repeat reverting, which is prohibited by Wikipedia rules, has been used by one of the editors of the Plot section. I have repeatedly added additional plot details that have been repeatedly deleted from the section by another editor. I can see no reason why any legitimate user of this site would wish to delete additional information about the plot of the film that is indisputably correct and contradicts nothing else posted in the section -- for example, the fact that the film begins with an attack on Harry and his cousin by dementors in Little Whinging. The Plot section as it is gives the reader the impression that the film begins with Harry returning to Hogwarts. Unless someone saw a radically different version of the film from the version released in the United States, that is NOT how the film begins. Can anyone think of any justification for posting a misleading summary of the Plot? I can't. If this continues to happen I will notify the site of a violation of the rules and request that they get involved to prevent a recurrence.

Continental46 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental, WP:MOSFILMS#Plot, which is part of the Manual of Style, formatting guidelines on Wikipedia, suggests that the Plot summary in film articles be between 400 and 700 words, and not longer than 900 words. I just pasted the plot summary as it stands now into Word, and it's nearly 1150 words. That's a lot, and is really too detailed for somebody looking to determine what the film is about. We've been trying to shorten the plot summary, but even our shortened version doesn't come up much better than 1000 words. We're looking for a way to eliminate a lot of detail to get it down to about 850 or 900. Sure, right now the plot mentions nothing about the Dementor attack or Mrs. Figg or the trial or Grimmauld Place, but it still tells the story of the film. The whole purpose of the first 20 minutes of the film was to establish the ignorance of the Ministry, reintroduce the audience to Sirius and other members of the Order, and let Harry see the doorway to the Department of Mysteries. Thus, we've covered those three points in our version of the Plot. If the audience wants to know why the Ministry is ignorant, or what the Order's headquarters look like, or who Mrs. Figg is, or what the TV weatherman has to say, then they can go see the movie. The same goes for Cho -- that entire paragraph about her may not even be necessary in the long run, and could be cut down to one sentence. We need to describe the essential storyline. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You are of course free to disagree about which details should be included in the plot summary. But I'm just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, and I don't happen to agree with your opinion about the purpose of the first 20 minutes of the film. As for your statement that "if the audience wants to know" this or that detail "they can go see the movie," you could say the same thing about each and every fact mentioned in the plot summary. If we use your logic, there's no reason to post a plot summary at all -- we can save lots and lots of words by just posting a single sentence telling people to go see the film. You are not, however, free to engage in repeat reverting, which is flatly prohibited by the rules of this site. That's not a stylistic suggestion, but a rule. You do understand the difference between those two concepts, right? Repeat reverting is not only prohibited, it's also extremely rude, disrespectful and insulting. Stop it.

Continental46 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is to long. In my view the plot is the least important section of a film articles. Most of the plot at the moment is superflous detail. The plot is to long, that is a fact. Gran2 07:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in full agreement with Fbv65edel. The plot summary in a film article is meant to provide context for the rest of the article, which should be based on the real world (production, thematic observations, film reception, other media, etc). See #2 at WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not supposed to give a scene-by-scene account of the film. Plot summaries should adhere to WP:MOSFILMS; there is no good encyclopedic reason to include so much detail when it is irrelevant in the encyclopedic sense. The plot summary gives an overview of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually only fully reverted your edits once, and left a detailed edit summary, using just about the max number of characters allowed. You were also reverted once by Gran2. The first time you edited the plot section I did not revert, but just edited it down a little, still keeping much of what you had written. The only other time you edited, the most recent time, still stands in the current revision. I certainly did not intend to be rude, disrespectful or insulting, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I can understand how repeated reversions with edit summaries such as Revert to revision 148862349 dated 2007-08-03 03:49:02 by Continental46 using popups, for example, can be frustrating and rude. But cutting down your changes with edit summaries of "a little too much detail," "we're trying to shorten it" and "We don't need this much detail – if people want to know the intricate details, they can go to see the movie. As it is, the plot is already overdetailed, and this sufficiently explains Harry/Cho." cannot be mistaken as insulting. We tried very much to get our point across, saying each time that it was too long as it was.
Erik has explained why we don't need to give a scene-by-scene account of the film. Then there would be absolutely no point in going to see the movie. We want to provide a detailed, structured overview of the plot, without reciting every single thing that happens. I hope you'll work with us to write a plot summary of an appropriate length while trying to keep in all essential aspects of the film. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If you don't mean to be rude, you should stop saying things like "we don't need this much detail" and "we want to provide a detailed, structured overview," as if you were speaking for some organization that has been put in charge of this subject in Wikipedia. You are not speaking on behalf of some vast official group, you are merely reciting the opinion of yourself and a couple of other people, isn't that correct? So far as I understand the ethos of this site, it is not the case that everyone's opinion is equal but some opinions are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell. Your comments should be written with that in mind.

I can think of a couple of reasons why someone would want to read a plot summary of a Harry Potter film that is currently in theaters.

One reason is that the films are based on a series of books with an unusually large and loyal group of fans. Fans who haven't seen the film may want to know whether their favorite characters and scenes from the book are included in the film. That information usually can't be found by reading a critic's review or going to the site of the film's distributor. In fact, it's hard to think of anyplace where that information CAN be found other than on fan sites and Wikipedia. If you insist on deleting such information from Wikipedia, you make it more difficult for those who are seeking such information. Why would you want to do that?

Another reason is that the Potter books are very densely plotted. Adapting them for a 2 1/2 hour film requires a great deal of editing. Some of the plot elements that are expounded at great length in the books are reduced to a line or two in the films. Anyone who happens to miss that line because the person in the seat next to him coughs or because he's reaching for his Pepsi when the line is delivered may not be able to understand that part of the plot unless he happens to recall all the details of the book, which he probably read at least a year earlier. Seems like a tall order.

An example of this problem in 'Phoenix' is the plot line involving the prophecy. Voldemort's attempt to hear the prophecy supposedly foretelling his fate and Harry's is the whole reason why Harry is lured to the Ministry and the climactic battle between the Death Eaters and the D.A. occurs, but there is very little in the film to explain why this is of any importance to any of the characters. There is one line about it that is overhead by Harry at Grimmauld Place during the first 20 minutes of the film and another line or two during Harry's confrontation with Malfoy at the Ministry. Anyone who finds the film hard to follow because such major plot elements are given short shrift can do nothing but see the film again, read the book again, or go to a site like this to seek an explanation. They're not going to be enlightened by the plot summary as it is, because there's not much about this plot line in it. Get the idea?

Continental46 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be blunt, but did you even read his (and others') replies? No, it's not merely the opinion of him and a couple other people. As he posted already (with links), Wiki has a policy for pages about movies. Plot summaries are supposed to be a certain length. The summary on the page already exceeds those policies and is supposed to be pared back, not added to. If someone wants a more detailed plot summary, they will have to go elsewhere. That is not my opinion, that is Wiki's policy. V-train 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel sorry about being blunt, then don't do it. I doubt someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to type words you'd rather not.

Personally I don't mind posts that are blunt, but I do mind posts that are inaccurate. I did read the reply you mention. That's how I know it says this:

"Continental, WP:MOSFILMS#Plot, which is part of the Manual of Style, formatting guidelines on Wikipedia, suggests that the Plot summary in film articles be between 400 and 700 words, and not longer than 900 words."

Note the use of the word "suggests." Did you read that word, or did you miss it? I didn't miss it. Is it possible there are situations in which following this suggestion may not lead to a result that accords with the purpose of this site -- which is to inform? I think I've just described such a situation. I don't see you coming up with any facts that counter what I wrote. All you are saying is that no matter what the result may be -- including causing inconvenience to people who come here looking for information that may be hard to find elsewhere -- we should follow the suggested length in the manual of style. How ironic that you make such a comment when we are discussing a film in which one of the themes is the harm that can be done by an uncaring bureaucracy.

Continental46 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that I was not trying to be rude, so please don't construe my comments as such. When I used the word "we," I was referring to me as well as some other people, not acting as some supreme voice of Wikipedia. As you can see above at #Possible GA, Gran2 and I had discussed the shortening of the plot, and we were in agreement on it, so most of the time I used "we" I was referring to Gran2 and me. I now also refer to Erik and V-train when I say "we're trying to shorten it." However, I referred to all users of Wikipedia, including you, when I said, "We want to provide a detailed, structured overview of the plot, without reciting every single thing that happens," because this is part of Wikipedia policy and thus is one of the goals of providing a great free encyclopedia.
I do not deny anything that you have said: that the books and films have a large fan base, that many things are cut or condensed in the film adaptation, and that moviegoers unfamiliar with the book might be confused as to the prophecy storyline. Which is why I agree that there should be a sentence which explains why Harry is needed to pick up the prophecy. However, if people who went to see the movie want to know exactly what was lost in the translation from book to film, they should read the book. If they want to know if their favorite line made it, they should see the movie. We are not here to recite the book or every memorable line from the film.
Yes, the guideline uses the word "suggests". Nothing on Wikipedia is absolutely set in stone. The word "suggests" is used because that is what most editors found to be an agreeable length for a plot summary -- a length in which you could adequately describe the plot without going into excessive detail. It means don't write a 2000 word summary (yes, it has been done). It also means don't write a 100-word summary. As I said at the end of my last post to you, I hope you can work with us (the editors of the page that are in agreement with what I am saying) to write a comprehensive plot summary that includes important, vital plot points and does not dwell on things which are not crucial to the understanding of the plot. I am not, once again, being unkind, disrespectful, or domineering. I am extending a friendly hand to explain why your edits were reverted or cut down, and how you can continue to help find the right wording of the section. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Eye?[edit]

I've seen claims that the London Eye features in the movie somewhere, but I've seen both UK prints (35mm and IMAX®) and saw it nowhere in either. Is it one of these blink-and-you'll-miss-it things, or is it perhaps present on some prints and not others? Or has someone made a mistake? 193.122.47.170 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms[edit]

Perhaps something could be said in the article about the anachronisms in the opening sequence. Since the books mention the series chronology at least three times, it's clearly important, hence presumably important for the movies as well.

The opening sequence is supposed to take place in the summer of 1995, yet when Mrs Figg brings the boys home, Mr. Dursley's car can clearly be seen to have a 2006 numberplate (NX06zzz, where the last three are letters I don't remember). The Dursleys also have a widescreen TV, and I'm sure we in Britain didn't get those until the 2000s. And shortly afterwards, Harry (in escaping) is taken down the Thames, and Canary Wharf is shown as being far more developed than it was in 1995 (IIRC only 1 Canada Square had been built by then). That sequence is also said to include the London Eye, and although I for one haven't seen this (see above section), if true it's another anachronism; the Eye wasn't erected until late 1999. 193.122.47.170 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the mention the London Underground and the clothes Dudley and his gang wore. And of course the biggest one of all, the 2005 classic Boys Will Be Boys clearly being played... But the point is, the films don't follow the timeline of the book, because it isn't important that they do. The exact year where the story takes place doesn't really matter, as it doesn't affect the plot in anyway. So its easier if its just set in 2007. Plus adding this to the article isn't a good idea, unless a reliable source to support these points is produced. Although they are true, they would need to be sourced. Gran2 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to get technical about it, there's no indication that the films follow the same timeline as the books. They could be taking place 10 years in the future, for all we know. In any case, Gran has said it: there's really no need to add it, and it's rather trivial, which is not encyclopedic. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

  • Citations in lead are unnecessary.
  • "Dolores Umbridge, a bureaucrat that slowly becomes an authoritarian figure in the school." It should be "who slowly..."
  • Plot is far too long.
  • An unnecessary cast image: doesn't the poster show Potter and all his pals?
  • The casting section looks thin. Some relevant information could be merged to relevant entries, ala Children of Men.
  • There is very little information on book to film changes.

Still, the Reception and Distribution sections look excellent. Alientraveller 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Alientraveller.
  • Though they may be unnecessary, are citations in the lead wrong? Is there any point in removing them?
  • Fixed the pronoun.
  • Will work on cutting down the plot.
  • Removed the image.
  • I'll see if there's any more information that can be dug up on casting to make the section stand on its own; if not, I'll merge them to the main Cast section.
  • Book to film changes are obviously the hardest as they are difficult to cite and it could be considered POV-pushing as to what merits mention. I'll work on that though.
Thanks again. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Citations in lead are unnecessary" reason given for a GA fail is wrong. Wikipedia policy is here: Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section which is quoted in full:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. In particular, material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited in the lead. Because leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, lead information on non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, a citation exception specific to leads. Contentious material about living persons must be cited at every iteration, regardless of the level of generality.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IESB.net review[edit]

I notice that one of the quoted reviews is from an "iesb.net". I've never heard of it before today, and I believe it fails the WP:RS criteria. All of the other reviews are from notable publications which have their own wiki articles, but not iesb.net. Why not use Roger Ebert's review or something? Green451 04:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IESB is a prefectly reliable source. Why does having a wiki article mean something is reliable? And if its a review, why does it have to be from a mainstream news source? No, it doesn't. Gran2 07:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's take a look at WP:RS:
"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
Alexa Internet, the most widely known website traffic monitor, gives IESB a rank of 24,774 (the lower the rank number the higher the traffic). Compare this to the New York Times, which is at a substantally higher rank of 209, or the Times of London, which has a rank of 1,049, still much better than iesb.net.
IESB's only been around since 2003, which, in my opinion, is not enough time to make them "authoritative", not in a field that's over a hundred years old. GameSpot is widely considered an authoritative source in the world of video games, and it's only been around since the mid 90's. The difference is that video games are a much newer phenomenon, only thirty or so years. Compare IESB's four years to the New York Times, which has been reviewing movies since the early 20th century. An extreme example, for sure, but certainly the contrast I'm hoping to demonstrate.
The reason I mentioned Roger Ebert is because he, too, is an established film critic, and the first one to win a Pulitzer Prize for it. I could go on, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are many sources out there that fulfill the WP:RS criteria much better than IESB.
Another thing I want to quote:
"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
I would qualify the Sunday Mirror as a less-than-reliable source, tending to focus on a more sensationalist type of journalism. As well, their fact-checking skills have failed them more than once, leading to a less-than-desired accuracy.
Finally, why does a source have to be from a mainstream news source, you ask? I quote RS again:
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
That seals it as far as I am concerned. No, it does not say that mainstream publications must be used; however, it strongly recommends it.
I'm sorry if you disagree with me on this. I simply believe that for an article running for GA, this still has a few issues that need to be worked out. Thanks, Green451 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see any real problem. I mean yes, if this was piece of production info being cited, then maybe. But it isn't. It's a review, someones personal opinion, as it is meant to be. The point it describes gives balance to the reception section, and so however long ISEB.net been around for doesn't really matter. The Ebert review could be cited instead, but would it mention the same thing? I haven't read his review, but I doubt it would. The fact is, regardless of how reliable you or anyone else thinks the source is, it isn't a fansite, or a blog or anything like that. Its a review that gives a valid opinion that balances the article out well. Gran2 16:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of WP:RS covers this as well. The point I was trying to make above was not about how factual the sources were. It was about how well know or respected they are. I believe that cited reviews in any wiki article should be from the most well known, trusted critics in that particular field, from the most well know, trusted publications. IESB is not well known or extremely trusted. Their review is written by one Andy Duke, who I have never heard of before and am sure many others have not either. Compare that to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, and A.O. Scott of The New York Times, all famous and widely respected critics from well known publications, rather than some small-time, not very well known critic. To sum up my view on this: The reviews in any article should be from respected critics from well-known publications that have established a reputation for movie reviews.
On your other question, Ebert's review is actually rather scathing of the film, so I don't think that's what you're looking for. However, I believe I will add in his review in another part of the section, as it contains a rather unique and debatable argument against the film. Still, I believe you should add in a review from more known source to replace the IESB one. Maybe one of the reviews quoted at Rotten Tomatoes? Surely you'll be able to find a review that balances out the section as well? It might not be the same wording, but who said it was set in stone? Green451 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still disagree, but its pointless to keep going back and forth, so I'll wait for a third opinion on the matter. And I assume IESB is one of the reviews quoted ar Rotten Tomatoes, hence how it was found. I'll try and find a review that makes similar point, but as said I'd preferred to get another opinion first. But I take your point, even if I still disagree with it. Gran2 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the IESB review is not at Rotten Tomatoes, hence my comment about finding one from there. I agree with you that a third opinion or a RFC would be a good idea here; I'll wait as well. Green451 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage the usage of reviews from the "Cream of the Crop" section of Rotten Tomatoes. To explain this section, "'Cream of the Crop' is where we place popular and notable critics from the top 20 US newspapers and top 5 Canadian newspapers by circulation." Here is the section for Harry Potter 5. While I do not completely oppose IESB.net as a resource to use, I think it is easily replaceable by more notable, published reviews. Take a look at Road to Perdition#Reception -- it cites reviews from major publications. I think that these reviews have more weight, being published and distributed in a widespread manner, not to mention that they are stored in offline archives to check for verifiability, as opposed to a potentially unrecoverable dead link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely oppose IESB.net's opinion, because they are journalists. But there are better resources, unless you utterly cannot find a similiar opinion. Alientraveller 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think that's the best option, for want of something better, I've removed it for now. Gran2 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

I'll be the GA reviewer for this article. If there are any questions, please ask them. Regards, Daimanta 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The release dates seem to be incomplete. For example, the EU is not included in the release date nor do other EU countries(apart from the UK). What is that about? Daimanta 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't primarily English speaking, and this is the English Wikipedia. Unless the had a lot to do with the film, which they didn't, so only the primarily English speaking nations (which really should just be UK, Aus, US, NZ, Can and Ire) should be mentioned. As per WP:FILMS MOS. Gran2 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a link to " the extended plot at WikiBooks"? This is the plot of the book of HP5, not the movie. It not very relevant since a movie adaptation of the book always differs in one way or another from the book itself. If people want to look for it they should be visiting the HP5(book) page. I think it should be removed. Daimanta 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the critiques of the the last review were observed and the errors imporved.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I'm waiting for any comments for about 8 hours. After that, the article will pass. Daimanta 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article has passed. I would like to thank the authors for making this article good as it is. Regards, Daimanta 12:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you a lot. It's been nearly a year and a half since I started editing this article, so it feels great to have it be paid off with this. Off to PR, I'd say! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly earned it. The fact that there is some vandalism in this article is a shame though(and it will probably prevent this article from becoming FA). Daimanta 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, although I don't think vandilism will affect any chance the aticle has of getting to FA, because we can just remove it. Almost evey article gets vandilised, and there are easy ways of dealing with it, so its not that big a problem, just an annoyance. Gran2 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic box office[edit]

I added "Canada" to a report of the domestic box office: U.S. and Canada combined is the "domestic" market in Hollywood terms. All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted. in Box Office Mojo Key Terminology. I know. It sounds odd but Hollywood distribution considers the U.S. and Canada as one ' domestic' market. Movies released in the U.S. are released in Canada on the same day and the box office receipts are combined. If you look at this wire story [1] you'll note it says "U.S. and Canadian theaters" or this wire story [2] and it says "Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I knew about this practice, but didn't notice that the article needed to be changed to reflect that. Thanks. Green451 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Featured Article status...[edit]

Here is something to add mention of... it was part of the queen's birthday party [3]. Judgesurreal777 04:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's been covered at Children's Party at the Palace. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on visual effects[edit]

Don't have the time now, but there's a great detailed article on the visual effects in this film here. Here's the citation: [1] --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robertson, Barbara (2007-08-24). "Harry Potter: Muggle Make Magic". CG Society. Retrieved 2007-10-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Listing of other countries DVD releases[edit]

Someone just added information about the DVD release in India, Japan, and Korea. Should their DVD releases really be covered in the English article? The only releases that make sense to me are the UK, US, and Australia releases. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is the English Wiki, so I'd delete them. Gran2 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Cover[edit]

Can't anyone put the dvd cover since its already been released in the UK? The Dvd cover should replace the current picture on the info box.4.90.32.146 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, the picture in the info box is the theatrical poster (see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film)). It's just often times the image on the DVD cover is the same as the theatrical poster. The only time I can think of that the DVD cover is used for a movie is if it is a direct-to-DVD movie (like Mulan II). Anakinjmt (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep we don't use the DVD cover unless there isn't a film poster, or its a direct to DVD release. Gran2 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then can't the picture of the dvd be put next to the dvd sections of the article?4.227.111.51 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, can you add colons before your comment? That will help prevent your comments appearing in a weird way. As for your response, it's really not needed, as the DVD cover is just the theatrical poster on the DVD, and including a fair-use image of the DVD cover wouldn't hold, because the picture is exactly the same. But, if you take a picture of the DVD cover, then feel free to put it in, as that'd be a free image. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Potter-bus.jpg[edit]

Image:Potter-bus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Lovegood[edit]

In the cast list in this article, Luna is described as a "classmate". Can we confirm this as accurate and specified in the film please? In the books she is a year below Harry. --Dave. 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Classmate" is being used in the general sense as "another student of Hogwarts," not "member of the same year" here. Do you think it should be reworded? --Fbv65edel — t — c // 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that to be a "classmate" you'd have to be in the same class. Therefore logically, Luna would be a classmate of Ginny, but not of Harry. Is she shown as being in any of Harry's classes in the film? (my recollection of the film is not clear on this point) --Dave. (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just change it to schoolmate. That's more accurate. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Scar[edit]

I've only looked for it in the scene with Sirius and Harry in the room with the family tree and in the immediately following scenes, but I think that in several of the scenes Harry doesn't have his scar on the (his) right side of his forehead. Just thought I'd bring it up.Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if he didn't, you'd need some sort of source to cite it and discuss why it's notable that he doesn't. I'm sure it's there but you just can't see it -- that's probably the first thing the make-up artists do. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's only in the scenes where you'd obviously see the scar, as I've seen a few times where the scar would hidden under the hair, but you'd at least be able to see something, but you don't. Regardless, that would be trivia and not notable, unless you had a cite and could fit it in production. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the Book[edit]

Some of the things that it says wasn't in the movie I saw when I watched the movie in theaters, but I did not see on DVD. The original theatrical version is different than the DVD. I think that should be on the page somewhere.--Brownga (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? I've seen the movie twice in theaters and twice on DVD, and they seem the same to me. What things exactly were changed? Anakinjmt (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


When I went to theaters,Rita Skeeter was in the movie. St.Mungros was also included.There was some scenes at Grimmauld place that wasn't on DVD. There are some other scenes that were not on DVD that I saw in theaters.--Brownga (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely wrong. Rita Skeeter wasn't in the movie, she said she wouldn't be since she did the previous film! St. Mungo wasn't included at all! What are you talking about? No, no... Do not insist on this. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, but Rita wasn't in the movie, nor did they go to St. Mungo's. That was the book, not the film. On another note, why did you name this section "differences from the book" if you're talking about "differences" between the theatrical version and the DVD version? Anakinjmt (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am positive that St. Mungros was included. --Brownga (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know St. Mungo's was not included. It went right from Harry's Occlumency lessons with Snape to being at Grimmauld Place with Mr. Weasley there having Christmas dinner (remember, in the book he spent Christmas in St. Mungo's). Sorry, but nothing got changed from theater to DVD. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I was positive that the two versions were different. But people on here insists that they are not, and chances are that they are right. So I will drop my case.--Brownga (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but unless you have proof, it can't be put in, especially when other people clearly recall that they're the same. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned that Harry Potter did not receive the special mirror in the movie? I think that is an important piece as it plays an important role in the final book and I will be interested to see how they work this into the final movie if at all.207.241.137.116 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be mentioned about the mirror, and i also am quite interested as to how that is going to work out. Harry gets out the mirror an awful lot during the last book and he sees Aberforth's eye through it too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.111.94 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm not sure what's going on here but I think Brownga may actually be right. Why? Because a lot of other people seemed to be confused about why scenes were supposedly "left off" the DVD release, too!! Now I saw the movie twice in theaters, and no scenes with Rita or Saint Mungo's were included anywhere, nor are they on my DVD. But there is a slight chance that they actually were originally filmed cause David Yates said he did film like a half-hour more of footage for OOTP!!! (Not including all the lame deleted scenes we got on the DVD, too!) I want to see these scenes immensely, and am kinda sad I went to the wrong theater---yeah, you read right; depending on where you were, maybe, those scenes weren't included. Brownga, what do you remember about Saint Mungo's or the scene with Rita? You're one of the few people who's actually seen these scenes, so I'd like to know a little bit about them, please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.157.63 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbering[edit]

I think those page numbers mentioned under Differences are wrong, at least for the UK edition. I have the Canadian printing of the UK Bloomsbury paperback edition, and it's a full 956 pages, not the lower number cited. And the hardcover I believe is the same. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible that the page numbering shown is incorrect - perhaps by typographical error, vandalism, or otherwise. Or it could be that the page numbers shown are based on the US Scholastic edition rather than the UK Bloomsbury edition. If you have the truth of the matter on hand (a copy of the book, so you and anyone else with a copy can check your figures), then please feel free to make the corrections. The article is currently not semi-protected, so you are free to edit away and be BOLD about it. Or it might be helpful to everyone if you simply add in parentheses after the "current" page numbers something like: (959 pp., Bloomsbury ed.) or (p. 356, Bloomsbury ed.) so it is clear that you are distinguishing between published editions or versions. If the issue is indeed US vs UK editions, then it should probably be reversed - eg: page 395 in the Bloomsbury edition (p. 375, Scholastic ed.) since the Bloomsbury is arguably closer to "canonical". The US Scholastic editions have various word and syntax changes (eg: Philosopher's stone), and other changes related to British vs. American grammar, spelling, and vernacular; and more importantly, different typeset fonts which lead to changes in page numberings. If someone challenges your changes, please refer them to this talk page section for sorting out the truth of the matter - please do not engage them in an edit war over page numbers. Thanks for the heads-up! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the American editions have illustrations at the beginning of each chapter. TheTrojanHought (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spells[edit]

Is it worth mentioning in the "Differences" section that in the DA classes they use the "Levicorpus" spell, which Harry doesn't learn until book 6? Another difference which doesn't seem to be mentioned is that in the book it was Cho's friend who betrayed the DA and in the film it was Cho herself. TheTrojanHought (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is yes. Jammy (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "Levicorpus" was used both in DA meetings and by Luna at the ministry is still not included in the differences section. This spell was not discovered by Harry in the Prince's Potions book until Year 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.89.106 (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Levicorpus" is a nonverbal spell according to Snape, and therefore they should not be saying the incantation. Will somebody please make these changes?

Cast Listing[edit]

I read earlier that someone said there should only be the "main three" and the "five main adults" on each of the harry potter movie pages...but as I browsed all the other movie pages they listed the entire cast. I think this one, too, should list the entire cast, out of respect of the producers, or at least make the other movie pages uniform. At any rate, I feel Luna Lovegood should be included as well, since she played an integral part in this story and was first introduced here. Small5th (talk)

The main three and five others thing is just for the infoboxes, the cast section should have more. Luna should be included here, I don't know why she isn't. As a side note, I'm not sure Wikipedia has to write film articles "out of respect of the producers". But anyway, I'll add in Luna. Gran2 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that Evanna Lynch should be credited and I have tried to add her in on several ocassions and it has been deleted every time.--Debbie rocks (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found an interview[edit]

Just found an interview with David Yates from aintitcool.com that probably has some useful stuff (I don't think it's already been used). Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The largest budget of the other films in the series has been the £75 million it cost to make Goblet of Fire. what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.242.250 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Split 'plot' and 'differences from the book' sections[edit]

This article is unreadable as it is with too much detail in both sections which don't contain useful subheadings. Spanglej (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unadjusted 7th highest grossing film"[edit]

IMHO: Listing ANY unadjusted monetary figures for the purposes of comparison - let alone ranking - is absolutely absurd and uninformative.

This citation should be changed to an ADJUSTED ranking. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 03:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about this at Talk:List of highest-grossing films BOVINEBOY2008 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article[edit]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short-term protection[edit]

Rather than issue {{uw-3rr}} warnings, I've protected this article for the shortest I deem appropriate for the two edit-warring editors to come here, rather than use edit summaries. We are using a source, not a direct quote, and therefore do not need to render the numbers "as cited" in the source. We are free, per WP:MOSNUM, to take the sourced numbers, and apply that guideline here. If anyone has a differing point of view, they are free to argue it here and I would prefer to see consensus develop. Rodhullandemu 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's new love?[edit]

In this book Harry has a date with Cho, but in the movie it said "Harry has a new love," Who could Possibly be his new love? The only new character is Luna? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.46.229 (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List Changes[edit]

See [4]. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it indefinite? What's the date?[edit]

This article is currently semi-protected but either the expiry date is extended but with an overdue date or it may be indefinite. 69.122.190.4 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The date was extended. But the year was wrong. I fixed that from 2013 to 2014. Thanks for your help to fix this mistake. --Pratyya (Hello!) 14:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox budget field[edit]

I was reverted a contentious edit by an editor who has been pushing the same viewpoint, based partly on his OR, at several other project pages. Discussion on your viewpoint is going on at the talk pages of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and Thor: The Dark World. It is inappropriate of this edit, who has been blocked for edit-warring and warned more than once, to re-revert and edit-war here, particularly when there is non consensus on his viewpoint for the same sort of edit at three other pages.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, none of your points are actually grounds to revert my edit. Second, I was quickly unblocked and the person who made the same accusations as you was, in fact, also blocked. Third, nothing I have posted is my own original research. I did add numbers, but routine calculations are NOT considered OR: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Finally, I state the sources for my update of the budget below.Depauldem (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "routine calculations". You are doing interpretive analysis of a film's budget based on your personal reading of tax rebates figures — which no journalist independent of you has derived. As for Deadline, wow: By your admission, that site is now simply running your very own analysis that you shopped around until someone published it.
Your interpretation also involves phantom dollars that were never spent and that the studio never intended to spend, resulting in an inflated budget figure that does not agree with other published figures. You've made a contentious edit, and rather than following WP:BRD, you simply state your case and then rather than wait for discussion with other editors, you edit-war to reinsert your own preferred version. That is not the way Wikipedia works. You are very close to 3RR, and any admin can see the plentitude of warnings on your talk page that speak to a contentious pattern of behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

While places like boxofficemojo have the estimated budget at $150 million, trade publication Deadline, in an article written by their chief editor, obtained a balance sheet for the film showing the true negative cost (the production budget) to be just over $315 million.[1] The same document was covered by Slashfilm, Techdirt and a number of other reliable sources.[2] [3] Unless the other editor has an argument grounded in rules, I would ask that he refrain from edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Depauldem (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely remarkable. Depauldem has bragged that he himself supplied figures to Deadline. Doing WP:SYNTH analysis of complicated tax-rebate figures and interpolating how they fit into a budget, and then doing an exchange-rate calculation that may or may not represent the rate at the proper given time, and then shopping it around to various sites until you find some to publish it, is doing an end-run around OR. And your interpretive analysis absurdly gives a budget of phantom dollars that were never spent. On this and at least three other film articles, you seem to be on a crusade to insert inflated figures that do not represent the out-of-pocket costs of these films — and edit-warring to do so, despite multiple editors not agreeing with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, the numbers I gave to Deadline were based on the numbers in the filings (for The Force Awakens, not HP). They confirmed the numbers themselves and corrected based on what I told them. They looked at the same filings and, with math being what it is, got the same amounts. Again, routine calculations are not OP. As it turns out, BOM also made the change based on these filings, I have learned. I am still waiting to hear back from them on why their amount differs to Deadline, but I suspect they used the exchange rate right now instead of what it was when they got the rebates. Analysis of tax rebate amounts may be complicated for you, but they are not for me or people versed in them, like the editors at Deadline and, it seems, BOM. And I don't shop anything around or crusade to report inflated budgets. I rarely reach out to news outlets, as more often they approach me. They often report what I say because 1. they know me to be a top expert on it (and I know this means nothing on wikipedia) and 2., I back up what I say with the source(s), which they also verify. I don't think its fair to insult their integrity as journalists by insinuating that I somehow forced my will upon them to carry out some sort of agenda. After all, Deadline changed it to $259 million, not $300 million. Depauldem (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. You're doing original research and then taking it to a friendly journalist for the sole purpose of getting your analysis cited in Wikipedia. Again I ask: If that figure were so normal and routine, why didn't anyone publish it until you did your own analysis and convinced them to use it? Why are other Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)journalistic sources citing differing figures?--[reply]
And oh, my God: "The same document was covered by Slashfilm, Techdirt...." No. Both are simply re-reporting what Deadline says, properly attributing Deadline. That's not the same as your implication that these sites are doing original reporting and independently coming up with the same figure independently. All they're doing is repeating, with attribution, what you told Deadline. I find that less-than-honest behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your manor and tone are getting obnoxious. The article and document are from 2010. I updated Deadline, with the Politico peice and the filings about ANOTHER FILM. This article is about Harry Potter. You still have yet to give a compelling reason to edit war on the actual merits of this case. It's clear you don't like me, but that is no excuse to block legitimate editing that is wholly supported by reliable sources. In any event, I will agree with Betty's points below. Let's use the range solution to Avengers and The Force Awakens, and I will leave this one alone per Betty's points (at least she is making actual arguments) Depauldem (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My manner and tone are obnoxious? That's your opinion. My opinion of your manner and tone is supercilious, combative and insulting. Are we done slapping each other? It seems to me the last thing I said to you was, "We've found an area of agreement." Oh, yes, that's so obnoxious. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However: You suggested a compromise at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron with which I certainly agree. Would it not be productive to use that as a shared foundation from which we can move forward?--Tenebrae (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I don't agree that $315 million represents the budget. When we talk about the budget we essentially mean the "negative cost" i.e. the amount specifically spent on production itself. The budget clearly states that the $315 million figure represents the negative cost and an advance. The advance is probably a pre-negotiated upfront payment to Rowling set against her share of the profits. This is probably done as a tax evasion tactic i.e. they write off a large chunk of assured profit as a cost simply by paying it upfront. The fact that the accounts don't go into specifics means we don't really know, but Warner are bundling two separate costs under that $315 million figure. Audited HMRC figures are one thing, leaked dodgy Warner accounts are something else. If we take that document at face value then the film lost $167 million! Do we honestly believe a Harry Potter film lost money? We have to be careful to not perpetuate Hollywood Accounting here, so for that reason I oppose the change because that figure is clearly a fudge of two separate costs and it has not been audited. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am wholeheartedly with Betty Logan: $315 is a misleading figure. Let's say I want a $315 coat. But my coat budget is $245. Whether I wait for a sale, haggle or get a rebate, I'm not going to go over my budget of $245. It doesn't matter if I pay $$3156 upfront and I have a contractual agreement to get a rebate that keeps me within my budget. My budget is $245. Complicated tax-rebate issues can be explained in the article body. But Disney budgeted $245 for that coat and paid $245 for that coat. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/
  2. ^ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122/hollywood-accounting-losing-courts.shtml
  3. ^ http://www.slashfilm.com/insane-studio-accounting-warner-bros-claims-167-million-loss-over-harry-potter-and-the-order-of-the-phoenix/

Anon IP WP:FILMPLOT vios[edit]

An anon IP has begun edit-warring to restore a more than 700-word, not well-written version of the plot, as opposed to the stable version that respects WP:FILMPLOT. I have noted in an edit-summary that per [{WP:BRD]], the anon IP should not edit-war but discuss his issues here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section[edit]

For years the Cast section in each of the films' articles lists only the main cast: those who appear in the posterS and in the film credits individually. Those like David Bradley, Natalia Tena, Mark Williams, etc. who do not appear in the posters and are featured alongside other cast members after the main cast are secondary cast members. To avoid excessively long lists, the "Do Not Add More Cast!" legends were added at the end of this section in each article. I have removed the secondary cast for years in the HP articles, but the last time in this article, my edit was reverted by User:Tenebrae. Therefore, I start this section to discuss the inclusion of secondary cast (or not). Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to support your desire to keep the shorter version of the list, and I believe WP:FILMCAST supports that as well, but I would like to hear Tenebrae's opinion on this matter. DonIago (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Not sure that was me. My last edit on the article, I actually added back some cast members: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(film)&diff=737300031&oldid=737261645. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's our point...that those cast members aren't top-billed for this film and consequently shouldn't be listed this time around. DonIago (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure anything says that our Cast lists only include top-billed actors. I'm not sure I'd argue that Warwick Davis and Tom Felton, for instance, would not belong here. Who would you suggest removing?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most/all of the Cast lists for the HP film articles say not to add additional cast members, which suggests there must have been some criterion in place for determining who should be included. Typically, in my experience, that would mean top-billed. @Lord Opeth:, any thoughts? Perhaps there was a discussion of this previously? If not, I think we should probably (re-)establish a consensus for the HP films. I've asked about this at WT:FILM as well. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. There may be some consensus involving the huge-cast HP films that I'm not aware of. As far as I know, we don't have a guideline in general, with non-HP films, limiting casts to top-billed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember there was a discussion on this topic a long time ago, when the WikiProject HP existed, but it would take me ages to find it. I think it was a good idea to start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film.--LoЯd ۞pεth 23:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of additional cast[edit]

There is a notice not to add more cast, therefore I have deleted the following cast:
→″Mark Williams appears as Molly Weasley’s husband, Arthur, a member of the Order of the Phoenix. Warwick Davis plays Filius Flitwick, the school’s charms teacher, maestro and Head of Ravenclaw House while David Bradley plays Hogwarts caretaker, Argus Filch. Tom Felton, Jamie Waylett and Joshua Herdman play Slytherin students Draco Malloy, Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle. James and Oliver Phelps, Bonnie Wright and Chris Rankin play Ron’s siblings, Fred, George, Ginny and Percy while Devon Murray, Alfred Enoch and Matthew Lewis play Gryffindor students, Seamus Finnigan, Dean Thomas and Neville Longbottom. Katie Leung plays Harry’s love interest, Cho Chang. Robert Hardy plays the Minister for Magic, Cornelius Fudge. Harry Melling plays Harry’s cousin, Dudley Dursley.

→Evanna Lynch joins the cast as Ravenclaw student, Luna Lovegood. Timoth Batesam voices house-elf, Kreacher and Tony Maudsley plays Hagrid’s half-brother, Grawp. Kathryn Hunter plays the Dursley’s neighbour, Mrs. Figg.″ Which also did not comply to the list format.Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chefs-kiss: That tag is like 10-years-old and it wasn't the result of clear consensus I could find, plus I'm sure it refers to the bullet points. I've seen it as a common practice to list the billed actors with bullet points, and the other actors in prose. There are many, many notable actors and characters being left out. —El Millo (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: So I'm not sure I understand your point, do you suggest that I put the rest of actors in bullet points? I am unsure what exactly you suggest done. Also in addition, of course the tag is gonna be 10 years old. The movie itself is more than 10 years old. Regarding the actors written in prose as cited on the MOS:TVCAST "Such as unscripted programs with few cast members, or series where the cast frequently changes, it may be more appropriate to include cast information in prose form" Chefs-kiss (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chefs-kiss: I'm suggesting to leave it as it was: billed actors in bullet points, the rest in prose. The age of the hidden note is important together with the apparent lack of consensus for adding it; at least I couldn't find it when I searched for it across all Harry Potter film articles' talk pages. Being ten years old instead of recent makes it more likely that it was added without consensus. I also think the hidden note was added so editors would stop adding multiple bullet points with more and more actors, not considering that they could be added in prose. —El Millo (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: Changed it to what it was before. Are the changes satisfactory? Chefs-kiss (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With a little bit of work, it is. All done. —El Millo (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022[edit]

change "and the Order of the Phoenix" to "and the Order of the Phoenix" in name property in infobox 24.250.63.221 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022[edit]

In overview, add link for the series next film: “It was followed by ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’” 208.59.159.70 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The lead already includes a link to the next film. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood accounting[edit]

This film has been noted as a case of Hollywood accounting, as Warner Bros. claimed the film lost $167 million, despite its total gross. This statement was removed from the lead section.[5] The first paragraph of the box office section includes multiple references to clearly support this statement. See "In studio documents leaked in July 2010, it was revealed the film "lost" Warner Bros. about $167 million.". Please restore the statement[[6] (diff)] that this film is an example of Hollywood accounting to the lead section. -- 109.79.175.194 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —El Millo (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its current film gross as of April 2024[edit]

it has made as of april 11, 2024, according to box office mojo, 1,003,123,328 dollars due to rereleases. see for yourself. Google up the internet to see why this happened please. 24.45.1.15 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(film)&oldid=1218487146"