Talk:Harry Potter (film series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Possible Correction

Someone with the proper authorization should consider modifying the sentence that mentions all the movies as belonging to the "top 40 highest grossing films of all time". It could be improved to "top 35" or even "top 32", since the lowest-grossing film in the series, Prisoner of Azkaban, is the 32nd. Just something to consider. If I accidentally put this in the wrong place, I am sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.32.150 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ashsebs, 2 August 2011

Well at the bottom end of the page I have seen that you still have 6.3 billion dollars as the gross for the harry potter film series but it actually made more than that so you need to updated it to 7.3 billion because it has since made that much due to the last release in the harry potter film series instalment so you need to clarify and be clear I have seen you updated the top of the page though, so you need to be clear of the gross amount at the bottom as well so it doesn't mislead any Wikipedia readers. Ashsebs (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as done as it appears you became autoconfirmed and already performed the edit. Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Leave stud potter.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Leave stud potter.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Potterbafta11.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Potterbafta11.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Title for First Movie

The first movie in the series is not Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, it is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.135.54 (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the film has two titles. The title including "Sorcerer's Stone" is the U.S. title. We've discussed this a lot, believe me, and the consensus is to use the "Philosopher's Stone" title. The individual film's article explains this distinction. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter || The Complete Collection Editions

Hey guys!

Just thought we should all come to the decision on what cover to uses for the HP Series page. As of September 21st, three covers have been released, one of a silver Hogwarts crest, the other of Hogwarts in year 1, and the final one is three different shots of Harry through the series, (1,4,7)

I think we should discuss which one is the best cover for the page. B.Davis2003 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Year 1 set because it actually says "Complete 8-Film Collection" clearly on the front; it is much more clear than the Harry 1, 4, 7 set. The Hogwarts Crest has quite a small HP logo in comparison to the other cover art and does not state "Complete 8-Film Collection" on the front. To save my image from being deleted I am placing it back in the article since all eight films have been released. If you change your mind with regards to another cover or box set then you can remove the current one. But for now, let's leave the 1-8 version we already have on Wikipedia in order to save it from deletion and until a consensus has been reached. Thank you. Hallows Horcruxes 07:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the final one with Harry from 1-4-7. First of all, it's the UK version, where the films originated from. Also, it shows Harry through the years, as if he was growing up in a single DVD. TrebleSeven (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

Please change last Harry Potter (All time United Kingdom #2) (All time North America (adjusted) #100) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.205.85 (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Name Correction

The name of the first movie is "The Sorcerer's Stone" not "Philosopher's" 75.82.189.12 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)12/10/2011

Yes, I know its difficult to imagine how a film, in which the intellectual property rights are owned by an American movie studio, can use the non-American name. This, despite the fact that its co-produced by an American company, the director is American, the composer of the score is American, and its written by an American. Yet it has been argued by many that the film has stronger British ties, because most of the cast is British and the main shooting location was in Britain.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Update of statistics

You need to update the review aggregator section because Half Blood Prince is now at 84% on Rotten Tomatoes, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is at 96%. HBP Part 2 Poppersocks (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Poppersocks (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of stats, what is the point of "non-inflation adjusted dollars"? Huw Powell (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

Please change the phrase "British-American" to "British" when describing the origins of the Harry Potter franchise. This is because the series has a British cast and crew and is set in Britain, it has no contribution from America, in fact J.K.Rowling specifically requested a fully British cast. Thankyou.

195.171.221.67 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can read above in a comment, the movie rights are owned by a US company, the screen writer is American, the Director is American, and both composers are American. The film has significant American ties and therefore qualifies as a joint effort. Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

Please can we have a full written article list of all Awards and Nominations of the Harry Potter films series from 2001 to now, featuring awards wins and nominations of all Harry Potter's eight films, cast members and crew members showing on Harry Potter films series wikipedia page. Thank You - (14 January 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.65.163 (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Link to German Site

Hi. I have seen that the English page with the Film series has no link to the german site.

How do you do to add a link to an other wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinickman (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the article is a list of Interwiki links. You can access these conveniently by editing the "External links" section, or the whole article. For example, here is the link to the Spanish-language page: [[es:Películas de Harry Potter]] The German Wikipedia will be 'de:' instead of 'es:'. These are usually maintained automatically by bots, but their control is rather anarchic so it doesn't surprise me that one was missed. Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that info. I am new to this and not sure on how to use alle the Wikipedia syntax :-) Wikinickman (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2012

Please add

de:Harry Potter (Filmreihe)

to the different language links at the bottom. Thanks a lot! :)

Rayukk (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2012

Hi, I want to add in Helen McCrory as Narcissa Malfoy and Miriam Margoyles as Pomona Sprout in to the recurring actors part!!

Adampennington (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Done elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Error with region 2 DVD release

Should it be noted that the error with the region DVD box set release date? (2011) I have bought a brand new copy of the boxset. And it was missing "Harry Potter II", instead it came with two copies of "Harry Potter I". Or is it likelt that I have bought a dud copy? -- 101.161.133.25 (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable secondary sources that mention this problem or is this personal anecdote the only evidence we know? Elizium23 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to find out too. If it's just mine, or all of region 2. I'll try to dig deeper into my research. Feel free to join. -- 101.161.133.25 (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter mishap on Wikipedia

Whoever wrote this article in Wikipedia was deceived. The first movie/book, was not called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, that was a t.v. show. It was never truly called "Philosopher's Stone"; it is/was definately "Sorcerer's Stone". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.240.81 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You must be in the USA. The same book and film are known in most of the world as Philosopher's Stone and are known in the USA and India as Sorcerer's Stone. There is a note to this effect in the article. The situation is described in detail at the main article, Harry Potter. Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually its known in most "countries" in the world as "Philosophers", but by most English speakers as "Sorcerers". Just wanted to clarify, so that misinformation is not being spread.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What misinformation did I put there? I repeated what is in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, "Misinformation". If the article does say "known in most of the world...", then that would be wrong, or at least a half truth. Only a small portion of the world speaks English, and of those who do, "Most", would refer to the film as Sorcerer's Stone. If the article say, "known in most English speaking countries..." then that would be correct, but the combined total of English speakers in those countries is not a majority of English speakers in the world.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost 2 billion people in the world speak English as either a first or second tongue, that's hardly a 'small portion', and a majority of these people would know the film as 'Philosopher's Stone.' I also find it amusing the number of Americans who are evidently unaware that there are two names for the first film/book. No, apparently the Philosopher's Stone was a Tv shows and wikipedia has been duped!--81.109.72.78 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

... led to the most successful cinematic franchise of all time

The article List_of_highest-grossing_film_series explains correctly, that these lists are only marketing driven and have no real value. Why then use some untruthfull and meaningless statement like "led to the most successful cinematic franchise of all time" in this article? Wikipedia you can do better than this. 79.254.155.181 (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done This is a valid observation in many ways, though I would not have framed the objection in those terms. Still, I agree that statement you object to is quite subject to debate and arguably unencyclopedic. Rather than mince words in the article, I am going to boldly add the more general statement of "one of" the most successful, which is still undeniably true and eliminates the need for definitions. If there are objections or thoughts, let's discuss that here, thanks. Jusdafax 18:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

Not to cause confusion: While Deathly Hallows is two films, it is just one screen adaptation. It is a two-part screen adaptation of the novel of the same name. One novel = One screen adaptation; the only difference is that the screen adaptation consists of two films (or "parts"). Please do not revert the information in the Scripts section as I have provided a note and a source to support this definition.Poppersocks (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012

The name of the first Harry Potter movie was the SORCERER'S Stone, not Philosopher's stone. 97.103.14.57 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It was released under different titles in different countries, and the article already says that. RudolfRed (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

UK gross for Deathly Hallows Pt 2

In the box office table it says that the UK gross for Deathly Hallows part 2 was £117 million, which I can only presume to be a mistake, probably the total in US dollars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.72.78 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The UK gross should be £73,094,187 --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2012

Harry Potter is not an American film, it was made in the UK, from a UK novel and with UK actors and actresses. Minuteundsekunde (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2011

Please change "Harry Potter is a British-American film series" to "Harry Potter is a British film series" as Harry Potter is a British creation, certainly not American.

Ukip72 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: The books and the character are British alright, but the film series has a strong American contribution. Favonian (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the strong American contribution? The director of the first two films was from the USA, the next six were directed by non Americans. If the deciding factor of a film's nationality is the director, does that make "The Prisoner of Azkaban" a Mexican film? Providing the money to make a movie does not nationality make, surely there has to be more input than the purely fiscal contribution. 95.146.6.93 (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE Delete the Line on Rowling's Earnings From the Movies

The citation for the line is suspect at best, saying the person quoted "may" have let the cat out of the bag, and even the quote has the person saying, "I don't know" about the money.

On the other hand, this site:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires08_Joanne-%28JK%29-Rowling_CRTT.html

shows her net worth at just around a billion, so are we to believe that she made only about $250 million off all those books?

Only her accountants, WB's accountants, and she know how much she made off the movies. Delete the line.

DeeJaye6 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the source is vague and represents hearsay, more or less, so I have removed the statement. Elizium23 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

what?

you got a movie wrong. it's not the "philosopher's stone" it's the "sorcerer's stone". can't believe it!

netherfieldhall@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.126.223 (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not wrong. Please read Harry_potter_and_the_philosopher's_stone#U.S._publication_and_reception Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

British-American?

How correct is it really correct is it really to call it American? I would rather call it either simply British or British-Irish-American-Mexican. Not to mention French and Romanian etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:7800:CB4A:5B3F:1F7C (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, how is it a british-american fim series? It is a BRITISH film series, j.k. rowling wanted it to remain a british series, without a big hollywood takeover, such as by only casting british actors. Just because warner bros. is an american distributor, dosen't mean its an american film series Frogkermit (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The first three films were co-produced by American company 1492 Pictures, coupled with Warner Bros. as main distributor for all the films I guess that warrants it as a part American series.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't call the series "American" just because some of the movies have an American producer next to the main producer of every HP movie David Heyman who is British. And even if the only producer was an American then how about "The Dark Knight"? It's produced AND directed AND written by British Chrisopher Nolan, and the movie is known as an American movie. And if the distributor of HP is an American company, that doesn't make the movie American. So to call the movie British-American is not really correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Nolan's Batman series are listed as both United States and United Kingdom productions here on Wikipedia--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason given for it being a part British series in the "note" section is baffling. Just because a British woman wrote the source material doesn't make it a British series. Was it funded by American dollars? Is it listed in the US Copyright Office? If so, it's an American series. I know there are other things that make it part British but those things need to be presented in the note.--93.137.145.23 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 August 2013

Please change the title of the first Harry Potter movie from "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" as that is the title listed on the first DVD packaging release, and also on IMDb.com. I see that the first edition of the book was "Philosopher's Stone", but the movie is "Sorcerer's Stone". Thank you, Robert Gibson, San Francisco CA, tippi1963@gmail.com 67.122.211.77 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The naming issue has been discussed quite a few times, and the present title is what we ended up with. See Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#Philosopher's Stone vs Sorcerer's Stone debate summary. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct however. The film is an intelectual property of an American company. The American title is Sorcerers Stone. Unfortunately the article continues to be the only intellectually owned American film on Wikipedia using the foreign title because the majority says so. Sorry. JOJ ^Hutton 21:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

The first film in the Harry Potter movies is "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the article it says "Philosopher's Stone". I have the DVD with me showing clearly the correct name. Please correct. It is consistent through out article on Harry Potter films. Thanks Jakkob 75.15.216.237 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

See above for answer. Frogkermit (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

this article need an area that tells what the differences between the movies and the books are.

many people might want that information.84.208.64.62 (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

When

When did harry potter over take 007 as the worlds highest grossing series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WB

Should it be said that all HP films are within the top 13 highest grossing films form WB films of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

British-American??

This is a English or British film, How is it American? because it was financed by Warner Bros… Starwars was also filmed in England but has no United Kingdom credit where it says country on the right hand side… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.129.214 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes the general consensus is that a film's nationality is the country of origin of it's production studios. In the case of the Harry Potter films, the major players were Warner Bros. who are American and David Heyman, who is British. Things like the country it was filmed in and who wrote the original novels are imo irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a question I've long wondered also. I think it largely depends on the company which reserves the right, and in this case it's Warner Bro. which is American. It's true that the movies are largely based on the novels whose author is British, so are those actors/actresses. Maybe, the term "British-American" ought to be used. This will be consistent with what the template nearby says with its country info. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal

In the news

Headine-1: Warner’s C.E.O. Is Bullish on the Big Screen

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/business/media/warners-ceo-is-bullish-on-the-big-screen.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0

QUOTE: “Mr. Tsujihara, 49, has surprised Hollywood with bold moves that belie his nice-guy demeanor. He persuaded J.K. Rowling to expand the Harry Potter movie universe, something most people thought was a nonstarter.” [Three new movies will be great!] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: Three "Fantastic Beasts" Megamovies Planned

• http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2014/3/30/three-fantastic-beasts-megamovies-planned

QUOTE: “A New York Times article on WB CEO Kevin Tsujihara reveals that there are three "megamovies" of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" planned:” [The Leaky Cauldron.org is an interesting website title.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-3: Harry Potter 'Fantastic Beasts' Spinoff Will Consist Of 'Three Megamovies'

• http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Harry-Potter-Fantastic-Beasts-Spinoff-Consist-Three-Megamovies-42315.html

QUOTE: “As if it weren't exciting enough to know that J.K. Rowling was making a grand cinematic return to the Harry Potter universe, we now know that the Fantastic Beasts followup she's penning will be a trilogy. And it seems we have Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara to thank for getting the ball rolling there, as Rowling credits him and his energy for prompting her to pen the first draft of the script for the story, which will center on the fictional author of Hogwarts textbook Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them, Newt Scamander. ” [Nice prior picture of Harry Potter in a movie.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

Headine-4: That 'Harry Potter' Spinoff Movie Is Now Three 'Harry Potter' Spinoff Movies

• http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/03/that-harry-potter-spinoff-movie-is-now-three-harry-potter-spinoff-movies/359883/

QUOTE: “It was announced, somewhat surprisingly, last September that J.K. Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them would be turned into a film. Now, according to a profile of Warner Bros.’s new CEO in the Times, the 42-page paperback is getting turned into three movies. That’s like… carry the one, divide by five… 14 pages of inspiration for each movie! (This is not actually how book-to-film adaptations work.)” [Excellent AP picture of J.K. Rowling; can we get permission to use it?] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2014

The first movie is called sorcerer's stone, not philosopher's stone. NicoleMarie94 (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Per consensus, we use the British name of the first film. Elizium23 (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PHilospher's stone?

Isn't it Sorcerer's stone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.117.230 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed while reading the article, Harry_Potter_(film_series)#Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher.27s_Stone_.282001.29, that it is known in the US and India by another title. Elizium23 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, its known as "Sorcerers Stone" in the country that owns the movie rights, in the country where it was written, in the country where it made the most money and seen by the most people, and in the country where it most of the producers are from. But one of the producers was British so consensus says that is enough to use the British title, rather than the most common title.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing this up, and I'm not sure it has been pointed out to you, but the film series has many more British ties than you mention. Elizium23 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on a British book (Some American movies are), filmed in Britain (Many American movies are filmed in other countries, its called filming on location), and filmed with British actors (Because the script says that the characters are British). Just pointing out the inconvenient truths, so that people will not forget. Not going to push against the obvious "consensus" to retain the British title, just making sure that "all" the facts are presented, because most people do not realize that the film rights were actually purchased by an American company, that the script was written by an American screen writer, that the movie was directed and co-produced by an American director, that the movie score was composed, conducted, and orchestrated by an American, that not every cast member was British (Australia, Ireland, and yes even the United States had actors represented), and that the film made more money in the Unites States and was seem by more people in the United States than in any other country and is therefore most commonly known as "Sorcerer's Stone" to a majority of English speakers in the world. But if it gives the British fans a nice warm fuzzy feeling to have the title of the article be the British title, so be it. Not going to push for a RM on that. Wouldn't get a majority consensus on moving the article anyway. Just as long as the real facts are presented.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, no one else seems bothered. It's just you who are trying so very hard to work up your own "nice warm fuzzy feeling" that everything was invented by, made by, belongs to (and so on ad infinitum) americans.86.164.111.87 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't need to work any warm fuzzy feelings up. The facts and the citations conform with everything I have previously stated. Actually it concerns me that this seems to be the only American owned movie on Wikipedia, using the foreign title.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet your arguments progress nowhere. As the last anon rightly said, it's about you and wanting a 'warm fuzzy feeling' about national ownership of your favoured brand, but no it's not so, is it? Which is why it uses it's original British title. You claim it is because of British fans, but the fact that they (and the rest of the English speaking world) are outnumbered by American and Indian fans who use the dumbed-down title, suggests that most of your countrymen don't agree with you. 95.146.139.239 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out to JOJ that Warner. Bros does not own the rights to Harry Potter. They belong to J.K. Rowling. Warner. Bros has been LISCENSED the rights for use in film and select products such as toys. The publishing rights belong to Bloomsbury and the character rights belong to J.K. Rowling. Therefore rights to Harry Potter belong in Britain not America. --9999 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

They don't own the story, but they own the film version. Warner Brothers bought the rights to make their version of the story on film. So once the film is made, it is owned by whomever owns the intellectual property rights to the film. In this case it's Warner Brothers.JOJ ^Hutton 21:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

The first film in the series was called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Not the Philosopher's Stone!

73.53.219.104 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles: this is not a matter of sourcing, it is a matter of translations and variant publications in international media markets. The "Philosopher's Stone" title is the original as it was published in Britain. "Sorcerer's Stone" is how it was published in the USA after Scholastic, the publisher, balked at the original title. Here on Wikipedia, WP:CONSENSUS has developed that we uniformly refer to the first book and film as "Philosopher's Stone", following the original British title. Therefore we will not change it. This situation is covered extensively in the article Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone#U.S. publication and reception, which nobody seems to read before coming here. Thanks for your interest. Elizium23 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Thanks. I'm already aware of the title issue and consensus. That's not the basis for my decision to reject the edit request. Consensus can change, and does not occur in a vacuum. If additional reliable information becomes available that could sway users towards a different name, then that should be cited in such a request. Seeing none here, the request was rejected. Also, it may not be reasonable to expect that a first time IPUser, that happens to be from the US, be aware of such things.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  01:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

grammatical error I'd like to fix

There is an annoying error in one paragraph below (involving an obvious redundancy) but the permissions bar me from making the minor adjustment. The offending paragraph is: "After Williams left the series to pursue other projects, Patrick Doyle scored the fourth entry, Goblet of Fire, which was directed by Mike Newell, with whom Doyle had worked with previously." The second iteration of 'with' should be removed, leaving the sentence to end: "... with whom Doyle had worked previously." Thanks, Womaraiv (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2015

Harry Potter (film series) → ? – “Harry Potter” is the name of the entire franchise as well as its central character, not a name for the film series itself. So I propose moving this to one of the more WP:NATURAL titles Harry Potter film series or Harry Potter in film. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NCF#Film series. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn’t aware of that guideline. Request withdrawn. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There are already pages for Harry Potter, the franchise as a whole, and Harry Potter (character), the eponymous character. Harry Potter (film series) is entirely appropriate to refer to the series of 8 films. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015

Please change the production company section in the infobox by removing the (1-8) as they did all the films and is therefor unneeded.

 Not done as 1492 Pictures were only involved with 1-3 so having nothing by Heyday Films could be confusing - Arjayay (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done as Heyday Films did make all the films so having the 1-8 is technically uneeded- Adamtb24 (talk) 1:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Harry Potter (film series). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100921081906/http://www.bafta.org:80/awards/film/nominations/?year=2001 to http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/nominations/?year=2001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070911172812/http://www.hpana.com:80/news.20184.html to http://www.hpana.com/news.20184.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Rename articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Rename articles. Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the eight Harry Potter films. Surely that's obvious? The Fantastic Beasts films will get their own film series article in due course. Do you see The Hobbit films integrated into the Lord of the Rings (film series) article? No. The Hobbit has a separate article because it is a separate film series. If you really want Fantastic Beasts and Harry Potter movie information in one article, then use J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World article. Doogooder (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Article fork alert

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Article fork alert Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: would disagree with you. Since her revert, there is no article serving the Fantastic Beasts series. You had better work out the scope before you go edit-warring about it. Elizium23 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought the Wizarding World article was redundant anyway. The fact is, Fantastic Beasts will end up having its own film series article at some point in the future. This article should just be focused on the eight Harry Potter films. This article can mention Fantastic Beasts, but let's not dilute the article with excessive information about a spin-off series that has only just begun. Doogooder (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

So, somebody made an article on the new brand, which was mostly a copy+paste of the Harry Potter film series page, so then it was combined back into this article. This is not correct, however. I believe J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World deserves its own article. It is the umbrella term for all things Harry Potter, Fantastic Beasts, and whatever other projects and sub-franchises may be in the pipeline. Redirecting it to simply the Harry Potter film series article is misleading. Having a standalone article for this would also be a way to stop people from putting too much Fantastic Beasts information onto the Harry Potter page. It should be clear that this brand name is its own thing and represents the larger universe. I'd do it myself, but it seems to be a mess around here already and I'm a Wikipedia rookie, so I just thought I'd throw this out there for all of you veterans to consider. Fannibleh (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to stimulate discussion in this area but not enough people have talked about it to form a recognizable consensus about what to do. Elizium23 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts is a separate spin-off/prequel series.

I can't believe this needs explaining: the Harry Potter film series consists of eight films. Fantastic Beasts is a separate spin-off/prequel series. You don't see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey described as the fourth film in the The Lord of the Rings series do you? Likewise, you don't see An Unexpected Journey included in the Lord of the Rings film series article. Because, like The Hobbit, Fantastic Beasts is a separate film series that shares the same universe. Doogooder (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This entire page should be renamed "JK Rowling's Wizarding World", and separate articles should be created for the Harry Potter film series and the Fantastic Beasts series. 109.145.35.179 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Why rename the article and recreate it elsewhere? Mezigue (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

Please update the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them as the film has released and has been a box office hit. Please also review and update the page as it has been edited long time back. Crazycoolguy11111 (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft for Fantastic Beasts (film series)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the Fantastic Beasts (film series) at Draft:Fantastic Beasts (film series) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Brojam (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

The link to Fantastic beasts is wrong and takes you to Hobbit. The correct link is https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film) 27.56.184.107 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Harry Potter (film series). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140210000231/http://www.wbstudiotour.co.uk/en/about-us/harry-potter-at-leavesden to http://www.wbstudiotour.co.uk/en/about-us/harry-potter-at-leavesden
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123181415/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034089p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034089p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302173529/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034092p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034092p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206110421/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034096p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034096p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113042745/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034098p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034098p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206110502/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034099p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034099p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623065851/http://www.mugglenet.com/ultimatedvds/ultimateeditions.shtml to http://www.mugglenet.com/ultimatedvds/ultimateeditions.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218111718/http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/visiting/harry-potter to http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/visiting/harry-potter
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913153753/http://www.artinsightsmagazine.com/ArtInsights_magazine/Stuart_Craig_Interview.html to http://www.artinsightsmagazine.com/ArtInsights_magazine/Stuart_Craig_Interview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226205532/http://www.ercboxoffice.com/index.php?page=news&news_id=114 to http://www.ercboxoffice.com/index.php?page=news&news_id=114
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150908073301/http://www.adg.org/?art=2001_award to http://www.adg.org/?art=2001_award
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2001.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208063933/http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominees-in-2008,224,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominees-in-2008,224,BA.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228014651/http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominations,949,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominations,949,BA.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://static.bafta.org/files/long-list-0910-400.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029093056/http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

As of 2018, the Harry Potter film series is the 3rd highest-grossing film franchise of all time, with the eight films released grossing over $7.7 billion worldwide. 47.18.99.60 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That information is already in the lead of the article. "Without inflation adjustment, it is the third highest-grossing film series with $7.7 billion in worldwide receipts." If you have a specific request, please be more specific in the form "Change X to Y". ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Final movie release - stay alert

If the past is any guide, regular editors here and other interested parties should be alert for the next few weeks, for obvious reasons. There will be a lot of eyes on the article, so let's make sure any obvious "funny stuff", or subtle errors, don't last long. And enjoy the movie! Thanks all, Jusdafax 18:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone (with more experience with wikipedia guidelines than I have) should edit the Fantastic Beasts section--it reads very oddly now that the movie is released. Meh222 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not touching it, because it is currently under discussion whether Fantastic Beasts belongs in this article or not. I am currently of the position that it does not. Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the name of that movie Snolwethu (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

How can I watch them

Please how can I watch movies and video games here please help me🖖🖖✋😥😪 Snolwethu (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Buy the Blu-ray discs. --Mazewaxie 10:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Main Articles reflect different statictics

Each of the respective main harry potter film pages has different box office figures as well as outside sources like the internet also has the same issue e.g. OOTP made $940 million worldwide but when I try to include these changes then I'm requested to not tamper with the current info as my change is not sourced . I'm then vilified and threatened that I will be banned from editing and I'm made to like the troll. Wikipedia is about providing correct info , having articles belonging to the same topic reflect different statictics isn't providing correct info . It just confuses things then why do these internet trolls do things like changing it back to reflect incorrect stats. I will not allow people to bully me , especially people with their own personal agendas that can't be kept out of matters ,objectively . Hpdh4 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Edit request on 4 December 2011

It says philosopher's stone and the movie is called the Sorcerer's stone 76.188.238.127 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To most of the English speaking world, the title is Harry potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but somehow WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to this movie, even though the movie rights are owned by a US company, the screen writer is American, the Director is American, and both composers are American. But one of the producers is British, so the consensus is that title use the British title despite most of the English speaking world using Sorcerers.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To most of the English speaking world, the title is 'Philosopher's Stone.' The name was changed in the USA only. Look at the websites for the publishers in Canada, The UK, Australia, New Zealand and you will see they all list the book by the original title. The film followed the same naming convention. 95.146.6.93 (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If u have read the book then we know that philosopher stone is the stone which was of Nicholas flamel who was the sorcerer who could extract the element from stone and make elixer which when consumed increases life. So the name doesn't matter actually call it philosopher or sorcerer stone Shwetha mahajan (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

The Legacy section claims the films are "widely credited" and that sort of hyperbole should be avoided or accompanied by multiple sources, because if something is widely true it should be easy to find many sources. If the article wasn't locked I would have immediately tagged it as citation needed or at the very least remove the word "widely". Please provide more sources to back up the claim, or at least remove the word "widely".

The hyperbole continues with the word "singlehandedly" but the only source provided is not so over-the-top and does not make such singular claims, it simply says "Harry Potter made YA book-to-movie franchises into one of the biggest forces in pop culture". I suggest dropping the word "singlehandedly" which an overenthusiastic editor probably added in good faith.

I hope someone will please make these two small edit requested, or other larger changes to improve the section. -- 109.77.196.210 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request - The first film released in 2001 was 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' - NOT the 'Philosopher's Stone'

The wiki page has the movie title incorrect throughout — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfarker (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a WP:GOODFAITH mistake that many fans of Harry Potter often make, and there have been discussions about this for many years. The original book and the film use the title "The Philosopher's Stone". If you want to learn more see Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone_(film)#Philosopher's_Stone_vs_Sorcerer's_Stone_debate_summary but editors are unlikely to make changes as you have requested. -- 109.78.201.10 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

Replace X with Y

Replace "The films are also widely credited with singlehandedly signalling the popularity of films based" ... with "The films are credited with signalling the popularity of films based" in the Legacy section of the article.

See above, but to reiterate my earlier comment this change would remove unnecessary hyperbole. -- 109.78.201.10 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete, please note and to reiterate the requested change was to remove both the word "widely" and also the word "singlehandedly", but the editor only removed the word singlehandedly.:

Please replace "The films are also widely credited with singlehandedly signalling the popularity of films based" ... with "The films are credited with signalling the popularity of films based"

One source is not enough to support the claim "widely credited" (especially not when that one source is Vox which frequently exhibits the click-bait tendencies of new media). If something is "widely credited" it should be easily able to show multiple sources, but one single solitary source is not enough for the wording as it currently stands. -- 109.79.187.52 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. That's my mistake, must've missed it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. -- 109.79.187.52 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

Mayishaciyev (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mayishaciyev (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Harry Potter film serisi

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

First Film name incorrect

I see someone else has requested the name be updated. The 1st film is 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'. We have a glitch in the matrix. Brtail115 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That's just the American title. The original title is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. —El Millo (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Film name

Yes, the first film was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, fix it! Wos66 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Almost 20 years of HP and it feels as if this discussion has been going on for almost 20 years too. The film and book were called "Sorcerer's Stone" only in the United States. The consensus of previous discussions was to use the title "Philosopher's Stone" as originally intended by the author and used everywhere else. -- 109.77.211.203 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Movie name

You have the name of the first movie incorrect. It should be Sorcerer’s Stone NOT Philosopher’s Stone 2600:8801:196:4800:D98F:1C1A:41C9:FD6D (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please try to read before asking questions. The two previous sections on this page directly above already ask the very same question. It is a question that American's seem to have been asking ever since the film first came out but the consensus was to use the original title of the book "Philosopher's Stone" the title that was used everywhere outside the US. Twenty years later that consensus is unlikely to change. -- 109.78.205.154 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

Seshanth1234 23rd (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry potter

You haven't said what change you are asking for. JBW (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

I WANT TO MKE THE DETAULES CORECT Olivia nin (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelinaramos18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Potter films" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Potter films and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Potter films until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Harry Potter : movies" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Harry Potter : movies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Harry Potter : movies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"50 Greatest Harry Potter Moments" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 50 Greatest Harry Potter Moments and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#50 Greatest Harry Potter Moments until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The page 50 Greatest Harry Potter Moments turned out to have been a short article about a one-off ITV special. It has been restored and proposed for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

Typo under Films -> Main article: (H)arry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film) 78.71.108.19 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Please replace "constantly supportive" with "consistently supportive". Think carefully about the meaning of the word "constantly" and it should become clear why this change is necessary even if it is pedantic. 2 instances:

• Replace X1 "Rowling has been constantly supportive" with Y1 "Rowling has been consistently supportive" (this occurs in the Reception section)
• Replace X2 "Author J. K. Rowling has been constantly supportive of the films" with Y2 "Author J. K. Rowling has been consistently supportive of the films" (this occurs in the Reception section, in the Critical response subsection)

thanks. -- 109.76.193.18 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Harry Potter movies

The title of the first movie on Wiki is "Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone". It's actually "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". All I have ever seen anyway. Thanks 2600:100E:B0E8:2CE0:E77C:3771:DAB9:7FD5 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Stone is only for the American market. Its original title is Philosopher's Stone. —El Millo (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Music of the Harry Potter films for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Music of the Harry Potter films is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of the Harry Potter films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteNexus (talk • contribs) 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Reception

The Harry Potter films have been top-rank box office hits, with all eight releases on the list of highest-grossing films worldwide. Philosopher's Stone was the highest-grossing Harry Potter film up until the release of the final instalment of the series, Deathly Hallows Part 2, while Prisoner of Azkaban grossed the least. As well as being a financial success, the film series has also been a success among film critics. Opinions of the films are generally divided among fans, with one group preferring the more faithful approach of the first two films, and another group preferring the more stylised character-driven approach of the later films. Rowling has been consistently supportive of all the films and evaluated Deathly Hallows as her "favourite one" in the series.

Critical response

All the films have been a success financially and critically, making the franchise one of the major Hollywood "tent-poles" akin to James Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean. The series is noted by audiences for growing visually darker and more mature as each film was released. However, opinions of the films generally divide book fans, with some preferring the more faithful approach of the first two films and others preferring the more stylised character-driven approach of the later films.

Some have also felt the series has a "disjointed" feel due to the changes in directors, as well as Michael Gambon's portrayal of Albus Dumbledore differing from that of Richard Harris. Author J. K. Rowling has been consistently supportive of the films, and evaluated Deathly Hallows as her favourite one in the series. She wrote on her website of the changes in the book-to-film transition, "It is simply impossible to incorporate every one of my storylines into a film that has to be kept under four hours long. Obviously films have restrictions – novels do not have constraints of time and budget; I can create dazzling effects relying on nothing but the interaction of my own and my readers' imaginations." Tengu99 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)